Talk About Talk - Executive & Leadership Communication Skills

(EXPLICIT) Do you ever wonder why some people use profanity and others do not? Linguistics professor Darin Flynn leads us through a fascinating discussion on the taboo topic of swearing, including types of swear-words, how swear words change over time, personality types that are more likely to use profanity, and the risks associated with profanity. (Note this is the EXPLICIT version of this podcast episode. There is also a CLEAN (bleeped out) version). References & Links Professor Darin Flynn University of Calgary faculty page – https://www.ucalgary.ca/dflynn/ “Shift Happens” interview – https://ucalgary.ca/dflynn/swearing “White people should never rap the n-word: A linguist breaks it down“- https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/white-people-should-never-rap-the-n-word-a-linguist-breaks-it-down “What the &*$%?: What qualifies as a “bad” word nowadays?” – http://www.calgaryherald.com/swerve/features/What+What+qualifies+word+nowadays/8873621/story.html Profanity Resources & References Books: “What the F” by Benjamin Bergen – https://amzn.to/2LLwc9T “The Stuff of Thought” by Steven Pinker – https://amzn.to/2JtBCF “Why We Curse” by Timothy Jay – https://amzn.to/2LOtm3S “Cursing in America” by Timothy Jay – https://amzn.to/2XEdWSb  Articles & other: Youtube video of two guys giving each other the finger – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOJ0HpVvAFE George Carlin’s – 7 Words you can’t say on TV – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ “Strong Language” blog – https://stronglang.wordpress.com/ Jonathan Haidt TEDTalk– Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives (reactions to statue of David) – https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind Steven Pinker – https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/smarter-living/the-case-for-cursing.html Linguist Taylor Jones – https://www.languagejones.com/recent-work John McWhorter on Anti-racism as the new religion – https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGJbrLs_8_0 Iain McGilchrist interviews – http://iainmcgilchrist.com/videos/ Talk About Talk Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com   Interview Transcript Professor Darin Flynn: There is a connection between swearing and in marketing. Sometimes it’s just about getting a bit of an edge and swearing can give you that. But people will just stand on the edge of something and get away with it. The most striking example is probably The French Connection UK, which was such a successful campaign. Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: So, recently my 10 year old daughter saw someone wearing a shirt. It said FC UK, and she’s did a double take. And then she looked at me and her eyes went bug-eyed. I told her exactly what you just said, it’s a marketing ploy. It actually stands for French Connection, United Kingdom, and she was like, Oh my gosh, why would you wear that? I said, you just looked at her, again with bug eyes. That’s why she’s wearing it. That’s why it exists. It really works. Yeah. AW: I started by asking Professor Darin Flynn whether I should call him Professor Flynn or Darin.  His response set the tone for the rest of the conversation. DF: Darin’s fine, please. The whole point of swear words is it, it just creates an informal aura. So it creates a strange disconnect between Professor Flynn and then saying   ?   and it’s just – It’s like you’re giving yourself an epileptic seizure by kind of going back and forth between the two. They are such two different modes that even my brain would have a hard time moving back and forth. AW: That could be your brand though. You’re that guy! DF:  Yeah, I just prefer Darin, if you don’t mind. AW: I don’t mind at all. Thank you very much, Darin, for joining us here today. I thought it would be best perhaps to start with a more, I guess, technical question. So is there a certain sound that makes a word more likely to stay in our vernacular as a swear word? DF: Yeah, it’s something short and cut off. A swear word has the effect of making people go “huh!” and that’s pretty much what defines a swear word. And that feeling usually starts in childhood when you’re talking about something taboo and then somebody will cut you off or you realize it yourself and you cut yourself off. They tend to be really short words that are cut off. You don’t want to kind of drag on if you have a long word. So, especially in English with essentially anything, if there’s like two or three or more syllables. That’s something that’s a fancy fancy word. Whereas, a nice little one syllable word is a good short, informal word and it doesn’t carry on. And it’s also been found – in some research by Ben Bergen who wrote this lovely book called What the F? And he’s a cognitive scientist in California who noticed that largely English words, even one syllable words would have an equal chance of ending with a sound that we call these words something sonorant. So that includes words that sound like vowels, but also sonorous consonants are things like L-M-N , they’re a bit softer. AW:  Okay. DF: At the other extreme are harsh cut off sounds, which we call stops. PTK are the best examples but also BDG. And so there’s a 50-50 chance of ending in one of those at the ends of words in general. But in swear words, the cut off forms are much more common. So like, ?  , ?   you know, things that end with K. They’re cut off really quickly. AW: That makes sense. And actually, your face lit up like this, I was thinking the word shock, right? It’s just shock. ?   . They’re shocking works. DF: That’s right. So there is some truth to the four letter word in that, it tends to be words that begin with a consonant and then end with a consonant. And it just so happens with English writing that we often will write, you know, with CK or P or something. You can actually make a word, more vulgar sounding, if you shorten it. So they are, you know, words like Hispanic. If you say SPIC, you know, and I’m sorry for the  slur, but that means it’s an offensive word for Hispanic people, right? And then Bergen was told by one by students recently for people that have Asperger’s. They’ll call them SPERG. Just the end. Ending with a consonant, but also just one syllable. And this is really quite common. So you’ll find one of the most offensive words nowadays is the word retard. The most offensive words nowadays are the slurs, and so this is worse by you when you say TARD. AW: Oh, wow. So it’s a doubly offensive term? DF: Yeah,  It is culturally determined. So it’s in a cultural context, you, you say, the word ?   or whatever, even as a little kid without in a context where you wouldn’t even have heard that word. But the adults around you will go like that (!). And then once they’ve done that, you realize that effect and then maybe you’ll even be told off. And in traumatic cases, you’ll have people you know, get their mouths washed out with soap. AW: It’s amazing when I tell people about this episode that I’m doing – how this is getting into the topic of taboo, but how some people are like, really?… and some people are like, awesome!!! DF: Yeah, yeah. Well, those people that go one way or another, it aligns with different personality types that some people are. Some people are likely to say awesome! Some people are like to go hmm.  You might have heard of Jonathan Haidt? He had a really popular TED talk a few years ago, where he’s showing, the sculpture of David, I think it is, to two people. One will just be just transfixed by the beauty. Just like awesome gorgeous. The other person will be kind of uncomfortable with the nudity. And so he was just pointing out that you could tell me on the spot a whole lot about those two people and so like one… AW:  Wow! DF: Yeah.  One was more likely to vote for George Bush and he had a sense of who was more conservative. And this is important because a lot of these personality traits are set in advance. People tend to be born with these predispositions. So then you also have people reacting one way or another to swear words. It tells you a lot about them. AW: Back to the technical part of cursing, can swear words be categorized? DF: So there are the ones that are rooted in taboo topics. Often they don’t really make sense for a kid. They might have an innate sense of things that are filthy, like poop or pee or something, but it’s all the way people react to – all the sense of disgust. You tend to associate certain areas with that gut reaction and it’s negative. AW: So there’s filth, there’s sex, there’s religion and deity, right? DF: That’s right. So they have some commonalities. There’s some sense of taboo. We’ll have filth, sex or things that should be kind of indoors know, close-in, in private. A lot of people feel that way about, well, pretty much any kind of body function. But a lot of it is related to the outdoors. There is a sense of a boundary. A really good analogy in our American context is this concept of the wall. Building the wall. Some people that want the wall versus people that don’t. So the wall protects first of all, inside and outside people. So those slurs for instance, they mark in the worst way possible somebody was in inside or outside. AW: us versus them? DF: Yeah. And I think the sense of disgust that people have with body parts and body functions and so on – is often tied up with that too. It’s has to do with basic survival. People, you know, we know people do get wiped out by diseases people will often associate outsiders with danger or diseases. There’s a strong biological sense to mark things outside or inside and you want to keep track of this. And this means that setting boundaries also relates to morals. So, you know, do you have sex with your mother? Do you have sex with your sister? These are all setting up moral boundaries. Again, there’s biological reasons. In that instance, it’s not really clear whether it’s a chicken or egg thing with what created the taboo or not. So the point is that this is where swear words come from – is all these areas where, you know, you don’t have sex with your mother so like ?   or and we’re even whether you’re homosexual or not right? ?   . The worst possible offensive terms – so I think you can probably come up with a unified theme through all of them. It’s associated with basic emotions like fear. But strangely enough at that moment when something is really kind of intimidating, there’s an opportunity for excitement too. We’re funny creatures. And so both the positive and the negative at the same time. It’s something really strange. So you can get these reversals were awful can become awesome. AW: awful and awesome! DF: the more recent example is ?   . So ?   will be associated historically semantically with just something that’s very repellent and disgusting and it’s full of germs and it’ll kill you and it’s something you want to avoid. But then people will talk about this is the ?   . AW: I’m the ?   . DF: And that’s because of meanings that are complicated. Because you first of all, we all know that when one meaning is activated, the opposite meaning is activated too. So when you think something big than you think of smaller. When you think something, you know, dirty, it kind of activates the concept of clean. So you define light with darkness. Or so you can say that light is the absence of darkness, for instance. And good is like the absence of evil, or truth is the absence of lying. And so, often part of the definition of something is its opposite. One of the more famous examples was that example I gave you — awful versus awesome — when you see the word all has that double meaning. ?   is another great example. There’s a whole bunch of detail, interesting detail in the meanings that you can build off. So when you take a work like ?   there’s something really raw and real about it. There’s nothing more real than ?   . AW: It stinks. It’s ugly. DF: Ugly. And so when somebody says that they’re ?   . You understand that they’re real, they’re grounded. They’re good. Oddly enough, it’s a positive term, but it’s not in some airy-fairy, angelic way. It’s grounded in reality. So it’s not that the meaning of ?   