Speaker 1: Today. It's great to chat with Daniel Goleman on the podcast.
Speaker 1: Daniel was an internationally known psychologist who lectures frequently to
Speaker 1: professional group's business audiences and on college campuses. As a
Speaker 1: science journalist, Goldman reported on the brain and behavioral sciences
Speaker 1: for The New York Times for many years. His nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety five book Emotional Intelligence was on the New York
Speaker 1: Times bestseller list for a year and a half, with
Speaker 1: more than five million copies in print worldwide and forty languages,
Speaker 1: and has been a bestseller in many countries. Apart from
Speaker 1: his books and Emotional Intelligence, Goldman has written books on
Speaker 1: topics including self deception, creativity, transparency, meditation, social emotional learning, ecoliteracy,
Speaker 1: and the ecological Crisis. Daniel, what it honored is to
Speaker 1: chat with you today. Well, it's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. So this is a bit surreal
Speaker 1: for me, and I'll tell you why. Uh, when I
Speaker 1: was in ninth grade in high school, your book Emotional
Speaker 1: Intelligence came out and when I just even read the
Speaker 1: first chapter, I thought to myself, this is what I'm
Speaker 1: going to do with my life someday. Wow, you know,
Speaker 1: like like you're that was the book that you know
Speaker 1: I wanted. First of all, When I said that's what
Speaker 1: I would do with my life someday, there was a
Speaker 1: bunch of things tied up with that. I thought, well,
Speaker 1: I want to be a science writer. It wasn't just
Speaker 1: I want to be a psychologist, it was I want
Speaker 1: to be a public science communicator. I want to do outreach.
Speaker 1: I want to I just love the style and the
Speaker 1: way that you was very captivating. I remember I think
Speaker 1: in chapter one or something, you talk about the amigdala
Speaker 1: and h and how it can be you know, we
Speaker 1: can go go berserk, and I thought, well, and it
Speaker 1: just made such an impact on me. So I just
Speaker 1: want to start off saying thank you for influencing me
Speaker 1: going into this field. I'm so kind of you. I'm
Speaker 1: glad you met him, all of the all that bath. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're a psychologist and a communicator. That's great. Yeah, that's wonderful.
Speaker 1: I'm doing what I definitely dreamed of as a kid.
Speaker 1: So yeah, the note, we're going to talk about your
Speaker 1: work on mindfulness, maybe a little bit of social learning.
Speaker 1: I want to also know what eco literacy means. But
Speaker 1: just real quick about emotional intelligence. Is this still a
Speaker 1: topic that are you researching these days? Where's your mind
Speaker 1: at with emotional intelligence these days? You know, I'm doing
Speaker 1: several things right now. One is I'm still I'm writing
Speaker 1: an article for Harvard Business Review on the emotionally intelligent
Speaker 1: organization because for twenty five years I've been a co
Speaker 1: director of a consortium of researchers and practitioners around emotional
Speaker 1: intelligence in organizations, and there's so much data now that
Speaker 1: shows that this is a big factor in outstanding leaders
Speaker 1: in high performance teams, and we're making the argument at
Speaker 1: the organizational level for the first time. So that's something
Speaker 1: I'm still thinking about. Recently, I had a really vicious
Speaker 1: personal attack on me and the concept of emotional intelligence
Speaker 1: kind of out of the blue right in the New Yorker,
Speaker 1: which got me thinking about it, and now I'm kind
Speaker 1: of rethinking emotional intelligence in terms of what's missing and
Speaker 1: what could be added. Maybe we can get back to that.
Speaker 1: I'm also writing a book with a Tibetan lama on meditation,
Speaker 1: and that's been an interest of mine since, you know,
Speaker 1: my undergraduate days. So you know, I have many, many
Speaker 1: streams of interest, and those are many of several of them. Wonderful. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's talk a little about what might be missing from
Speaker 1: the idea of motion intelligence, what sort of the central
Speaker 1: core things are still very most valuable. I'll start with
Speaker 1: I can start with some of my own sort of
Speaker 1: reading of the of the psychology literature. One thing I
Speaker 1: noticed was that when your book came out, you couldn't
Speaker 1: control the headlines. I'm sure, I think you know. There
Speaker 1: was like a Time article headline was like, emotional intelligence
Speaker 1: is like fifty thousand times more important than IQ or
Speaker 1: something like that. Now, when I actually look into the literature,
Speaker 1: I don't The literature shows I mean, IQ and in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases still out predicts emotional intelligence. You
Speaker 1: do a regression model, you know, but it's certainly important.
Speaker 1: Have your views kind of changed at all, or you know,
Speaker 1: what are you thinking in terms of like comparing IQ
Speaker 1: verse seeking. First of all, I never made the claim
Speaker 1: that emotional intelligence always outperforms IQ. It's not true, absolutely
Speaker 1: not true. But people, you know, you don't write the headlines,
Speaker 1: That's what I said. Yeah, it's like the Time, the
Speaker 1: Time magazine cover. Yeah, Time, so editors hype hype ideas.
Speaker 1: They pushed them as far a little further than you want.
Speaker 1: I didn't even know that they're going to ask what's
Speaker 1: your EQUE. That was like the cover of time. I
Speaker 1: had no idea. I don't even use EQ, I like
Speaker 1: EI for emotional intelligence. But anyway, when it comes to academics,
Speaker 1: to how will you do in school, to whether you'll
Speaker 1: be an outstanding professor, I think IQ is where it's at.
Speaker 1: I think emotional intelligence counts are very little there, except
Speaker 1: in terms of maybe of how you handle yourself. My
Speaker 1: model of emotional intelligence has two big parts. One is
Speaker 1: being aware of your feelings, then using that to manage
Speaker 1: your disruptive emotions and to marshal your better motivations and
Speaker 1: so on. And then empathy tuning into people around you
Speaker 1: and using that to have effective relationships. So that's how
Speaker 1: I see it. So I would say that when it
Speaker 1: comes to the relationship sector or part of life, I
Speaker 1: would suspect that emotional intelligence probably outweighs IQ. I don't
Speaker 1: know that there are good studies yet that show that.
Speaker 1: One of the things you have to remember is IQ
Speaker 1: has been around for more than one hundred years, and
Speaker 1: there's huge bodies of evidence around IQ. There have been
Speaker 1: several models proposed of IQ over the decades, and several
Speaker 1: measures that go with each of those models, and the
Speaker 1: same for emotional intelligence. You know, there are many models
Speaker 1: emotional intelligence, many measures, So I would say the evidence
Speaker 1: is not yet in on many of the questions you raise.
Speaker 1: So if you were to do you know, statistical analysis,
Speaker 1: particularly if you use the first model of emotional intelligence,
Speaker 1: which was put forward by a friend of mine who's
Speaker 1: now the president of Yale, Peter Salive. He was a
Speaker 1: junior professor at Yale at the time and his graduate
Speaker 1: student then Jack May or John Mayer formerly. Their model
Speaker 1: is more like a personality model, was based on intelligence,
Speaker 1: and if you use their measure solely, then you get
Speaker 1: one set of findings. If you use a model that
Speaker 1: I just explained to you the four parts self awareness,
Speaker 1: of management, empathy, social skill, and you use a measure
Speaker 1: I co developed your Richard Boyosis, who's a case Western,
Speaker 1: you actually get a different picture. And it turns out
Speaker 1: if you're trying to predict performance in the workplace, our
Speaker 1: model is much better than the other model. But so
Speaker 1: what I'm getting at is that it depends on what
Speaker 1: your outcome measure is as to whether IQ or emotional
Speaker 1: intelligence matters more. Thank you. Yeah. This different models point
Speaker 1: is really interesting because I edited the Cambridge Handbook of
Speaker 1: Intelligence to the Robert Sternberg and we had a chapter
Speaker 1: in there on the latest research on emotional intelligence, and
Speaker 1: one of the biggest controversies in that chapter was this
Speaker 1: differentiation between emotional intelligence as an ability a set of
Speaker 1: ability skills versus personality traits. I was surprised to hear
Speaker 1: you describe Salvey's model as personality because I always saw
Speaker 1: that as more ability based, and your model is more
Speaker 1: personality beast, am I am? I thinking? Am I not
Speaker 1: thinking about that? I misspoke? I think is explicitly an
Speaker 1: ability based model. What year was Sternberg writing that chapter? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: Stirnberg didn't write chapter. Stenberg and I co edited the
Speaker 1: entire book the Camber You can tell me, I think,
Speaker 1: actually yeah, I was co editor me and yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: was the twenty eleven. Twenty eleven I think the person
Speaker 1: who wrote or one of the co authors was Salve
Speaker 1: I believe, or Caruso or Meyer one of them, one
Speaker 1: of those guys. Yeah, mesqique. So that was ten years ago.
Speaker 1: A lot has happened in the last ten years. So
Speaker 1: if you were to look at emotional intelligence since twenty eleven,
Speaker 1: you'd find that there are many news studies. So when
Speaker 1: I told you about the data point that my model
Speaker 1: with boyos predicts performance in the workplace leadership better than
Speaker 1: the mayor model, that's new finding. It wouldn't be in
Speaker 1: the book you edited. Cool. I'd love to read that
Speaker 1: study very much. So, you know, the field is it
Speaker 1: keeps moving, keeps developing totally. And also a really interesting
Speaker 1: nerdy question is like what are their right proper boundary
Speaker 1: conditions for emotional intelligence? You know you include If one
Speaker 1: includes too many you know, positive personality traits under that umbrella,
Speaker 1: then it starts to lose its specificity. Where do you
Speaker 1: draw the line? There's no answer. Yeah, our model actually
Speaker 1: came from the work of our pro bestor at Harvard,
Speaker 1: David McClelland, who was one of the people who developed
Speaker 1: the field called competency modeling, which you would not know
Speaker 1: about unless you're an io psychologist and organization and psychologist,
Speaker 1: because organizations want to know who are the most outstanding
Speaker 1: people in a given role in our organization, who's best
Speaker 1: at sales, who's best at software, what differentiates the stars
Speaker 1: the top ten percent performer by whatever metric makes sense
Speaker 1: for that role from people are only average. That gives
Speaker 1: you a competence model. And so we based our work
Speaker 1: on competence models, and we looked at which competencies seem
Speaker 1: to be nested in which of those four domains. That's
Speaker 1: how we came so the boundary conditions were defined by
Speaker 1: that work. We excluded purely cognitive abilities. And people who
Speaker 1: are not familiar with competence models can easily complain that
Speaker 1: it seems to include too much. But if you realize
Speaker 1: that we see four domains self awareness, of management, empathy,
Speaker 1: and relationships. That's a lot of domains and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of competencies that nest within them. And it makes
Speaker 1: sense from the point of organizational point of view to
Speaker 1: look at what are lucked together as soft skills as
Speaker 1: opposed to hard skills. And we're looking at soft skills
Speaker 1: in a an orderly way, systematic way, and we also
Speaker 1: looked at the behavioral level of those skills, something that's observable. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh no, absolutely, it's really cool research they're doing. What's
Speaker 1: always fascinating to me about is this bloody G factor,
Speaker 1: the general factor of intelligence. All these abilities if you
Speaker 1: try to measure them, they are all pusively correlated with
Speaker 1: each other to a certain extent. And not just saying
Speaker 1: that that there's no demean specificity, because there certainly is,
Speaker 1: but there is kind of an overarching G factor. There
Speaker 1: is that, and Boyance has just did an interesting study
Speaker 1: about that. He looked at engineers at a global manufacturing
Speaker 1: firm and he asked them to rate other engineers on
Speaker 1: who's the most effective as an engineer, and he used
Speaker 1: the raven as a measure of IQ, and he found
Speaker 1: that there was basically no correlation to effectiveness as an
Speaker 1: engineer with IQ as rated by other engineers, and there
Speaker 1: was a rather high correlations I can't remember now with
Speaker 1: emotional intelligence as measured by our model. So that's a
Speaker 1: little counterintuitive, but I think it's because there's a floor
Speaker 1: effect for IQ. In any profession, you've got to be
Speaker 1: pretty smart. I have a granddaughter who's studying engineering at
Speaker 1: Cornell right now. She's really smart. You've got to be
Speaker 1: really smart to get an engineering degree IQ wise. However,
Speaker 1: to be the leader of a team of engineers, you're
Speaker 1: really managing people and that doesn't depend on IQ. In fact,
Speaker 1: you need a minimal amount and you understand what it
Speaker 1: is they know, so you can put the right person
Speaker 1: in the right place, for example. But you know it
Speaker 1: has to do with people skills, not with your IQ.