is completely gone. AW: Another example of what you’re saying with the words activating the opposite – and then the meaning changing but still maintaining the original meaning – is the word sick, right? If you’re sick, you’re going to die and then now I’m sick or that was sick is like the ultimate compliment. Awesome. DF: That’s another term that’s rooted in that what biological sense of trying to stay alive and not being sick. And the sense of disgust that I described earlier that defines so much. Sickness is something you’d want to avoid and get away from. The person who says this is sick is like the snowboarder…. Right? They’re taking risks,  they’re willing to accept the outside, you know, they’re knocking down boundaries. That’s the classic line between introvert and extrovert. And so the extrovert is the one that is open to the outside, open to new experiences, and is willing to knock down or jump over boundaries and allow for the possibility of sickness, meeting new things, but also the payoff is great. And so the more conservative type, the introverted person, is a person who would rather not take the risk. And the reason I am mentioning this is because extraversion is strongly correlated with your swearing rate. If you’re an extrovert versus introverted, it’s quite predictive. AW: So you used the term in an email to me – you used the term sweariness, which I had never heard before, but I love it. So your responses on the Myers Briggs scale for introvert versus extrovert is correlated with your sweariness? DF: Yeah. I did the Myers Briggs when I was a teenager. I’m an E N F G. The extroversion determines your sweariness. So for instance, if you asked you would you like to do a podcast? Well, I can meet somebody new and the topic is swearing. It’s like, Oh, that sounds interesting. And like I said, you can almost predict the kind of person who’s likely to work in this area and be willing to speak to somebody on the podcast. The swearing – it originates in repression, in a way. Once the word is released, it’s like it is a release. It’s cathartic because it breaks the ice.  So if you’re having a really uncomfortable business meeting where people don’t know each other and people are doing small talk, talking about the weather, but you can tell there might be some professional tension. There’s a bit of competitiveness and but then that’s as soon as, you know, somebody gets a paper cut or something.  And you ask – are you okay? And they say, Oh, yeah, it hurts like a ?   . It’s just that moment, you know, that is the turning point of the, you know, make dinner conversation, people having fun and it really allows everybody’s brains to relax in that way. This is research by Steven Pinker, I think he’s the one who originated this idea that he associated swear words with that part of the brain that triggers the flight or fight response. I think it’s really true, it’s related to what we were talking about before, where the stakes are raised. And at that moment, it just brings out a little bit more of yourself in a public context. AW: A friend of mine was telling me that she’s paid thousands of dollars to see Tony Robbins and he swears like a ?   sailor. Have you seen him? DF: Yah. AW:  He does? DF: I think it’s really effective and yet it’s respectful. I watched the Netflix documentary on him and it’s really good. It was really good and yeah, he swears a lot. And I think it does help him in his work. Yeah. AW: I’m actually really interested, as we were talking before, about the evolution of some words and how it becomes to mean the opposite. And then people can start labeling themselves with what was previously a negative one and the N word, which I’m not going to say. (I’ll just refer to it as the N word .) It’s fascinating. People are fascinated and confused .It’s perhaps the most taboo word in our culture.  My son is a basketball player. And he plays with a bunch of black kids. And he said they drop it all the time. And he said, I almost feel like they’re daring me to say it, but I never would. I said good. Don’t. DF: No. So those are actually two completely different words. Right from the slavery days, there was a separate N word that rhymes with ninja. Well, it doesn’t really rhyme with ninja but I say ninja for that one. And that meant dude, guy, without any negative connotation. So, in that one has been around since the days of slavery. It was used even among black slaves with each other. And it’s actually evolved into a whole bunch of meanings now. So there are a dozen meanings. There’s a linguist called Taylor Jones who documented dozens of meanings and it’s quite striking. He said, one meaning that evolved as ninja means me, and then ninja is hungry means I’m hungry. AW: Wow. DF:  This is really common.  We call it semantically bleached, you know, standard term washed away from its meaning. And it doesn’t even mean guy anymore. And that’s just one of many meanings that it can it can even it doesn’t even refer to black people anymore. So there’s this white ninja in my classroom that are, you know, such and such great and so on. I actually have a piece on the N word online. It’s been pretty widely read. I go over how this word is really very different from other words and the N word that ends with trigger is the one that to among blacks and among whites is just so unbelievably offensive. It’s by far like —like off the charts–  offensive in North America, it’s there’s nothing more offensive in the English language. It’s like the nuclear bomb of words. And so much that among blacks, that word is hardly ever used.  Ever. And now the reason why the word — the other N word, the ninja word – can’t be used by whites is that it’s too close to that other one. And so it’s just can’t be used.  In even if you’re surrounded by people… In my article, I emphasize the fact that Eminem is a good example of somebody who was just surrounded by that word, and his music his peers, and it has 00, negative connotations to it, the N word that’s like ninja.  But he still would never use it because he’s not …  just it’s just too risky that he’d be associated with that. AW: So is there a common trajectory or evolution of words like that? DF: The general theme is, is one way that people will take away the sting of a word is by using it among themselves. So if it’s a word that’s meant to be wielded against you, if you start using it with each other. It loses its bite, it loses its power. Yeah, but it doesn’t quite apply in the case of the N word because the N word, even the one that rhymes with trigger, has actually acquired more of its negative meaning more recently. So it used to be a pretty neutral descriptive term for black people, in the same way that people referring to black people as Negros. And so the negative association, it came from the way people were using the word. That association got worse over time. So you’ll sometimes read some old literature from the 1800s. Where they’re using the N word, the one that runs with trigger, but there’s no sense that they’re wielding it like an explosive, taboo word. On the other hand, the just everyday meaning that Ninja, that other word, was also documented way back in the slavery days. And again, it had no negative meetings at the time. It just meant guy and it still does. That’s the most common use of the word. And it’s like, unbelievably frequent. So Chandler Jones did a survey of people that are black that use Twitter, and found that it was just by far the most distinctive word. It’s used at an unbelievable rate. Yeah, the word ninja. And the most common use is guy. It’s also used very effectively with my so my ninja would be my bud. And so you’ll find a girl referring to my boyfriend is my ninja and that sort of thing. And it’s just been completely bleached of its negative content. There’s another theory about how these things happen. Which I’m sympathetic to, but again, I don’t think it applies to the N word. It is that meanings are complicated. I alluded to that a little bit with the word ?   . Where there’s something real and raw ?   you can build off. And so, what happens is the word the N word comes to be associated with stereotypes of black people. And there are a lot of them are very negative. But some of them are kind of, they’re still negative in my mind because their stereotypes and yet you can kind of see them as positive. I think definitely among men there’ll be something you strive for. So like athleticism, musical ability, strength, prowess, creativity, and… Again, these are stereotypes. But even the most racist people will, you know, associate some part of it. Again, it’s negative because they’re stereotypes, but they’ll associate those positive things with that word, in addition to the negative meetings. What happens is, you can take some of these, so then you can take those meanings and run with those. And then those more positive meanings come to the associated with that word. And now of course, the in-group can get away with this. This happened with the queer – famously –  So gay did used to have a negative meaning. And Queer as well. And you could even in the case of queer, you can see its negative meaning. But it started with the in-group taking on some of the positive connotations of that. There’s something about being different and unique and not boring or normal. AW: Not conforming. DF: Not conforming, yeah, there’s something really fun about knocking down barriers. Again, we’re back to that, that old division between certain people. And in that case, it’s, it was a word that was outside or so I’m able to say queer, for instance, even though I’m kind of the boring non queer, but I’m able to use it because you’re a conformist. And I mean, that’s a great example of how this thing was just really successfully removed. That’s what happened with gay too. So when I was younger, to call something gay was definitely derogatory. But not anymore. The success varies with this sort of thing. So in Toronto there’s the slut walk, for instance, which is trying to take the shame this thing.  So back to the N word, the ninja form that which again, has no negative connotations that all of us using all sorts of interesting ways that have nothing to do with even being black. It can be used for animals. Like you can say, like a cat that just jumped. You know, a black person could say that that ninja survived that fall. I can’t believe it! AW: But back to your point, a black person could say that, and no one would think twice about it. But if a white person did everyone’s head would spin. Did that person just say the ninja word or the trigger word? Right? DF: Well, in white English we literally don’t have that ninja word. It’s not there. It’s blocked from entering our language by this other word, right? Because it doesn’t match that when we hear that word we associated with the only where do we have, right? And we only have one N word, they have tons of N-words. And the only one we have in our language, you could almost say isn’t part of their language. Right? There’s zero use for black people. It’s such an awful word. Why would they even have it? So it’s what we call it faux amis. And you remember, in between French and English, it’s a term that comes from English has for so many words in French. The point is that we end up with lots and lots of words that are French in English. English speakers have a particularly false sense of confidence that they understand French, but then you’ll often end up with these faux amis that feels like a false friend. Like black English, black versus white English, it’s like, well, this is English so of course I understand it, and then the association is directly in your head. So Hispanics will often get away with using the N word a lot. And I mean, the most striking examples are rappers who will use the N word and then you look at some of them in the video, and it’s like wow, that guy so white! I’m kind of surprised that he can get away with it. There are examples pf rappers who aren’t black, but you’d never guess. And then others that are Hispanic, but then when you look into them. It turns out both their parents were actually European, Hispanic and then so they’re technically Latinos that are using the N word. But they share the common experience with African Americans of being minorities within the white population. AW: So I want to ask you – I’m really interested in in lists, that hopefully will completely describe a phenomenon. And one of them is motivations for swearing. Is there a list of motivations? So you said, when your dad’s working on the car, I’m guessing that’s either pain or frustration? DF: Yes, yes, it can be more negative, but it can also be positive, an exclamation of excitement over something, or, it’s pure emotion, right? And the reason why it’s good to focus on those is neither of those are necessarily negative in relation to other people. So there’s two really interesting aspects about swear words is that, on the one hand, the most offensive swear words nowadays, the ones that young people just consider just beyond …, all have to do with derogating, especially minorities, right? AW: yes, sexual minorities, racial minorities. Sexism. DF: Right after the N word is the C word for women. So offensive right? So derogative, especially to the ones that are less powerful, let’s say, in society. And so that those terms are so offensive, meaning that people don’t use those words. The words that people do use might be expressing negative meaning, but not necessarily toward somebody. It would be against— that the damn car, the ?   car, or something like that. It’s not mean… My dad loves his car. He said, it’s just, it’s just he’s frustrated with that, and he’s not denigrating the car.  It’s an inanimate object. And then on ?   plus side, you get, you know, get in the ?   