Speaker 1: So I would say that IQ get you in the game,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't determine whether you'll be outstanding in that game.
Speaker 1: Oh that's very interesting. Yeah, and it depends what game
Speaker 1: you're playing, As you already mentioned exactly, if you're going
Speaker 1: to stay in academics, you're going to need every bit
Speaker 1: of IQ you can get. Yeah, does that count even
Speaker 1: in the humanities. And I'm joking, I'm joking. Everybody calm down,
Speaker 1: everybody calm down. You need your verbal fluency. You need
Speaker 1: your verbal fluency. That's part of IQ. We can we
Speaker 1: should break down, you know, verbal versus non verbal reasoning
Speaker 1: skills as well. Yeah, okay, uh And and just the
Speaker 1: only other thing I wanted to bring up on most
Speaker 1: toldience before we move on was this idea that some
Speaker 1: people might think that you're if if if you if
Speaker 1: you if someone who's suffering or someone has emotional operas
Speaker 1: and you and and one says, oh, that person just
Speaker 1: needs more emotional intelligence. That might ignore a lot of
Speaker 1: societal factors and lack of support, and maybe that person's poor,
Speaker 1: Maybe that person went through a lot of economic or
Speaker 1: environmental conditions. So I just want to say that trust that.
Speaker 1: I would say that that understanding is true, but ignores
Speaker 1: another factor, which is called cognitive control. Kindive control is
Speaker 1: an aspect the developmental psychologists are very familiar with. It
Speaker 1: means that you can you can widen the gap between
Speaker 1: impulse and reactivity, and the wider the gap, the more
Speaker 1: mature you can be because you can consider other alternatives.
Speaker 1: So the person who, because of trauma and childhood, a
Speaker 1: disadvantaged childhood, or simply poor impulse control, does the first
Speaker 1: thing that comes to them, I'm not sure that that
Speaker 1: excuses what they do. Let's say it's a cock who
Speaker 1: shoots someone while yelling taser. That happened like a week
Speaker 1: or two ago. This woman who was a police officer
Speaker 1: meant to subdue a non cooperative suspect with her taser,
Speaker 1: grabbed a gun and shot him death on the spot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if she had had better cognitive control, she might have
Speaker 1: been able to use a less lethal intervention. So I
Speaker 1: would say that one of the factors, of course is
Speaker 1: social but there are other factors that have to do
Speaker 1: with how well you can manage you're a middim. I
Speaker 1: guess the point there is that some people's might have
Speaker 1: a more uphill battle and manage their migdala, maybe through
Speaker 1: mental illness or maybe through yes, I think so. One
Speaker 1: of the reasons I'm a big advocate of what's called
Speaker 1: social emotional learning, which are basically emotional intelligence for school
Speaker 1: kids from the garden to twelfth grade, is that no
Speaker 1: matter where you grew up, no matter your zip code
Speaker 1: of origin, it teaches kids this same ability. And they
Speaker 1: did a study in New Zealand, very important study where
Speaker 1: they measured kind of control and kids four to eight
Speaker 1: and then track them down in their thirties. They found
Speaker 1: that childhood kind of control predicted income and health in
Speaker 1: your thirties better than childhood I care, actually better than
Speaker 1: the wealth of the family you grew up in. And
Speaker 1: I went to a school in Spanish Harlem, very poor
Speaker 1: area of New York where the kids are doing mindfulness,
Speaker 1: which we should get to, which it turns out enhances
Speaker 1: the circuitry for card of control, it seems to. And
Speaker 1: I was glad to see that because those kids are
Speaker 1: more calm and clear while they're in school, which means
Speaker 1: that they're going to learn more, which means that it
Speaker 1: may help them overcome the disadvantage of growing up in
Speaker 1: a housing project. In Spanish, Harmon, that's super important work.
Speaker 1: My friend Josh Aronson runs the Mindful NYU Lab, the
Speaker 1: Mindful Education Lab. I don't know if I'm wonderful earned
Speaker 1: that lab, but I hope maybe put you guys in
Speaker 1: touch with each other. So how did you become interested
Speaker 1: in studying mindfulness? And can you tell me a little
Speaker 1: bit about your work with Richard Davidson. I got into
Speaker 1: meditation when I was an undergraduate because I was anxious
Speaker 1: and it helped me stay calm, calm me down. And
Speaker 1: then as a graduate student, I got a traveling fellowship
Speaker 1: to India or I got much more serious about studying
Speaker 1: meditation because as I met people who were you would say,
Speaker 1: advanced meditators, yogis and mamas and swamis, I noticed that
Speaker 1: they seemed to share certain traits or characteristics I found
Speaker 1: very interesting. They're pretty calm, they're joyful, they seem to
Speaker 1: be loving. They all seem to be positive human attribute. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I went back to Harvard. After the fellowship,
Speaker 1: I said, you know, I want to do my dissertation
Speaker 1: on meditation and stress and they said that's the stupidest
Speaker 1: idea we've ever heard. Really, yeah, this was way too early.
Speaker 1: In fact, they're kicking themselves now. They may not be
Speaker 1: alive now actually, But anyway, so another graduate student at
Speaker 1: the time, Richard Davidson, also wanted to do research on meditation.
Speaker 1: He was told that that would be a career ending move,
Speaker 1: but we went in did anyway. And Ritchie as everybody
Speaker 1: calls him, and I are very old friends. He now
Speaker 1: heads a neuroscience lab at University of Wisconsin. And we
Speaker 1: circled around and looked at the more than six thousand
Speaker 1: peer review articles on meditation and mindfulness. Mindfulness is one
Speaker 1: kind of meditation. There are many kinds, and most research
Speaker 1: these days is on mindfulness because of another friend of
Speaker 1: ours from those days in Cambridge, a guy named John
Speaker 1: cabot Zin, who developed mindfulness based stress reduction when he
Speaker 1: was at U Mass Medical Center. And that is manualized,
Speaker 1: which means that people can replicate the methodology that they
Speaker 1: use to teach it, and it makes it very researchable.
Speaker 1: So it's been lots of research on that, and basically
Speaker 1: the research shows that pretty much from the beginning, people
Speaker 1: do become more calm as measured by all kinds of
Speaker 1: things including physiology. They become more focused, their ability to focus,
Speaker 1: attention improves, working memory seems to improve, as indicated by
Speaker 1: better test scores and students. And if you do an
Speaker 1: aspect of mindfulness, which is called loving kindness practice which
Speaker 1: enhances warm heartedness, you actually become more generous, more kind
Speaker 1: as measured by kinds of measures you use in a
Speaker 1: peer review article. So the benefits seem to show up
Speaker 1: from the beginning. We did three tranches. One is, we
Speaker 1: looked at beginning meditators one to one hundred hours lifetime
Speaker 1: hours of meditation. We looked at long term practitioners which
Speaker 1: is one thousand to ten thousand hours lifetime, and then
Speaker 1: we looked at Olympic level twelve thousand and sixty two
Speaker 1: thousand hours that those were Tibetan yogis or yogis from
Speaker 1: Europe were flown over to his lab one by one
Speaker 1: for brain measures, and at that level he found that
Speaker 1: their brains are functionally different. Mhm. You see, I have
Speaker 1: my yoga and my meditation, so you know, you're Yeah,
Speaker 1: whatever it's called. I couldn't even remember what I could
Speaker 1: think called my cushion. That's the word I was looking
Speaker 1: for in my cushion. No I. Meditation has has helped
Speaker 1: me many times in my life when I've had when
Speaker 1: I keep thinking about going on s SR I I
Speaker 1: keep I keep meditating, and then realize I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: need to at that moment. You know, they might be
Speaker 1: good together. Who knows. Yeah, yeah, for some people it
Speaker 1: can work, sure, And then there are some studies that
Speaker 1: seem to show that people can many people can get
Speaker 1: off med's like for depression or anxiety if they introduce
Speaker 1: regular meditation practice. But I think it's quite individual, quite individual.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, well, okay, this actually makes me think of
Speaker 1: some questions. The individual part is there. Do you think
Speaker 1: there's a certain kind of personality that's attracted to mindfulness
Speaker 1: to begin with? Like I know that mindful look, I
Speaker 1: know mindfluess can change your personality. But do you think,
Speaker 1: like if you do a pretest, there's like a certain
Speaker 1: kind of person that finds the whole meditation business more
Speaker 1: interesting anyway than a different type of personality. You know,
Speaker 1: that's the kind of question that calls for a graduate
Speaker 1: student to do the studies this topic. YEA, because it's
Speaker 1: a wonderful question, and I don't think it's been answered,
Speaker 1: at least I haven't seen the answer myself. Would you
Speaker 1: have a hunch. I do have a hunch. I do
Speaker 1: because just because I've noticed that that there's a certain
Speaker 1: like phenotype among mindfulness researchers that but I don't. But
Speaker 1: the point here is that I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: because it's an outcome of their longtime meditation, or if
Speaker 1: or what was there existing beforehand? There's a certain you
Speaker 1: need to randomize. You need a randomize control trial. Yeah,
Speaker 1: where people who are equally interested go are randomly assigned
Speaker 1: to meditate or this is very important to an active
Speaker 1: control group, something that the teachers are equally enthusiastic about
Speaker 1: and positive about. When Davidson did that with MBSR, do
Speaker 1: you put together HEP health Enhancement program and the teachers
Speaker 1: of help were as positive that it would help you
Speaker 1: as were the teachers of mindfulness. And this is interesting.
Speaker 1: All subjective outcome measures fell away. There was no difference.
Speaker 1: It was in the physiological that you found the difference. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's so interesting? What what? What? What? What is that paper?
Speaker 1: If I wanted to look it up, not to put
Speaker 1: you on the spot, I don't know, but it must
Speaker 1: be on Davidson's home page. Okay, I'm sure I can
Speaker 1: find publications and maybe co o with Cabins in if
Speaker 1: they publish the findings. I didn't even know if they did. Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe not. What does the data show about the relationship
Speaker 1: between neuroplasticity and mindfulness? Seems what I'm familiar with, and
Speaker 1: there may be much more. Is that the consistent mind
Speaker 1: training that you get if you practice mindfulness of the breath,
Speaker 1: for example, where there are four basic moves, you put
Speaker 1: your mind on your breath, it wanders off, you notice
Speaker 1: it wandered, and you bring it back to the breath.
Speaker 1: I suspect that the payoff is in bringing it back
Speaker 1: to the breath, and that that strengthens connectivity for neurocircuitry
Speaker 1: involved in focus and ignoring distraction. Yeah, that would be
Speaker 1: my hypothesis quite possibly. Yeah, yeah, you know, there's there's
Speaker 1: all sorts of different meditations that exist, returning of the
Speaker 1: breath being one of them. I'm really into open monitoring meditation.
Speaker 1: I was wondering if what your thoughts are on different
Speaker 1: forms of meditation are any they're more conducive to creativity
Speaker 1: in your in your view than others. Where do you
Speaker 1: see creativity fitting to this picture? Well, you know, the
Speaker 1: classic model of creativity has three stages. One is curiosity.
Speaker 1: You know, you absorb as much information on the subjects
Speaker 1: you can, you struggle to solve the problem, you can't
Speaker 1: solve it, and you forget about it. That's the second stage.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of uh, you know, it's the default
Speaker 1: mode network damn, which is the part of the brain,
Speaker 1: the circuitry that comes online when you're not focused on
Speaker 1: a task for example, And during that mode, I think
Speaker 1: that people make connections much more effectively and widely than
Speaker 1: they do when they're potask focused, because when you're task focus,
Speaker 1: you see mind wandering as a distraction. So it's during
Speaker 1: that second stage when you would get more creative insight.
Speaker 1: And then third is you execute you have to go
Speaker 1: back to your focused So I think that a meditation
Speaker 1: that left you wide open would be very good, particularly
Speaker 1: if thoughts keep coming up but then you drop them.
Speaker 1: Every once in a while you get a really good one.