car, it just shows that you’re very serious. You’re trying to be really serious. You need to get in the car now. It’s there’s no sense that the car is being derogated. It just it conveys the intensity, or even the person you’re talking to, they’re not being denigrated, either. AW: In simple terms, maybe a kind of one way of categorizing — and this may have been done or it may be way too simple? But there’s, it’s a two-by-two where you have positive and negative, and then you have other directed and not other directed or even self-directed, right? So it’s, it’s like, getting the ?   car is negative, but it’s not really other directed, right, versus the N word, and the C word are negative. And definitely other directed it’s particularly minority directed, right. So it’s like, the extreme corner of that two by two. And that is, that is not cool. DF: And everyday conversation to us, especially nowadays, we’ve created some things that are just completely unacceptable, which is exciting, right? Because it means that the swear words do change a little bit, we can get back to that — but the words that are considered most offensive now are all these words that denigrate and put down especially minority, so people that are persecuted or put upon, powerless, and I find that really encouraging. And then the example of ?   as an intensifier, like get in the fucking car, this is ?   awesome. That is, by far the most common one, use among the young. And like, really, by far. Now, there is this residue, though, of the use of curse, like a curse originates in the religious sense. I mean, part of it is religious, but not always.  This predates Judeo Christian religions. So it’s like, witchcraft upon your head or something like that, whatever, you know, old curse that somebody come up with. It’s like a desire for something bad to happen to somebody that you’re annoyed with. And now you have like, ?   you. Now, in fact, this was actually a fairly recent development that started in the 1900s. But you know, before that it was, you know, ?   , you say, it’s taking somebody — wanting something bad or, or they don’t even have to be there. And, you know, unlike the ?   with him or something like that, and those, those are feelings, negative feelings, that you are pairing with somebody. And it was interesting, because my dad, the reason my dad gave up, swearing is because, you know, in his religious texts, he was talking a lot against cursing. And what I tried to show him is that that’s not the way you have ever used a swear word.  Of all of his swears, he never used it to curse somebody. You know, I mean, people will curse themselves. They’ll say, ?   me. It’s not even towards somebody. And so that’s the reason why that’s so fascinating is because it’s not only slurs, but it’s not even in the more old fashioned sense, you know, ?   be upon you or something, people don’t even do that as much anymore.  But, of course, they do sometimes… And then so there is the research of Timothy Jay. He is just a great person to read on swear words. I really enjoy his work. He did tons of studies, looking at public use of swear words, and he had one big collection – he and a few colleagues  One in ‘86, and then again in ‘97. And then again, 10 years later in 2006. And I believe he’s has a newer one in 2016. So basically, every 10 years. And so he collected, like literally 10s of thousands of public incidents of swearing.  And, first of all, unbelievably, not one of them ever lead to any kind of physical violence or conflict. AW: Unbelievable. DF: Unbelievable. And, and most of them, like, by far, the vast majority I had to do with humor, it’s creating, oh, so even if somebody did say, ?   you, it’s like, you know, that is among friends or something like that. And it’s a moment of levity. And then even in those cases, where it was negative, like somebody saying ?   you. Well, he said, it’s better than physical conflict, because that people exchange a few words, and it was in lieu of an actual conflict that resulted in physical harm, right? I mean, I’m not saying the words can’t cause harm, but his point was that it didn’t result in a serious conflict. There’s a YouTube video going around. And sure you’ve seen it? Where there’s two guys giving each other the finger? Have you seen that one? AW: No. DF:I have to send it to you. It’s like a showdown, people across the street giving each other the finger in silence. It’s like the most intense thing I’ve ever seen. Nothing, nothing happens. It’s a nice example of how it can be a substitute for fighting. Oh, the other reason why I will swear, the other reason why people swear is to draw strength on that part. That’s not rational like that, you know, to call more on your gut-  in that part of your brain that can — fight or flight — risk response creates the extra energy you need to either fight or run away at top speed. And so what’s been found, of course, is that when people swear, in that moment, they will be able to perform better under duress. AW: It fires adrenaline in your system, do you think? DF: yeah. So it gets your blood pumping. Your heart rate is increased, your pupils dilate,  you start to sweat. It’s very raw in that way. And the reason why that’s so interesting is all those physical responses to the swear word like, ?   , that are generated in your body. They’re independent of meaning, or context. So all the things I just described could be in the context of a very aggressive fight with somebody where somebody said, something really cut you off in traffic, and you know, was very rude to you. And so if you swear, all those physical responses that I described, could be in response to something very negative, including leading to a fight or running away from somebody who’s about to shoot you or something. But there’s the same physical response you would have like during sex, something really positive. When someone says, ?   , and what’s interesting is they don’t actually mean sex, right? Like, it’s so fascinating – people almost never, ever use the word ?   , or ?   , for the physical act, or reference that it’s almost never used for that. Yet it activates your bodily responses the same.  Or as you see something that’s just absolutely amazing. You swear, like, ?   or something shocking, happens that’s negative, right? The physical response is the same. AW: So it’s all about context. DF: Okay, what that means is you can’t really take the swear word in ascribe it one interpretation, like, Oh, it’s used as a curse to against God or something like that. It’s not a good interpretation at all. It’s more direct, right out of the limbic system. AW: So question related back to the physical responses. You were talking about them on behalf of the communicator? What about the people around them? DF: Yeah. People underestimate how much language is about that anyhow. Because there’s a great book that I recommend on how language is used, as opposed to how people think it is used, by my colleague at the University of Alberta. And he it’s called, Using Figurative Language. And that he talks about: Why don’t people just say what they mean? And it turns out, people don’t say what they mean. And his examples of that are the huge over-representation of things like metaphor, similes, hyperbole, understatement, irony, sarcasm. This is well-known from the field of pragmatics more generally. Language is not used to communicate information between people. That’s not the main use the language. Language is mainly used to figure out our interpersonal relationships. Where you stand in society relative to other people. Because that’s the other thing. It’s amazing to me. We were talking about the right brain earlier. We don’t actually know what we’re trying to convey. That’s what’s it like, the rational brain is always trying to catch up. AW: So back to profanity, then though, in this context, is profanity like the punctuation? Great. Super. ?   awesome. Awful. It intensifies negatively or positively? DF: It’s very useful that way. Yeah.  But it also has lots of other useful social signaling uses. It’s this whole business about in-group and out-group. There’s some comfort in using a swear word with you, it means that we’re equals. And so for instance, if you put like a working-class person with their boss, the boss is able to swear. But the working-class guy, who actually technically swears more, because he’s working class, wouldn’t swear with the boss, because of the dynamics there.  If the employee swore with the boss and boss would respond, then you’re kind of treating yourself as more equal. Meaning you’ve set up some environment where you’re on the both part of an in-group. This is something that, you know, politicians play with, where they’ll use swear words to try to seem relatable, even though you can tell it’s scripted. Like when Hillary Clinton swears or something like that. AW: Yah.  It feels cringey. Are she and Bill at home swearing? No! They’re trying too hard or something like that. DF: And yet, somebody might appreciate the effort of trying to relate to them. And on top of that, it’s the words you choose, say a whole lot about you too. There are certain swear words that are used by younger people and older people, certain swear words that are used more by males and females. Like, if you say bloody, for instance, that makes you kind of Canadian, or more Brit, then American. You can signal a whole lot about yourself. And so again, it’s not about communicating information. It is about figuring out how we relate to each other.  Once you understand that, that’s actually one of the main points of language, then swearing just makes a whole lot of sense as a tool. AW: I want to leave the listeners with maybe some tips, or just general thoughts about what to think about in the context of, should I swear, or should I not. Are there pros and cons? Are there rules or tips that you can think of, that people should keep in mind? When they are conscious of their language and deciding whether they should swear or not? DF: Definitely. It’s risky. You’re saying a lot about yourself. We talked a little bit earlier about how some people are more likely to swear. And so they’re like extroverts, for instance. And so if you want to inform somebody that you’re an extrovert, you swear. But people also know that it’s more dominant people that swear other than more submissive. Also, I’m sorry to say that it’s people that are more negative, so and particularly men, men that are more neurotic, swear more. And so as always, there’s pros and cons. So even when you you’re using figurative language, like a metaphor, or a simile, or hyperbole or something, there’s a high cost of you being misunderstood, So there has to be some kind of bang for your buck. There’s a reason why people still do like that. You’re revealing a lot about yourself. And also, people that swear are less constrained, they’re disagreeable, you know, like a scale of agreeableness. And so it means that you’re also telling your boss that there’s somebody that’s a little bit non-conformist, that can be harder to get along with,  which is ironic, because the swearing creates a nice social ice-breaking puree. So it’s very risky, and you have to be very socially skilled to know when to swear and when not to swear. That’s the risk. Now, the other thing too, is that there’s a lot of myths associated with swearing. And some of them are true. But some of them are not. AW: So what are the ones that are not true? DF: Well, like, you know, that people swear because they don’t have a large vocabulary. Or that swearing is because they’re called curse words. It’s like you’re cursing God. People that have – if you’re interacting with somebody who has a strong religious background – so swearing is inversely correlated with religiosity. And so if your boss, or you’re the person, you’re interacting with his religious and you swear, ironically, that you’re signaling to them that you’re feeding into some, it’s not actually true that people use curse words. It’s like you’re invoking the devil or cursing people, damning, and so on, you’re talking about a filthy thing, you know, sex and things that you’re not supposed to talk about. It’s not actually true. And yet, people believe that. So they associate that with you, all these myths. I t doesn’t matter if scientists show that it’s actually not true. It’s actually the opposite. People that have the most swears also have the most vocabulary because they are more highly verbal. The scientific facts don’t matter. What matters is the prejudices that people have.  And people aren’t researchers in the industry on swear words. They associate this and so you’re really risking a lot by using it. I wanted to come back to the fact that slurs are now the most offensive, taboo topics, and in terms of categorizing things. We just talked about religious moralistic codes, and then sex and then body functions, fluids, and so on. And slurs as its own category. I think that slurs can also be grouped now into almost a quasi- religious aspect among young people. Because the tabooness of slurs is akin to —I mean, I’ve seen it referred too, somewhat dismissively by some people. There’s a great article by John McWhorter where he’s talking about how PC is now kind of like a religion.  They say a lot of young people aren’t religious anymore, but that’s their kind of religion. It’s really popular among, especially the younger generation. If  somebody is part of this minority, what really gives them the right to say use this word as opposed to somebody else. So it’s very hard to track. I mean, the way language is used in a social context is just, it’s like, why would you take the risk to do that? Or say that? but there must be an incredible bang for your buck. And that’s why swearing will never disappear. It’ll always be around. And the same words have been around for forever. AW: Really?  They’re always the same? DF: The top 10 words, just they don’t seem to change much at all. It was ?   ?   ?   ?   ?   ?   ?   ?   ?   ?    And those were the ones that were the most rigorous. And so he was specifically excluding some of the slurs. But even bitch does survive in there. Yeah. And that’s a slur. And it really hasn’t been changed over time except when people have managed to give it a new life like gay, or, you know, the N word. Part of my research is — due to the fact that I work with rap music. And in my rap linguistics course I have students look at different swear words and taboo words. And words like ?   continue to be used just really, like overwhelming negatively. Yeah, in lyrics, whereas other terms, you can see people are turning them around and using them or positively. Another term in that list is sucks, right? Which is it has all the right sounds. It’s like an age thing. Like sucks,  I think it’s dropped out now or you can say that succeed at the highest level political meaning. So I think that’s one that’s changed, but ?   ?   alone were like one third to one half of all their data. AW: Right. So, George Carlin’s list of seven words you can’t say on TV – ?   and ?   are both on the list. And apparently, he was challenged about that. And he took it, he took ?   off the list for a while and then he put it back on. And he has this whole riff about why it belongs on the list. And it’s back, probably back to what you’re saying about the word ?   is all these things ?   is about incest. Right? DF: So yeah. But again, it’s now used affectionately all the time. You know, like I was saying earlier, this is like a ?   . You know, it’s just, it’s used as an intensifier, and, I mean, these terms, ?   , they’re used in so many exciting ways. Even like how you can say, I know ?   , meaning, I know stuff, but then they tell somebody, you know, he knows ?   . Like, it means he doesn’t know anything, right? And so the where you put the emphasis, the accent can change anything completely in. In fact, this is very similar, where we tend to put less accents on verb. So ?   is technically a verb. So, you know, but if you if you add a preposition after it, like, up or off or something, then you can put more emphasis on the verb. So this is something that Byron and has documented. So when you say, like, ?   off, you can, you can actually have emphasis on the verb in that case, whereas if you say, you know, john ?   Mary there’s no actual stress on the verb that’s accent, there’s a bit of stress, but there’s no accent. So john ?   Mary, we tend to put them on the nouns. Right? And so what you’ll find is people will turn into a noun to so they can now have that accent again, like, what the ?   by changing it now has that accent that normally wouldn’t have. And, and so what, the way people play around with these words, this is really something to behold. And it’s, it’s fascinating. There’s, they play with the both of the grammar. So something like, you know, if I can cause kind of inversion, or, you know, ?   , that was wonderful or ?   is it sunny or something like that, it will create different constructions. And then people will use those words in context that are often poetic, that just replace those expressions, like an expression that’s kind of poetic. Like, I kid you not. And so that you can use so I ?   you not. And it’s the basis of the vowels matching. And then, when you say, you know, shut the ?   up, you know, like, you see how all of those have the same vowels? Like Shut the ?   up? And then people will play with not just the grammar, but the poetry. And so they’re asking us on the one hand, which is what brings people those words together, and people find that pleasing. AW: I am definitely going to be listening to swears differently, I think– to be honest– I used to listen from a perspective of negative judgment, right? So you have no self-control, or you’re not educated. Now I’m going to be listening with a much more open mind because you’re talking about using profanity as punctuation. The other thing that I’m getting from this, that I had never thought of before is, I love your, I share your optimism now that we’ve come to a point in our culture where the most profane words are denigrating minorities. I love that too. Okay, I’m going to fire my five rapid fire questions at you.Question number one. What are your pet peeves? DF:I think dishonesty.  Somebody who’s not being truthful. AW: okay. DF: Because I just don’t know where I stand. AW: Second question is, and this is an interesting one for someone who’s a linguist. What type of learner are you? visual, auditory, kinesthetic, or something else? DF: Right, right. This whole categorization, it has been pooh-poohed a little bit in the research recently, but I don’t agree. I’ve looked over the research and I found that there’s really something to it, that just because people have said, all the learners don’t really fall into visual, auditory or etc. anymore. It just means they found maybe better categories. Unfortunately, some of the best research in this area seems to have gotten rid of the category I fit in most – is auditory.  I’m a very auditory person. I listen to audiobooks, and I’m an avid user of Siri, you can get her to read you the article or the news. And she’s, she’s amazing. You just say, you know, hey, “her name” because my phone will go off. Speak Screen, or, and then she’ll just read the whole thing to me. And I also use texting a lot, which has a text to speech software. AW: I would have guessed you’re an auditory learner. I think most people who are drawn to language probably are next question. Introvert or extrovert? You already answered? DF: Yeah. Extrovert. Yeah. AW: Number four, communication preference for personal conversations. DF: face to face. It takes me too long to craft a text. And so even if it is with electronics, it has to be FaceTime. I really need to see people. And in fact, that’s the way you connect.  I can’t – I hate preparing tons of written feedback on something. I prefer to just meet face-to-face with a student or something. There’s so many ways of being misinterpreted. When you write, whether to choose to write WTF or not for something you could you know, you don’t really know the person until you’re kind of in front of them. And then they can misunderstand your intention.  There are so many ways in which things can go wrong in writing.  It’s just  missing all that information like what I was talking about ,you know, the difference between you know ?   versus you know, ?   . AW: right, DF: It’s just, it’s missing some of it.  And I think it’s really important that we don’t lose that in this fascinating research on language-learning, showing that people learn a second language. This happens with new immigrants to Canada or the States where they can’t get it just from TV or radio or whatever. They have to be interacting with a physical English person. It seems like everything is there in the electronic medium, but it’s not good enough, right? Physical body presence of the person in front of you to learn the language. AW: Last question. Is there a podcast or blog or an email newsletter that you find yourself recommending the most to your friends and family? DF: Very broadly, I’m a huge fan of YouTube, which includes podcasts. I just I love the long form format. People will have these two 24 hour interviews and I adore them. They’re just great. Anything. For instance, that’s where I came across Iain McGilchrist precisely because I didn’t have an audio version of his book, The Master and His Emissary, but you get a sense of the author through interviews. And then from there, you you might pick up the book and so on. But a blog I should mention, because of our focus on swear words, is called strong language. That’s a really great blog on swear words. Content warning there, of course, but I really recommend that one. AW: Okay. Can I ask you one other question? I promise you this is the last question I’m going to ask you. Did you have rules in your house when your kids were younger about swearing, and if you were going to do it all over again today, and you had you know, toddlers that were learning to speak? Were swear words against the rules in your house, I’m just curious? DF: They arose with us is very early. My kids mispronounced words and things like truck would come out, or frog would come out, or something like that. Yeah. And trick would come on this ship, I don’t know. They’re like, and we would laugh or, you know, get them to repeat it over and over again. And so what they did was even from a young age, they develop as an association that when I say this word, it seems to have this power to make everybody go (…) or laugh or whatever. And so they, they, I think they picked up those words. And then, but they didn’t use them very much. I mean, it really depends on their personality, right. So my two oldest ones are somewhat introverted, and, but it’ll show up under, like, when they’re getting their flu shot or something, you know, my daughter will say ?   , you know, just like of pain. And, I have a seven year old. You know, when he said, ?   , couple of times, we were trying to create a sense of — it’s kind of a hard balance, because  we don’t want him to use that word, because other people will judge him. And in our case, because my youngest daughter is autistic, I think we’re a little bit more sensitive, because we don’t want to her to be in a situation to use a swear word. That’s not socially appropriate. And she can’t quite figure that out. So we try to avoid swearing around her in particular, because we just don’t want her to have to try to figure out when I can use it or not use it. Yeah, it’s a tricky question. Because the more you repress it and stomp on it, the worst words, the more power you give the words. AW: Right DF: That’s literally how swear words are created. Swear words are learned as these really magical, powerful words. And as a kid, and then somebody in life later on tells you that they actually don’t have all that power. That it’s just a word. As a whole, society considers them to be quite powerful words, even though there’s nothing intrinsic to them. They’re just sounds coming out of your mouth, right? AW: That’s it. So thank you so, so much for your time and sharing your expertise.   I’d love to hear from you. Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com   The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!: https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup   TALK soon!       ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #23(S2) explicit – PROFANITY: TALKING TABOO with linguistics professor Darin Flynn appeared first on Talk About Talk.