Speaker 1: You'll probably write that one down. That's your creative I like,
Speaker 1: I really like what you're saying, and I really like
Speaker 1: that level of nuance. As creativity knows, involve lots of
Speaker 1: different stages. It's cyclical, you know, you have to go
Speaker 1: back and forth between different modes of thought. The mindful
Speaker 1: state might not be uniformly be the best state for
Speaker 1: creativity twenty seven, you know, like, would you want to
Speaker 1: be in the mindful state twenty four to seven? Daniel Goleman.
Speaker 1: It depends what you mean by mindful? Yeah, fair enough
Speaker 1: in the controlled return to breath the kind of mental
Speaker 1: state O FA. So yeah, I told you I'm writing
Speaker 1: a book with a Tibetan mama. So they have a
Speaker 1: different model of mindfulness. So one of the ways they
Speaker 1: use mindfulness is to just what you said, to notice
Speaker 1: when your mind wanders and bring it back. That's called
Speaker 1: mindfulness with support. Then there's mindfulness without support. Where you
Speaker 1: go and what did you say you do? Open open monitoring,
Speaker 1: open monitoring. That might be the second where you let
Speaker 1: whatever comes up come up, but you don't follow it right,
Speaker 1: And the mindfulness is to be sure you don't follow it,
Speaker 1: you don't get sucked into some thought or some sensation
Speaker 1: or some perception like come you let it go. The
Speaker 1: third level in the Tibetan model is way beyond anything
Speaker 1: that we call mindfulness in the West, because they see
Speaker 1: any thought or perception that traps you in any way
Speaker 1: as a distraction, and they use mindfulness to see that
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen, and in fact their goal is to
Speaker 1: be in that state twenty four to seven. That's so interesting.
Speaker 1: Can you give me an example of, like, when I'm
Speaker 1: trapped in a thought like is it? Is it sort
Speaker 1: of like when I'm when it's repetitive or ruminative? Is
Speaker 1: that the end? Oh? No, it's it's simply when one
Speaker 1: thought leads to another and another when there's a train
Speaker 1: of thought that started with that one innocent thought, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I didn't pay my rent, and then I start thinking
Speaker 1: about the balance in my checkbook, and then I think
Speaker 1: about the other bills I have, on and on and on.
Speaker 1: And you're not meditating, you're lost in and you may
Speaker 1: not notice it, but then if you notice it, think, oh,
Speaker 1: I better go back to my brain. That's the moment
Speaker 1: of mindfulness. I'm reminded of this phrase. Not all minds
Speaker 1: that wander are lost. Is it isn't it Like creativity
Speaker 1: sometimes requires going down some alleys and then letting an
Speaker 1: insight emerge, and then being aware of the insight. I
Speaker 1: suppose it's no good if you're not aware of all
Speaker 1: the goodies you know in gold. That's cut me out
Speaker 1: of your consciousness. That's not good. But you know, there's
Speaker 1: another thing going on here which I'd like to call out,
Speaker 1: which is that the cultural context from which mindfulness is
Speaker 1: derived didn't care in the least about you being creative
Speaker 1: or you're getting higher performance. Those are like side benefits.
Speaker 1: The West, however, seized on those. So we want to
Speaker 1: be mindful who we could be calm. We want to
Speaker 1: be mindful, who you can be clear in our thinking.
Speaker 1: You want to be mindful so we can perform better.
Speaker 1: That's a Western point of view. The Eastern point of
Speaker 1: view had a far different goal in mind, and as
Speaker 1: it happened, these were side effects of that process. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's so true. I wrote an article for Scientific American
Speaker 1: on spiritual narcissism, this idea that some people who meditate
Speaker 1: more than others start to think they're superior to others.
Speaker 1: The I'm enlightened and you're not effect but that really
Speaker 1: does miss the point of meditation big time, which is
Speaker 1: becoming very aware. There's another urinary or paradox there too.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you're aware of if you are
Speaker 1: in an Asian culture like see Tibet. Yeah, someone who
Speaker 1: actually is enlightened would never say they were enlightened, because
Speaker 1: humility is part of what'll catch you there. And if
Speaker 1: you say you know, hey, you know I'm pretty special
Speaker 1: like a narcissist, would it means you know, you're not
Speaker 1: really special at all for sure. And well, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: The more I meditate, the more I realized just how
Speaker 1: not special I am. Oh. And not only that, but
Speaker 1: I realize just how crazy I am in the sense
Speaker 1: of my consciousness. I mean, I sit there, I you know,
Speaker 1: just become a witness to my consciousness in such a
Speaker 1: way that I don't identify with my thoughts that I'm like, wow,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of crazy stuff going on there. You
Speaker 1: can think anything, and from you know, in the Asian model,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what you think. It's really the process,
Speaker 1: not the content. It's interesting and from western point of you,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if you've noticed this, but
Speaker 1: people who start to meditate sometimes say oh man, I
Speaker 1: could never do this. My mind is going nuts. It's
Speaker 1: just one thought after another, which actually is a good
Speaker 1: sign because it means you're starting to notice how things
Speaker 1: are in there. Yeah, I think that's that's quite right.
Speaker 1: That's quite right. Well, what do you think about these apps,
Speaker 1: you know, like Headspace and Calm Waking Up? Do you
Speaker 1: think there is effective as long term meditation training and
Speaker 1: retreats that are not apt East Davidson and I made
Speaker 1: a distinction between going wide with meditation and going deep,
Speaker 1: and I think apps allow going wide. It means more
Speaker 1: people can get the benefits, particularly the beginning level of
Speaker 1: benefits from meditation than otherwise would Whether an app is
Speaker 1: as effective as an in person teacher, I suspect not,
Speaker 1: But there's I don't know of a study that's showsen.
Speaker 1: I suspect not, because a teacher can answer your questions
Speaker 1: and help you stay on track, and an app may
Speaker 1: not be as good as that. I don't know. I've
Speaker 1: never used it. That the deep, however, doesn't happen with
Speaker 1: an app. Means you follow a path to a traditional
Speaker 1: path to its traditional end, and that takes a lot
Speaker 1: of practice. As I said twelve thousand and sixty two
Speaker 1: thousand hours is the group that Davidson looked at. If
Speaker 1: you do a traditional Tibetan retreat, which is three years,
Speaker 1: three months, three days, you get credit for ten thousand hours.