Yes, you can learn to be funny! Do you appreciate humour? Do you ever imagine what it’s like to be on the stand-up comedy stage? Listen as stand-up comedian Hillary Anger Elfenbein (also a fully tenured business school professor) shares her insights on learning comedy, and compares that experience to her experience teaching in the business school classroom.   References & Links Hillary Anger Elfenbein Washington University faculty page – http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/faculty/elfenbeinh/ 6 minutes of stand-up on YouTube (** note explicit content) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTgRecXW5S4 Recommendations: Travis Bradbury’s Emotional Intelligence – https://www.talentsmart.com/ “Here We Are” podcast with Shane Mauss (Hillary is interviewed in this episode – https://www.herewearepodcast.com/episode/16/hillary-anger-elfenbein   Comedy Resources & References Books: “Mastering Stand-Up” – https://amzn.to/2No4BOo “Don’t Wear Shorts on Stage” – https://amzn.to/2JehoO7 “Do You Talk Funny?” – https://amzn.to/2Jbis5m Gloria Vanderbilt & Anderson Cooper laughing together: https://www.insideedition.com/gloria-vanderbilt-giggles-anderson-cooper-hospital-bed-death-53739 How to be funny: https://www.wikihow.com/Be-Funny https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/what-s-so-funny/201411/eight-steps-becoming-funnier-person https://www.scienceofpeople.com/how-to-be-funny/ Benefits of laughter: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress-relief/art-20044456 https://www.gaiam.com/blogs/discover/7-health-benefits-of-laughter Nervous laughter – Stanley Milgram Experiments – https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html   Talk About Talk Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com TALKING TO YOUR DOCTOR podcast episode with Dr. Tepper – https://talkabouttalk.com/20s2-talking-to-your-doctor-with-north-york-general-hospital-ceo-dr-joshua-tepper/ COACHING podcast episode with Elite founder Stephanie Rudnick – https://talkabouttalk.com/8-coaching-with-elite-camps-founder-stephanie-rudnick/     Interview Transcript Professor Hillary Anger Elfenbein: Thank you so much for getting me to sit down. I’ve been like so scattered all semester. And that was really a delight to just have this on my calendar. Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: I think the listeners and I would love to hear, because I did not see this on your radar when I knew you. I think of you now as the student that always had a smile on her face. So I’m not surprised…. Oh, there we go. There’s the smile. (laughing). I’m not surprised that you’re a stand-up. But you know,  I wouldn’t have seen it coming. So my first question is, when and how did you start doing stand-up? HAE: you know, I didn’t see it coming either. I don’t think growing up I ever thought of myself as particularly funny. And what happened was that I fell in love with the classroom, and then being in front of the room. And I really think of myself as a natural introvert. I felt like I was introverted throughout elementary school. I was definitely the person who didn’t really understand what a party was. Isn’t it just the same people who already see each other, but now they’re in a room? I don’t get it. Right? What’s special about that? And it wasn’t until I started teaching that I started to really come out of that shell more. And, students would laugh a lot and tell me I was funny. And it really was one of these reflected self-moments, where it took other people to reflect that part of me, for me to actually realize it was there. I had it maybe in a little bit in the back of my mind. But never thought I would pursue it until I had this little bit of a …midlife… I don’t want to use the word “crisis,” because crisis makes it sound bad. But I would say a “midlife inflection.” So when I turned 44, I realized that 44 is not for most people a really big inflection point. But for me, so many people in my family… my mother was at the time ailing. And she passed away a year later. And she was in her late 70s. And my great uncle who I was helping to care for, he was actually getting close to 100. But he had had Alzheimer’s since he was 88. So maybe I’m making a short story too long. But there was something about that number 44 that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s when he was about 88. And I thought, you know what, this is my halfway point. AW: Wow HAE: …in a scary way, but in a really loving way. I thought, Okay, I have as much as I’ve had, I have that much more. AW: So when some people reach that midlife moment or realization, they go off and buy crazy things, or they have an affair. But Hillary turns to stand-up! HAE: There was something else that happened at the same time to which was that I got an endowed chair, which as you know, in academia is it’s the highest promotion, the University offered AW: Congratulations! I’m so proud of you. I’m so happy for you. HAE: When you get an endowed chair, they throw you a party. So they invite – your whole family’s invited, and the top brass of the university come, and you get a half an hour talk.  And I treated this like my first half hour comedy special. AW: Oh, good for you. HAE: I scripted it down to the syllable and made sure that it was perfect. I mean, it was it was really one of the best days of my life. It was one of those performances. I wish I could do it again. It was it really worked. But it was it was really down to the syllable. I was trying to just take the work that I do and, bring it out for people in a way where they could feel why it was fun to me. But at some level, it’s still there’s something very symbolic about it being the highest promotion, the last promotion. And so then the question is now what? Now what and so, where’s so I’m at my halfway point. I’ve got I’ve got no promotions left in my job. And then the question is now what? and it got me thinking… AW: I love how you are one of those people that just follows your passion. HAE: You have to, and this is actually why I don’t teach undergrads here in the business school. And part of it is that I don’t understand how you can be so boring, so young. I don’t relate to them. AW: Says the physics, Sanskrit, OB, business and stand-up comedian, right? The Renaissance woman. HAE: And I have a master of statistics. AW: of course, of course you do. J So the first time you did it, you were, you said, highly scripted – right down to the syllable. And how has that evolved? Like, tell us, you know, what the journeys been like? And what have you done since then? In terms of stand-up? HAE: The first time I tried it was just under three years ago. AW: Okay. HAE: It’s funny, I was just thinking about how far I’ve come at something. My first set was basically a disaster. When I got up to do it, I made the mistake I used to, I used to take a drink. I’d have a drink for my nerves before performing.  Actually I stopped drinking, AW: How long has it been since you had a drink? HAE: So as of a few days ago, it was two and a half years. AW: Really? HAE: Yeah. You know what it was? And it’s actually and I don’t mind if any of this makes it into the conversation. It was it was the day Trump got elected. So I’ll always remember that date, it was November 8, 2016. And I just felt like if I were to drink during the Trump administration, and I wouldn’t know when to stop. AW: That’s definitely going to stay. That is funny. HAE: So I used to take a drink. I’d have a drink for my nerves before performing. I will never do that, again. Because I was just really flustered, you know, and the place where I did my first open mic, what is this is this really loud bar where two thirds of the people are facing the other direction. AW:  So I have a question about that. Do you — knowing that two thirds of the people aren’t even listening — do you actively try to seek their attention? Or do you just ignore them and talk to the people that are listening? HAE: Well, in this particular case, they’re facing away from you. So there is nothing, there’s nothing I could do, in that particular bar. But to your point, though, the other people who are facing in the correct direction, I think if I can make eye contact with anybody I try would try to seduce them into viewing the set. But I don’t think as a beginner – I didn’t know how to do that. I didn’t know how to how to win the crowd over the way that I feel now. Like, I feel now I have just more confidence. I don’t know how much more skill I have. But I’m more comfortable taking whatever skill I do have. And pushing the audience to try to be part of what I’m doing. If that makes any sense. AW: It makes a lot of sense. Your learning curve is probably more advanced than most stand-up comedians, because of your experience in teaching. HAE: I agree with that. I think it’s different. There’s something transferable about working with an audience. But then there’s some things that aren’t transferable, like some bad habits you get from being in front of the classroom. Like, I own the room in class, right? AW: There’s a power dynamic. You’re grading them! HAE: Yeah, I’m grading them. And I get to make the rules, right? The rules of the room. No devices, you know, laptops, no phones, you know, who speaks. It’s like conducting an orchestra. You get to point at which hands get to speak. So you had this huge power differential. AW: You have a power differential, but you also have credibility, right? HAE:  that actually gives you some bad habits. Because in stand-up, you’ve got basically 10 seconds to build credibility, they owe you nothing. AW: Right. they’ve paid to be there probably. HAE: Yeah, they feel like you’re there to serve them. AW: You’re not there to judge them. Right. They’re there to judge you. HAE: So the way I handle hecklers in class and in comedy are very different from class. And it speaks to this difference in power that you have. What I do in classes, I very delicately say, “let’s talk during the next break”. And I say it so sweetly and softly AW: love it! HAE: …that it’s really clear to everyone else. I’m not giving into this person. But that we’re going to take this offline. It’s hard because you don’t, you’re actually not even trying to win that person over. You’re trying to win the everyone else. It’s how you respond. Because that person you assume they’re all they’re a goner. But now in comedy, I’m really lucky that I haven’t been heckled. Because St. Louis is so polite! There’s, there’s really almost no heckling. AW: You need to go to New York. HAE: I know. I know. So I’m from New York. I’m from Brooklyn. I’ll go back, I know I will. I need to handle the Midwestern nice that I’ve grown accustomed to over the past 14 years. AW: So my brain is exploding here with questions. So how would you handle that? Would you just throw it out there? “I grew up in Brooklyn. I know you guys are hecklers. I know you’re nasty. I know you’re aggressive. I’ve been doing stand-up in St. Louis, where everyone’s really sweet. Just bring it on. Do you do that? What would you do? HAE: Well, I think my, my comedy style… I get introduced as “the sweetheart of St. Louis comedy” – a sweetheart. And I got told afterwards by a few of the people who were there that you have this really sweet delicate style that makes your heart edge completely unexpected. AW: Oh, awesome. I love that. HAE: I think people don’t want to heckle the person who’s being so kind. I actually have really dirty sets. They’re really dirty. A lot of explicit stuff, a lot of body parts, very  explicit. I talk a lot about what happens to women in the workplace, what happens to women relating to motherhood, relating to the pressure to look younger and these kinds of pressures and, stresses that women go through. And almost all of my comedy has been under this broad theme that I call “——-“ that women have to deal with.” AW: Oh, I love that. I was going to ask you what your best joke is, but it sounds like you have a whole riff about how it sucks to be a woman and what we should do about it? HAE: Yeah, well, what we should do about it, for sure. Some of what I perform about is trying to put for myself a pleasant or, you know, a happy ending on things that are very stressful in real life.  I have a new set that I’ve been performing about teacher ratings. And the things that people write in their teacher ratings. What women get, and men don’t get. And at one point, I say in the set, “you know, I envy the men, I really envy the men for their topic-relevant feedback.” It was so cathartic saying that. And I you know; I don’t know how funny that is to somebody outside of that experience. But I think for someone inside that experience, the idea that, that you would envy men for having professional-developmental feedback actually being developmental,.. AW: and professional! HAE: …and professional. AW: I got two pieces of advice when I was first teaching at the university. One was if you want to do well, in your teacher ratings, make sure all the students think they’re going into the final exam with an “A.” Have you heard that? I didn’t believe it. And the first time I taught it didn’t go so well. The second time I taught, I took that into consideration. I got a teaching award. (laughter) It is my understanding – is that self-deprecation, personal, and taboo topics are typically sort of the low hanging fruit. Do you agree? HAE: I do. Well, I think some of it is easy. It can be hackneyed. So things like, you know, taboo, breaking taboos, just for the sake of it, I think, you know, you can see through that. But what I love other people doing and what I love to do myself are the are the truly personal pieces, like really digging in there and getting to the core. What’s painful, right? And you can see when stand-up is better than therapy, right? Working through your pain, by being able to reframe it and laugh at it. AW: I would love to see you. Are there any videos on YouTube of you doing stand-up? HAE: Well, I keep getting told to take them down. Before I got started doing this, I was a little bit worried about it, because I thought, you know, here I am about to identify myself – and I do identify myself as a professor at Wash U during the set, because part of how I start is by introducing myself as a psychologist. And that as that one of the interesting things about being a psychologist is that it professionally qualifies me to notice a lot of “——-“. AW: That’s awesome. HAE: So I identify myself, my place of work. And I first before I started out, I actually asked the provost, I asked him whether he thought it was okay for me to be doing this. And he said very professionally, that, you know, he stands by freedom of speech for academics and, and all this, but I don’t I don’t think he realized that the time that I was going to be in public talking about my “——-“ AW: You didn’t give him an example? So for example, if I said this, or if I said that, would that be okay, you didn’t do that? HAE: yeah, I should have. I should have given him a list of what if I talk about. I’ve been doing this around town, and for a while, the only people who knew were just my Facebook friends. But then at some point, it got to be known in the school in a way where current students knew, and current students had sometimes seen pieces on YouTube and distributed them. And that’s actually when I took it down. It’s different if someone comes and sees me in person, but … I had a performance a few months ago, where a whole group of my current students had found out —  I have no idea how they found out when and where it was, but they were all there. AW: Oh, wow, that must have been bizarre. HAE: It was really the two worlds colliding. Yeah. But it’s one of the things that’s been really fun about stand-up is that it’s gotten me out of my bubble. Most of the people I know here are academics, right? They’re academics or they’re my kids’ friends’ parents, right? These are the two ways that I know people, right? And so I’m in a bit of a bubble. And, and now all of a sudden, I have this other life where my best friends in comedy are these 20 something year old hipsters. AW: Amazing. HAE: I feel like they’re mentoring me. So some of my closest friends in comedy are people who, you know, they’re mail carriers. They work at Pizza shops; they do all kinds of things. They’re in college. They’re just, they’re just doing everything. AW: You know what it is about you Hillary, you have an incredible growth mentality. You’re talking about learning something from 20 something year old postal carriers, right? And you mean it? So who are your favorite comedians? HAE: My very, very favorite comedian is Amy Schumer. And when I first started — that was before she became a mom. And I used to say that, that I didn’t like to box myself into a particular style. But if I had to say one, that it would be if Amy Schumer had kids. Now she does have kids. So that’s exciting for me, too. I would say the people, we don’t necessarily think of as comedians, but people we think of as quote unquote “humorists,” which I’m not sure exactly what the difference is, but my biggest inspiration of all, is David Sedaris. I’ve seen him read his work a few times, he’s come through St. Louis, and I had the chance to get an autograph, and it was like this hero worship moment. AW: So how do you prepare? you’ve gone from, as you said, preparing literally every syllable to – how does it look now? HAE: Well, I’ve probably written about 10 different pieces that have worked. The way I start writing is that I think about something that I’ve told people that they’ve laughed at. Like with the teacher evaluations that I used to joke about, about my friends. Actually, I have a good friend who used to get comments on her teacher evaluations about her “——-” right? AW: On her teaching evaluation? HAE: Definitely. Did somebody ever do that to you? AW: I got the this — And this is going to be edited out. I got the “Andrea is the biggest “——-“in the university. Good thing, she has a nice “——-“.” HAE:  Oh my gosh, we don’t edit that out. People need to hear. That’s just, that’s that this is what we go through. Right? I mean, I have to say and don’t edit this or edit out if you feel like it. But um, but back on the record that um, you know, when I when I was growing up, I just assumed I was in the free to be you and me. Gloria Steinem. Ms. magazine generation. Where I just assumed that all of these things barriers had been broken through for us. Yeah, I thought the glass ceiling was over. No. And that we were going to be able to benefit from all these heroes that had come before us and paved the way for us. And I was unprepared. AW: I was too. Back to the how you prepare. Say, a week from today, you’re going to be on stage. What do you do? HAE: I do – actually, I script it out to the syllable still. Doing that allows me freedom, ironically. And I tell this to I tell this to students who are starting to teach for the first time, starting to do presentations for the first time, that the more you practice something the more you get it down, then then the more than the more extemporaneous you ironically get to be. AW: Yeah, I understand that even from podcasting, because I will write out a script and I used to read the script. And now I look at the script. It’s like, it’s a crutch, but it’s actually helped me prepare, HAE: yeah. It’s how it helps to prepare and, and then then because you’re prepared, you don’t need it. You don’t need to read word by word, but you understand the pathway. You know, for me, because almost all of my stand-up has been feminist humor. I have so primarily one transition, which is, “okay, other “——-“about being a woman”… AW:  nice. HAE: Something that’s been scary for me in this comedy topic has been: where do I want to go with it? What’s scary about it is that I think, if you really want to do this for a living, you have to work very, very hard at it. And it looks so effortless. And when you see comedians on TV, they just look like they just show up and talk for a few minutes. And you talk for half an hour. How hard could this be? And it looks easy. When you watch people who are the very best in the world at it, right? But I think the best stand-up comedians, they’re constantly trying things 100 different ways. They’re playing, they’re playing the same joke. And writing down every inflection that makes it go over better versus worse. And I’ve been actually a little bit scared about, you know, do I really want to do this to that level and invest like that? And, I don’t know. I actually don’t know the answer. But one thing I do know, though, is that as a profession, I already have my dream job. So I think that’s what holds me back a bit in comedy. Because there are these 20 something hipsters, right? This is what they want. And they live for those moments that they’re on stage. They’re investing in it. Yeah, in a way that, you know, first, I don’t have the time. I’m a mother of two and I have a full-time job. That’s kind of a full-time plus type of job. But there’s also something I guess that holds me back. And I’m not sure how to articulate it. But I think part of it is when I read books about the career-side of stand-up… AW: Can you tell me what those books are? HAE: Sure. one of them is called “Mastering Stand-Up.” And the other is called “Don’t wear shorts on stage.” AW: Okay, I’m going to put links to those in the show notes. HAE: And one thing that I found really hilarious in these books was how practical they were. So they talked about things like how to save money when you’re touring on the road. So they talked about going to the grocery store versus eating fast food when you’re touring on the road,  and where you’re going to stay when you’re touring, who you’re going to be staying with. AW: What are some of the things that are, I guess, common knowledge amongst comedians, the do’s and the don’ts. So, for example, self-deprecation is a do but putting down a minority, probably is a don’t? HAE: Yeah, nobody does that anymore. Right? Nobody makes I mean, that the amount of openly sexist jokes are fewer. You don’t hear rape jokes anymore. You just don’t hear them. One time, I was one of the only two women in a program. And somebody said introduced me as “bringing more estrogen into the room.” AW: Wow. HAE: But you know, it’s interesting. Members of minority groups make fun of their own group. AW: Right. So it’s like self-deprecation. So you said, you know, you’re mentoring new professors when they’re teaching in the classroom? If you were mentoring a beginner stand-up comedian, what are some of the things that you would share with them? HAE: Interesting. Um, I would say first – to practice. I think the same thing I say to the new professors. Case teaching, the kind of teaching we do, where we go through case studies is very much like improv. Whereas giving a presentation of like these 15 minute presentations at conferences, of your research projects, that’s probably the closest to stand-up. I give the same advice of practice in front of the mirror, practice standing up and holding a cucumber as your microphone.  I actually stand holding my hand up in the air, just to really mimic, and to try to practice as many times as you can. And time yourself and record yourself. And this is this is advice that everyone gives. Record yourself and listen to it. That’s how you know the difference between people who are working hard and people who aren’t working hard, is if you record yourself and listen to it.  I’ve taken the recording I’ve made and watched it, listened to it and typed out transcript of it, and made notes about where people laughed. And that’s how, you know, you’re a hard-working comedian.  I think I actually despaired a little bit after reading these books and realizing that, you know, if I were to really succeed at this succeed wildly at this, my life would be actually tangibly worse than it is right now. Very successful people are on the road, 30 weeks a year, and they go to they go to places like Boise, Idaho. And they perform Thursday, two times, Friday, two times, Saturday, and then they drive home? Well, and so my upside is actually very limited right now by the weird fluke of already having my other dream job. AW: When people learn – who are in other spheres of your life, be it you know, other academics and or your kids’ friends’ parents – do they treat you differently? When they find out that you do stand-up? Do they suddenly expect you to be funny? HAE: Oh, that’s so interesting. Well, I do think that when people find out there’s a certain amount of street cred. I do feel like people think that’s a cool hobby. Right? I feel bad to say it, but it impresses people. And I kind of feel a little bit ambivalent about that. Because I wonder sometimes, should I be more like, is it immodest of me to go around telling people that I do this thing that has this kind of cachet to it? Sometimes people will say, oh, tell me a joke, then what I’ll have to say is, “it kind of has to be somewhere dark where people are drinking. And, it has to be dirty stuff.” I’ll warn people that it’s dirty stuff. It depends on who’s asking. People are like Whoa.  I invited someone once who then invited a lot of other people, including the former dean of the business school. And he brought his wife. AW: Oh, geez. HAE: And then they brought a big donor to the university, who’s got to be in his 90s or thereabouts. And, his son was there to help him with his walking. And I just thought, I just thought Oh, no, I hope they realized that this is dirty stuff. AW: Do you ever adjust your content when you’re on the fly? HAE: You know, I think some people are better at that than I am. I’m modular, so I could do a completely different set, but I don’t think I can make adjustments to my sets very well. Because I practice them too much to be spontaneous. And I know that’s a beginners flaw that I need to work on. But it’s not it’s not a place where I’ve gotten to yet where I can really adjust on the fly – the way in teaching, I can. In teaching I totally can. I do have certain jokes that I don’t do if they’re not with me. You know, there’s certain things you can pull off if the audience is with you. But if the audience isn’t with you, then then you have to be more subtle and you can’t really joke around with people who aren’t on your side. AW: Well, that’s generally good advice. I think, even outside of the realm of stand-up. Do you have advice for people who want to be funnier? HAE: Well, people who want to be funnier… What I try to do is I think about times when people did laugh at things I’ve said, and then I try to build content around that. AW: So here’s another question. What are the differences between telling one person a joke or making one person laugh, versus making a room laugh? HAE: Interesting. I think that with one-on-one, I’m really laser-focused on the other person, trying to just be one with them. When it’s a whole room, I assume that I have nothing in common with anybody there. I have to assume that I have to start from scratch. And this was something my one of my mentors early on, told me that (actually, and this is that the mailman I was mentioning before), he I was telling him that there were things I wanted to talk about, but I just didn’t think they would be relatable. And he said “no, don’t be relatable”. He said, “Don’t do what you think other people can relate to.” Because it’s a it was a bar full of 20 something year olds, and I kind of wanted to talk about motherhood, but I didn’t think anyone would relate since no one else in that room was a mom. And he said “no, you don’t understand. Don’t try to start out relatable. Try to bring them into your world.” It was mind blowing advice. Because then I started talking about all kinds of things. I don’t just say “course evaluations.” I point out that, you know, the end of the semester, I get these teaching evaluations … Even just little things –  so that if anybody hasn’t been to college, they wouldn’t know offhand what you’re even talking about. You have to add a little phrase for context. I tried to make the context even funny. So when I talk about the course evaluations, I say, you know, at the end of the semester, I get these teaching evaluations. And then I add, “and this is supposed to be my professionally-developmental feedback.” Yeah. Well, you know, so actually, and this can be on the record. So um, I really was on the defensive, the first time I taught. So I had gone and done the MBA program at Harvard, where the students really were out at bars late at night talking about how to get their female professors to cry. Yeah, they really were. So there’s none of this paranoia like, wow, I wonder if they’re trying to make me cry. No, they were. They were. Yeah, they were out at bars talking about it. And so I was really on the defensive when I first got to to Berkeley as a professor and thought, all right, I’m not going to let these mother “——-“make me cry. And they were actually very, very nice people. AW: So do you tell that story when you’re on stage? HAE: No. AW: you should! That’s funny! HAE: Well, I’ve mentioned a little bit, the part of how I got myself out of that problem, though, which was that when I first started, so I did go on the defensive. So I mentioned in the routine that the problem with being a woman in the MBA classroom, is that “they either want to “——-“you don’t even want to “——-“you. Which is worse?” So I went on the defensive though, because I thought you know, I’m not going to let these mother “——-“bring me down. And then I was pregnant, and I was — right before the semester began — I popped out. I was showing when the semester started, and I thought, oh, they’re going to smell weakness, it’s like sharks smelling blood. But it turned out to be the opposite. They were very, they really treated me like, like I was their aunt.  