Speaker 1: So sixty two thousand hours is a heck of a
Speaker 1: lot of practice that'll really get your prefrontal cortex tuned up.
Speaker 1: When they did a study with the guy at sixty
Speaker 1: two thousand hours, they asked him to do a meditation
Speaker 1: on compassion, and there's certain neuro circuitry that activates is
Speaker 1: activated instantly about seven or eight hundred times more than
Speaker 1: it had been, which has actually never been seen before,
Speaker 1: and voluntarily make a change like that in the brain,
Speaker 1: so the brains are functionally different. They actually scanned his
Speaker 1: brain like day one fMRI efor so they actually had
Speaker 1: that comparison. Wow, that's a cool study. That's yeah, Well
Speaker 1: it's interesting you about compassion because one of you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of talented benefits of mindfulness and some
Speaker 1: of them are not have not borne out, you know,
Speaker 1: like some people that like sell meditation programs will claim
Speaker 1: all sorts of things better sex better. You know, it'll
Speaker 1: make you won't you won't lose your hair. You know,
Speaker 1: it's gooddle American marketing, of course, exactly, exactly so. But
Speaker 1: one of the benefits that I sometimes see talented, which
Speaker 1: I actually haven't seen good evidence for, is that mindfulness
Speaker 1: will improve your like emotional intelligence, your social intelligence. And
Speaker 1: I haven't seen that evidence that that is the case
Speaker 1: with compassion, yes, but not in terms of social skills.
Speaker 1: So I was worrying, like, what you think the relationship
Speaker 1: is between mindfulness and emotional and social intelligence. Let's back
Speaker 1: up a minute, because I said in passing the mindfulness
Speaker 1: is one of many, many varieties of meditation. So I
Speaker 1: think that you want to see what is the intervention
Speaker 1: and then what's the outcome measure you're looking for with
Speaker 1: that intervention. So there may be a meditation or set
Speaker 1: of meditations which does make you more interpersonal. I ran
Speaker 1: into a fellow who's a Sufi. Sufi's have their own
Speaker 1: set of practice. This guy was so loving. I was
Speaker 1: just blown away. Whether it's his personality or due to practice,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I suspect practice was a large
Speaker 1: part of it. But they don't do what we think
Speaker 1: of his mindfulness of the breath. They do other kinds
Speaker 1: of ritual practice, and it has a different kind of payoff.
Speaker 1: And I think the fact that he was so loving
Speaker 1: probably made him more effective in relationship. Probably we don't know,
Speaker 1: but all I'm saying is that I think a more
Speaker 1: sophisticated way of asking the question is does intervention X
Speaker 1: a certain kind of meditation have outcome why? And I
Speaker 1: wouldn't expect that any one intervention would improve all four
Speaker 1: domains of emotional intelligence. It may be set, but but
Speaker 1: you know, but you know, one could make the hypothesis
Speaker 1: that sitting there, you know, isolated meditation, you know in
Speaker 1: your own thoughts, can actually make you disconnected from from
Speaker 1: people when when you get out of it, you know,
Speaker 1: in the sense it makes it more awkward, like talking
Speaker 1: to people because you've been so focused on your own
Speaker 1: thoughts for so long. And the one could make me
Speaker 1: say that. The counter hypothesis would be that tuning into
Speaker 1: the full range of your own emotion might help you
Speaker 1: be more empathic in tuning into the emotions of other people.
Speaker 1: So one of the findings I remember on empathy, and
Speaker 1: I don't remember the source, is that if you're tuned
Speaker 1: out of a range of your own inner experience, you
Speaker 1: will have trouble picking that up in other people, so
Speaker 1: you could make a counter hypothesis just as easily. So
Speaker 1: since you're an impure the oriented guy, I would say,
Speaker 1: we have to wait and see until we get Is
Speaker 1: that a graduate student? Is that? Yeah? Is that a
Speaker 1: nice way of saying since you're a uber nerd Scott,
Speaker 1: I think it's because I think it's the way of saying,
Speaker 1: you want to see what the data says. And just
Speaker 1: as with emotional intelligence, meditation actually is a very young
Speaker 1: field for research, very well there when we agree. When
Speaker 1: Davidson and I looked at the studies, I think I
Speaker 1: mentioned there were three peer review studies, maybe two, and
Speaker 1: they're both anecdotal when we did our dissertations, and now
Speaker 1: there are more than six thousand in peer review journals,
Speaker 1: not many of them. Not that good. By the way.
Speaker 1: It's a new field. It's new, many questions, and there
Speaker 1: is some data. I mean, I had David Vogo on
Speaker 1: my podcast. I don't know if you've been following his
Speaker 1: research on mindfulness. Va g O, Uh what do you say?
Speaker 1: You know? No? David? Oh, good, good, He's such a
Speaker 1: good guy. I really like him. He wrote, you know,
Speaker 1: a critical review of my It was called mind the
Speaker 1: High the mind the mindfulness hype, I think was the title,
Speaker 1: And when I talked to him on his podcast on
Speaker 1: my podcast, he made clear that there is no data
Speaker 1: showing that it doesn't prove your like social skills or
Speaker 1: your even ability to listen to two people. So uh,
Speaker 1: just so much. We still need to know and to
Speaker 1: see what and and separate the hype from the myth.
Speaker 1: You know, I think if I wanted to improve someone's
Speaker 1: ability to listen, I would train them in a listening method. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, yeah, come on, I feel that
Speaker 1: mindfulness probably is overhyped and the infectations may be too
Speaker 1: high that they think it this may be the answer
Speaker 1: to everything, because perhaps it's sold that way. I don't
Speaker 1: think it is. It might be an answer to some things,
Speaker 1: but not everything. Yeah, no, that's a great answer. And
Speaker 1: also just like I can practice mindfulness without an app
Speaker 1: just by living my life. For instance, right now, there
Speaker 1: is this NonStop noise of a of a jackhammer construction
Speaker 1: that I couldn't control and I am trying so hard
Speaker 1: to right, aren't I practicing my mindfulness muscles right now?