You know, like, their older sisters. And there was none of that. Like, did they want “——-“you dynamic? Because you’re pregnant. I actually go into this in the routine, like, whom do you never want to “——-“? They either want you or they don’t want you — and which one is worse? That who do you never want? Well, you don’t want somebody who, you don’t want your mom. AW: So you swear, like a “——-“on stage? Do you swear in the classroom? HAE: Never No. I don’t feel like it’s appropriate. I feel like it’s a line for me. I’m not sure why. But on stage on stage, man, it’s all bets are off. AW: Fascinating. So is this cathartic? Is that the word for you – being on stage – cathartic? HAE: Very, very much. Yeah. It’s like floating in air. It’s weird. Like, the only way I can perform is if I’m in flow. Like if I even overthink it, if I think for one moment about anything, it’s all over. It has to be like this. It’s like an out of body experience. AW: Wow. HAE: Yeah. Part of why I like to practice so much is that I hate the timing lights. So when you’re performing, they give you a light when you have one minute left, and then they give you a light when you’re supposed to be done by now. And I really don’t like paying attention to the lights because there’s nothing I can really do about it. It’s not like I can change up anything. I mean, I can’t really go faster, I guess. So I try to practice in advance, rehearse in advance so that I’m going to be within time, and I can ignore these outside stimuli. AW: Brilliant. HAE: So one of the hardest things I learned actually was how to let people laugh, believe it or not, because I would just keep going. You know, so I would just be talking over them laughing. And it actually took reading this book, this “mastering stand-up” comedy book, where they talk about how laughter, first it rises and then it falls. And you want to wait until you’re past that crest. You can’t wait until all the laughter is gone. Because then you’re in dead space, then you have you have silence for a moment. But you want to wait until the laughter is on its way down. So it’s a little bit hard to know exactly where that moment is. But I was talking over people who were trying to laugh. And so I’ve had to time it in a different kind of way. I know that seems weird. That’s one of the rookie mistakes. AW: I have heard that comedy is all about timing. Do you agree? HAE: Yeah. I don’t think I have the best comedic timing of working on it. Work in progress. AW: Pregnant pause. (haha) I’m going to move on now to the five rapid fire questions that I ask every guest. HAE: okay. AW: First question, what are your pet peeves? HAE: This is going to sound horrible but ending a sentence with a preposition. And splitting an infinitive. I can’t help it. I can’t help it. I became a grammar snob later in life. So I’m one of the converts. You know, converts are always the worst, it wasn’t until college that I really learned grammar. And then I just can’t help it. Every now and then I add something to the end of a sentence just so that the preposition wasn’t what it ended with. See, I just did it. I ended a sentence with a preposition. AW:  second question, what type of learner are you? HAE: Definitely visual. So in class, for example, I have people sit in the same place every time. Because I’ll remember what they said throughout the whole semester, but I won’t remember always who said it, but I’ll remember what seat it came from? What direction it came from? AW: Does that affect you when you’re doing stand-up? Being visual? HAE: When I’m doing stand-up. I’m trying to make eye contact with people. I’m trying to, or trying to at least to seem like I am. It’s dangerous. Because if you actually make eye contact with somebody who isn’t into it, you’re worse off than if you just seem to be looking out at the at the audience. AW: Yeah, I can imagine. Okay, question number three, introvert or extrovert? HAE: This is an interesting one. So I grew up an introvert, but I became an extrovert. I’m not sure exactly when it happened. I still have a sense of myself as an introvert. And every now and then people correct me. Because I do go to this conference that we go to every year, right? Academy of Management. And it’s 10,000 people. And I actually look forward to it. AW: Wow. So I know that you’re outgoing, and you’re confident now. Maybe it’s that your confidence has increased? But where do you get your energy from? Is it from being alone and writing and researching, or is it from being at those conferences with 10,000 people? HAE: being alone. AW: You’re an introvert. HAE: I’m an introvert. AW: Okay, question number four. What’s your communication preference for personal conversations? HAE: This is going to sound weird, but I’m really old fashioned. And I like a good phone call every now and then. I’m realistically on a more day-to-day basis, I tend to use Facebook Messenger actually, of all things. I don’t use regular text messages. Because real texts are bit too immediate. Right? They show up on your lock screen and you have to answer them. So I grew up at a time when people just talked on the phone all the time. I don’t even know what we were saying. But this was before call waiting. And my mother actually got me my own phone line with my own separate phone number because she was tired of missing calls. AW: That’s hilarious. That’s funny. I forgot about call waiting. We thought that was so modern. HAE: It’s funny, but we instead of waiting, when I was in high school, you could tell the operator that you needed an emergency interruption to someone else’s call, and we used to do that. If my boyfriend’s sister was on the phone too long with her boyfriend, then I would do an emergency interruption. AW: Hello, operator. This is a teen emergency, a teen telephone emergency. You need to make an interruption on this phone call. Nice. Okay, last question. Is there a podcast or a blog or an email newsletter that you find yourself recommending the most? HAE: So on email, I really like Travis Bradbury’s Emotional Intelligence blogs, and he has an email that that links you to his blogs on LinkedIn. And then as for podcasts, there’s a comedian named Shane Mauss and he has a podcast called “Here we are.” Okay. And I was on it was so of course I liked it. AW: Oh, I’m going to go listen to that one. HAE: It was really fun know you, you will enjoy it. He’s a professional comedian, he tours, he does all kinds of great work. AW: As always, we’ll put links to those in the shownotes so people can check them out as well. So thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it so much. HAE: This was a lot of fun. So thank you. Thank you for giving me this wonderful morning. It’s been a pleasure. AW: Yeah, really a pleasure. It was great to reconnect, and I have to say congratulations on everything– on the chair, the endowed chair, and on being a stand-up comedian and a mom!   I’d love to hear from you. Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!: https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup   TALK soon!           ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #22(S2) FUNNY TALK with stand-up comedian & business school professor Hillary Anger Elfenbein appeared first on Talk About Talk.

How do you know whether to trust someone? How do you communicate that you are trustworthy? Trust is imperative. If you don’t have trust, you have nothing. And that goes for both interpersonal relationships as well as for brands. Baron Manett, marketer and founder of Per Se Brand Experience shares his insights on the significance of trust. References & Links Baron Manett, Per Se Brand Experience, & Ensemble Baron on LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/baronmanett/ Per Se Brand Experience – https://www.psbx.co/ Ensemble – https://www.ensembleco.com/ Recommendations: Broken Record podcast – https://brokenrecordpodcast.com/ Non-Obvious by Rohit Bhargava – BOOK – https://amzn.to/2RlIu9J BLOG – https://www.rohitbhargava.com/blog Faris & Rosie – http://geniussteals.co/ TRUST Resources & References TEDTalks on Trust – HBS professor Frances Frei – https://www.ted.com/talks/frances_frei_how_to_build_and_rebuild_trust?language=en NPR Ted Radio Hour on Trust – https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/406238794/trust-and-consequences Rachel Botsman Trust TEDTalk – https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_we_ve_stopped_trusting_institutions_and_started_trusting_strangers/transcript#t-46322 Trust and income disparity countries – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levels_of_trust_are_higher_in_more_equal_rich_countries.jpg states –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levels_of_trust_are_higher_in_more_equal_US_states.jpg Body language and trustworthiness – https://www.inc.com/rhett-power/5-simple-ways-to-build-trust-with-your-body-langua.html Edelman’s Trust Barometer – https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer University of Victoria Gustavson Trust Index – https://www.uvic.ca/gustavson/brandtrust/ Talk About Talk   Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com BODY LANGUAGE podcast episode – https://talkabouttalk.com/1-body-language-with-executive-coach-cynthia-barlow/   Interview Transcript Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: Thank you so much for joining us, Baron. Baron Manett: Great to be here. Thanks for having me. AW: So I’d like to start with definition and context. Talk to me about trust, but in a brand sense. Baron Manett: It’s a timely topic, because there’s a lot of people who are questioning if trust even exists anymore – across spectrums, you know, political environments, even how we treat the foundations of marriage. So there’s a general consensus that somebody needs to step up. I think brands have a role now, because we are looking for entities to trust.  The way we that we at Per Se, my company, or the way I like to think about a brand, is: A brand is a promise. That’s all it really is. If you think about the products you use, and really, if you go up a level, for your listeners, the brands that you choose – one brand over another – often brands help us organize why we choose and buy one thing over another. Whether it’s a certain type of car, or certain type of jacket, or a place we travel, …. AW: or even a toothpaste, Baron Manett: Or even a toothpaste, right. Which is why you know, speaking of trust there, you really rarely see a toothpaste ad without an endorsement from some sort of dental council. Four out of five recommend. There was a time when four out of five doctors recommended Camel cigarettes as well, back in the day. So trust changes in the context of the time you live in. But right now, I mean, if we go back to that definition: brand is a promise. But really, we measure brands by our actions and experiences. So if you’ve ever gone to a restaurant that you love with your family, a restaurant that you go to all the time. And then one day, you have a bad service, a bad dish, a bad experience. It changes your thought of the restaurant. Where up until that moment you trusted them. AW: they broke their promise? Baron Manett: And they broke the promise, right. So the interesting thing about brands and trust is a promise for you to a brand and a promise to me for the same brand. Could be different. Right? You might wear a certain type of running shoe because it looks great. Whereas I might wear a certain type of running shoe because I need high performance workout for tennis. AW: Or maybe the other way around. Baron Manett: Yah.  