Speaker 1: Like doesn't that count? Does it count? There's certainly practicing
Speaker 1: your behavioral innovation muscles. Okay, control, congratulations, you're doing great.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm trying to stay mindful to the conversation
Speaker 1: despite all its mindful there you mean focused? Focused? Yeah, attentive, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've talked to Mishi Jaw. She's
Speaker 1: an attention researcher. No I recommend her. I just did
Speaker 1: an interview with her. She is at you roused in Miami, okay,
Speaker 1: and she looks at the various modalities of attention in
Speaker 1: terms of mindfulness training. You might find it interesting. Now
Speaker 1: she's a talk coming out. Oh you're not talking about
Speaker 1: pre T Shaw, are you? No? Achin Jaw Mischi jall?
Speaker 1: I actually I like pre T Shaw as well, who
Speaker 1: studies difference. I'm not and I'm not even joking. Pre
Speaker 1: T Shaw fraction eats executive functioning to different components as well.
Speaker 1: So I thought maybe you were talking about her work.
Speaker 1: But interesting, But I'll check out this this person you're
Speaker 1: referring to for sure. What's her what's her new book called?
Speaker 1: Do you know the name of it? Mind Peak of Mind.
Speaker 1: It will be out until fall. Very nice, very nice.
Speaker 1: So what do you think the future of mindfulness training
Speaker 1: methods should be? Like what's on the horizon in terms
Speaker 1: of a new and exciting methods to help people train
Speaker 1: their mind to be more mindful. I would broaden the question.
Speaker 1: I would say what mind training methods might be coming
Speaker 1: down the pike that would be a benefit. Mindfulness is
Speaker 1: one variety of training. The mind visualization is another traditional one.
Speaker 1: So I think that what we have learned at a
Speaker 1: higher level is that trainings like mindfulness seem to make
Speaker 1: neuroplasticity more systematic so that we can drive the brain
Speaker 1: change the brain in desirable ways. And I suspect that
Speaker 1: with time, people will develop more and more methods, mindfulness
Speaker 1: being one of many, and maybe mindless being a part
Speaker 1: of many, to help people develop mental capacity. These just
Speaker 1: the way you go to a gym and a trainer
Speaker 1: takes you through, Oh, you want to develop your ABS
Speaker 1: or your PEX or something. Do this? Do that? I
Speaker 1: suspect that mind training will follow those lines and become
Speaker 1: more specific to the desired outcome. Is that a development
Speaker 1: that I think is good in a relative way. I
Speaker 1: think it's good In another way, I think it kind
Speaker 1: of sucks because it distracts people from the traditional inner
Speaker 1: goals or spiritual goals of the traditions that mindfulness and
Speaker 1: other meditation mind trainings have come from. And I feel
Speaker 1: that in the future those goals, things like caring more
Speaker 1: about the greater good than your own self interest, will
Speaker 1: become more and more important for the survival of the species.
Speaker 1: So in a way it's good, and in a way
Speaker 1: it's not enough. Oh that was a very sophisticated reframing
Speaker 1: of my question and a very sophisticated answer, So thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you for doing that. I think this relates as
Speaker 1: well to what you mean by and correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, But you often you make the distinction between
Speaker 1: practicing smart versus just practicing ten thousand hours, right, yes,
Speaker 1: So one of the advantages that people who are in
Speaker 1: that top category have is that they have a trainer,
Speaker 1: They have a coach, a teacher who monitors how they're
Speaker 1: doing and gives them correctives, which helps them practice smart.
Speaker 1: And this has comes from a work of Ericson at Florida,
Speaker 1: who the silly ten thousand hour rule came from his research.
Speaker 1: He's miffed about that because he's a dose response relationship
Speaker 1: between training and outcome, and that it varies from skill
Speaker 1: to skill. So if you're doing memory, for example, it's
Speaker 1: a matter of hundreds of hours, not ten thousand hours.
Speaker 1: It's okay, I see you have his book right behind you. Peak,
Speaker 1: I see you ran your bookshelf right there, yeah, right there. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's he's he was a friend of mine. You know
Speaker 1: he passed away recently, right, No, I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry to hear. Yeah. Yeah, that's a lot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was. It was a really big lost fun mastery
Speaker 1: in any domain. He was real wonderful person. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was a friend and a sparring partner because I
Speaker 1: thought he underhead he neglected the role of talent and anyway,
Speaker 1: he was such always such a delight in in even
Speaker 1: just discussing these things. Like he didn't have that big
Speaker 1: of an ego. Yeah, So how did you get into
Speaker 1: doing what you're doing? You don't need to put this
Speaker 1: in the part. I'm just interested. Where did you go
Speaker 1: to undergrad and all of that? Well? I did my
Speaker 1: undergrad at Carnegie Mellon University. Oh you're dead, But I
Speaker 1: did my pH d at Yale with the Robert Sternberg
Speaker 1: and uh, and show you that happened to edit that
Speaker 1: book with him. Yeah, we worked on a bunch of
Speaker 1: other things as well. But uh, but yeah, I remember
Speaker 1: Solve was there as well. That's you know that he was.
Speaker 1: He wasn't head of the of Yale yet, he was
Speaker 1: still working in the psychology department. And but even when
Speaker 1: I was in grad school, I thought to myself, I
Speaker 1: really want to do uh, popular writing. So I started
Speaker 1: a blog for Psychology Today, which ended up doing really
Speaker 1: well and and and realized I had I had a
Speaker 1: knack for popular science writing and it was in my
Speaker 1: in my bones. So I've been doing a lot more
Speaker 1: of that now. I write regularly for Scientific American, and
Speaker 1: I write books. I'd love to send you my most
Speaker 1: recent book on transcendence, The Science of transcendence, really the
Speaker 1: science of transcendence that sunds intriguing. Yeah I should. Can
Speaker 1: you put my podcast in your show notes? Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just started a podcast called First Person Plural, okay,
Speaker 1: And it's emotional intelligence and beyond. It's all kinds of
Speaker 1: things that I'm interested in, Okay. In this new book
Speaker 1: or podcasts or in this new podcast, do you talk
Speaker 1: about ecoliteracy and ecological crisis, because I'm so curious to
Speaker 1: your thoughts on that. Yes, I just did a podcast
Speaker 1: on that, because one of the things that troubles me
Speaker 1: is that at the systems level, in the economics system,
Speaker 1: we have complete transparency about value of stocks, for example,
Speaker 1: our companies, we have zero transparency about the environmental impacts
Speaker 1: of things we buy and use, things that are sold
Speaker 1: to us. And my argument is that since there is
Speaker 1: now a methodology to assess a range of environmental impacts
Speaker 1: it's called life cycle assessment, that consumers and businesses in
Speaker 1: B to B should be given a third party evaluation
Speaker 1: of a product or processes impact on the environment. Is
Speaker 1: it good for the environment, bad for the environment, or
Speaker 1: terrible for the environment, so that we could create a
Speaker 1: market force that would move things in a better direction.
Speaker 1: And this is already happening in the investment community. By
Speaker 1: the way, my next door neighbor is just becoming head
Speaker 1: of a two billion dollar fund for sustainable investing at
Speaker 1: a very large financial firm. And there's a whole movement
Speaker 1: in the investment world to put their money, particularly investors
Speaker 1: who are interested in long term return, like pension funds
Speaker 1: and so on, put their money in companies that already
Speaker 1: are paying attention to this. So that's already started. But
Speaker 1: in my writing, I did a book called Ecological Intelligence,
Speaker 1: and I make argument I just summarized for you, and
Speaker 1: it's something that I continue to worry about. So I
Speaker 1: did a podcast in first person plural, talking to someone
Speaker 1: who is developing a platform where companies can share this
Speaker 1: data on their impacts, and someone who's doing regenerative farming,
Speaker 1: which is a way of doing agriculture that doesn't destroy
Speaker 1: the soil. And so I'm a little passionate about this.
Speaker 1: I have grandchildren. Yeah, you know that wasn't in gar
Speaker 1: Howard Gardner's you know he did, he didn't have ecological intelligence.
Speaker 1: That's when that's you. You added that one? Was that
Speaker 1: you Yeah, they wanted that title for the book. I
Speaker 1: wanted to call it radical transparency. But it doesn't matter. Oh,
Speaker 1: radical transparency. I think ecological intelligence probably is better from
Speaker 1: a marketing perspective. That's what my editor thought. But I mean,
Speaker 1: my gosh, you look at your whole career. You know
Speaker 1: that word intelligence is played such a prominent, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of presence as a thread in all of your stuff.
Speaker 1: A lot of your stuff what do you think, like, like,
Speaker 1: how do you even define the word intelligence? It's funny
Speaker 1: because I'm asking that as the last question. I should
Speaker 1: have asked that probably is the first question. But you know,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna, if you're gonna use the word intelligence
Speaker 1: at the end of a lot of these things, what
Speaker 1: makes them all intelligence? You know what I mean? Is
Speaker 1: that a fair question? I don't know. Let me see,
Speaker 1: Let's see what I come up with. Yeah, So I
Speaker 1: guess intelligence is a way of referring to a person's
Speaker 1: capacity or ability two solve problems in a given domain.
Speaker 1: So in the verbal and spatial and mathematical domain we
Speaker 1: have IQ. In the personal and interpersonal domain we have
Speaker 1: emotional intelligence, and why not in the environmental domain ecological intelligence?
Speaker 1: And I'm sure there are others. What's the difference between, sorry,
Speaker 1: what's the difference between emotional and social intelligence? People differ
Speaker 1: in their opinions on this. Social intelligence. Some say refers
Speaker 1: to your relationship skills and empathy. Some say emotional intelligence
Speaker 1: refers to your intra personal abilities and your self awareness
Speaker 1: and your self management skills. I happen to lump them
Speaker 1: both together under emotional intelligence. My colleague Richard biotsis separates
Speaker 1: them the two skill sets. There's a long tradition of
Speaker 1: research on social intelligence and a nascent body of work,
Speaker 1: and emotional intelligence has defined narrowly. But you wrote a
Speaker 1: whole book on social intelligence which I really enjoyed, which
Speaker 1: was separate from from emotional So yeah, right, so do
Speaker 1: you see, you know, a thread running through all of
Speaker 1: your work, Like, what would you what would you say
Speaker 1: it is? I was trying to put words in your
Speaker 1: mouth by saying intelligence, but but but what would you
Speaker 1: say it is if you if you had to reflect
Speaker 1: on the tie that binds all of it? Yeah, uh,
Speaker 1: probably what interests me right now? Mm hmm. And that's
Speaker 1: a moving target? Oh right, right, yeah, what interests you
Speaker 1: at that at that time? Yeah? Okay. So so for example,
Speaker 1: Social Intelligence is a book that was monitoring the emergence
Speaker 1: of social neuroscience, and I thought, hey, there's a critical
Speaker 1: mass of findings about the basis for a relationship and interactions.
Speaker 1: There's enough to write a book about. I wrote a
Speaker 1: book about it. Interested me? So right now, May eleventh,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, what are you most excited about and
Speaker 1: what are you kind of looking forward to working on?
Speaker 1: What projects oh, so I'm rethinking emotional intelligence and really
Speaker 1: so much good. It's not so good? What's missing? What
Speaker 1: other abilities might turbo charge it? I'm interested ongoing, interested
Speaker 1: in meditation mostly those. Yeah. Hey, that's good enough, Daniel. Hey,
Speaker 1: I want to thank you so much for I know
Speaker 1: it's hard for us to hear each other. We're kind
Speaker 1: of sign languaging over here, you know, like, but we
Speaker 1: made it through, and I'm really I'm really happy that
Speaker 1: we got a chance to finally talk. Thank you so much, Daniel,
Speaker 1: yea for being honest. To send me your book on transcendence.
Speaker 1: I'm really interested in that. I sure will. I'll reach
Speaker 1: out an email. You can give me your address, that'd
Speaker 1: be great. Great, Thanks Daniel, This has been a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Likewise, thanks for listening to this
Speaker 1: episode of The Psychology Podcast. If you'd like to react
Speaker 1: in some way to something you heard, I encourage you
Speaker 1: to join in the discussion at the Psychology podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: That's the Psychology Podcast dot com. Also, if you'd prefer
Speaker 1: a completely ad free experience, I would like early access
Speaker 1: to new episodes, you can join us at Patreon dot
Speaker 1: com Slash psych Podcast. Thanks for being such a great
Speaker 1: supporter of the show, and tune in next time for
Speaker 1: more on the mind, brain behavior and creativity.