I probably have that backwards. It looks great when I put my feet up. But you know, what we’re looking for in a brand is personal. And there’s all kinds of research and surveys, there’s trust surveys, and Edelman has something called the Trust Barometer. The University of Victoria does a trust study. So there’s all kinds of places that monitor and measure how trust sentiment is tracking. Because there’s, there’s good business behind it. AW: And there’s more and more evidence of that. Baron Manett: Yes, absolutely. You know, brands that we trust, we usually spend more, we usually spend more often. And we don’t mind paying a premium, rather than waiting for things to go on sale. Right. So on the flip side, it’s where brands that are in commodity businesses often are having trouble. AW: So that reminds me of something when you said about “ brands are promises.” It made me think of something that I’ve been hearing a lot lately, which is brands are actually stories. What’s the distinction there? Baron Manett:  I think it depends on the life of the brand. I mean, if a brand has come out in the last couple of years, they could have a story or could be building a story.  I think a goal for a successful brand is to build a great story. Those stories change. Cadillac had a storied past, right? If you were going to buy a luxury automobile in North America, one time it was Cadillac. Cadillac is looking to reconnect that story with younger audiences who aren’t familiar with their story. So I think a brand is the story. Promises are the proof points in those stores. AW: So that made me think of something, which is –  storytelling is a little bit about the past, right? For example, luxury brands are trying to endow a story upon you about who you are. But the brand story is about the past, like your point about Cadillac. On the other hand, trust is the future. When I was doing the research on the construct of trust in general, they said trust is a future-oriented construct, because it’s your belief of whether they’re going to act in a dependable way in the future. Baron Manett: Yes, I would agree with that. I think our degrees of strength in trust are based on proxies, often the past, you know, like I just did a quick update for 2019 on brands that are really scoring high in Canada on trust. Mountain Equipment Co Op. So it’s interesting that a co op, a cooperative-based business is number one, and trust absolutely makes sense. AW: Right? It’s member based. Baron Manett: There’s an element of socialism, if you will, there. So the transparency is built into that trust. So no wonder trust will be their brand. Like RBC, Shoppers Drug Mart. I sure hope we trust where we get our medication, right? Also, we can buy candy bars and chips there as well. Canadian Tire, a storied historical business in our country. Home Hardware: local, community based business, yes. Like they should be high on trust. Brands that are very large – Visa, RBC, banks that we trust. We trust these big institutions to help us with our dreams with our family, our lives, our retirement planning. AW: I feel like that might be changing. Baron Manett: It’s interesting, right? In the olden days, and by that I mean, you know, going to the bank with my parents, where my father, because he was the banker in our family, he would handle that business, which dates my age. There were, you know, big banks and successful banks have big buildings. And they are downtown. Now, a younger generation is asking, Do I need a bank? Right? Or what my parents said was a bank? Or do I need an older professional to manage my money? Or can an algorithm computer manage my money? Where there’s a transparency of what am I paying for? What am I getting? You know, does the payoff match the promise? AW: Fascinating. Back in the early 1900s, people trusted people. And then over time, we started to trust in institutions, right. And now the pendulum is swinging back, and that may explain the Mountain Equipment Co Op phenomenon. You could order some of that stuff on Amazon, or you could you can go to mountain equipment, Co Op. Baron Manett: Right, you know, you have more options now. For your listeners, where do you buy products that you feel great after you buy them? Versus – Oh, I bought it, and something doesn’t work. And now I have to call customer service, or in the case of like, like the cell phone companies or cable companies. AW: I was just headed there myself. The telecoms.  The credit card companies. Baron Manett: That is a very tough business airlines, and we often have a mistrust. Now, these companies have tremendous things that are probably out of their control. But again, if your brand is a promise, you can’t over promise and under deliver, because none of us have patience for that. AW: Well put.  So you mentioned Edelman’s trust barometer. And I know different institutions in in various industries measure trust in different ways. But  what are some of the other main brand metrics? Volume and profit are kind of the ultimate goal of most people for profit organizations. But then there’s all these less tangible things that are being measured? How and where does trust fit in there? Baron Manett: Well, I think there was a time… And I was lucky enough to know you in graduate school, right? So there was a time where we would be taught, yes, corporations exists to make up a profit, return on shareholder investment and those kinds of things. I look at it that trust is a way to build a business. So I look at trust as more of a foundational core of the business, I think there were businesses in the past that said, Okay, we’re going to make something really inexpensively make it look really expensive, and almost trick people into buying it. I think a time before the internet, you could possibly do these things, right? I don’t think there’s any where to hide anymore with the internet. So I think we’re connected and can share information and have access. Transparency can be a very good thing, because it sort of pulls back the curtain. The flip side of that’s a lot of us, as an audience, we often don’t read the sources, to the detail that we read online. And we’re so used to well, if it’s online, it must be true. But is it true? And so now you get into we did a session at my Speaker Series Ensemble last year on fake news and trusting brands, and where is there a role in research we were looking at? As government institutions drop in trust, there’s a gap that we are looking for someone or something to fill this void of trust. And audiences seem very open to the idea of companies could step in on the right circumstances and fill that trust gap. More and more I think that’s going to be shown is good business. So and again, going back to RBC, which was a client, we do work with my company and we’re proud to do so. And the transparency they have in their, in their diversity programs, and actually doing an annual report of how they’re doing as a company – from labor force, from the people they work with, who they collaborate with, how their environmental impact is. These are things that weren’t talked about widely 25 years ago. But now, you know, there are people who will make they’re banking choices on environmental responsibility. And kudos to them for having a guidebook to which to make their purchases. I think a lot of people still maybe aren’t as thoughtful in their purchases and say, I want x I’ll buy it. But more and more, you know, where’s that diamond mined from? Right? Where was my coffee packed? Where was my cheese made? You know, can I buy local. From my vantage point, as a marketer, I think that’s how you tell that story. I think Starbucks is a great offering. So the price has gone up, margins have gone up, consumer expectations are way up there. Yeah, I mean, I think probably because of some of the social platforms, you know, what I see on Instagram? Do I expect that in reality, so then you get into a whole different a whole other podcast around optics in reality? AW: We can get a little bit into that here now, just in terms of online shopping. So it took a big leap for each of us the first time we entered our credit card, yes, into this internet machine. Baron Manett: Right. AW:And here we are now. And there’s clickbait. And there’s fake news. And there’s fake websites. And it’s another – it’s actually a good example where brands have an influence. They factor into purchase decisions. So am I going to put my credit card into a nike.com versus a site I’ve never heard of right? So what are some of the things that new brands–so say you’re a new competitor to Nike, and you want to establish trust in the marketplace? And particularly online? What are some signals that you are trustworthy? Baron Manett: If you’re going to say something, then you got to do it. Like if you’re going to walk the talk, you gotta back it up. Show people. Trust is a muscle, right? So the more you keep your promises, the stronger you get. The minute you do not, it is down the tubes. We have no patience for anybody… no one wants to be lied to. No one wants to feel duped or tripped. I was just reading about how there’s a service now in Toronto, that you can go and take pictures of you sitting in what looks like a private jet. And then you Instagram that you’re on a jet. But you’re in a studio. There’s a lot of stuff that’s not real. And I think you have to be media literate, especially online media literate to make these choices. But brands can help me with trust. You know, I don’t want to enter my credit card on a site that doesn’t have visa verification, right?  But what if we went to a site in the only accepted Bitcoin? How would we feel about that? What does that mean about the site? I probably would back away. No offense to anybody using Bitcoin, but I just don’t understand enough about it. AW: So affiliating yourselves with other trusted entities actually it one way? Baron Manett: Well, I think you’re known by the company you keep online or offline, you’re known by the company and keep. You know, you choose your friends. People make choices based on who you hang out with. It’s no different for brands. AW: Yes, the halo effect. So a minute ago, you touched on transgressions. And I’d love to go there. So there’ll be some sort of transgression where trust is violated. Can you talk about that from a brand perspective? Baron Manett: Sure. I mean, listen, I think brands have a lot of challenges now, right? So sometimes in the quest to maybe be cool, or to really try and get to that next level of relationship, brands might go off side. We see this often in social media where they’re trying to be in pop culture, and they might say the wrong thing. But what I’ll let my friends say versus what I’ll let my bank say, or what I’ll let my candy bar say, is different. I think the audience has some degree of patience. If brands are trying, and trying to make things better. AW: how do we know if they’re trying though? Baron Manett: Well, again, that’s the challenge, right? You can’t just say something. You have to say it with meaning. You have to show that it happened. You have to be able to have all those touch points to prove that you’re genuine about something. Or else it looks like you’re whitewashing your brand behind an opportunity. And that’s not genuine. I do think when transgressions happen, and they do happen, and they will happen, sometimes honest mistakes happen. I don’t think enough brands know how to say sorry. Right. And I don’t think enough politicians know how to say sorry, either. And I think… AW: so how would you? Is there a framework that you use or a list of things? Baron Manett: I tell our clients to be honest. Just to be honest. It’s not a formula. But this happened. If there was responsibility from the brand or company side, this is what happened. This is why we think it happened. We made a mistake. We are sorry, we abused your trust, and we will endeavor to do better. So hey, the phrase I hear a lot from brands and politicians is “if anybody was offended, we’re sorry.” But what does that mean? Too many apologies, come off as lawyer speak, right? Lawyer speak. We’re really looking for human responses. And so taking responsibility and it’s got to be courageous. AW: This is reminding me of a podcast interview that I did early on with Graeme Harris, who’s a PR expert. He was talking about being honest, being fully transparent. And never making promises about that “it will never happen again.” But actually saying, “here’s also what we’re doing to try to ensure that it doesn’t.”… Baron Manett: I think of a brand in the food industry – Maple Leaf Foods. They had some trouble a few years back related to food safety. And I think they did a lot of things right. And, you know, bringing that issue forward, showing what they did, showing what they’re going to do. And they realize this is a long term road ahead to earn that trust. And I think they’re doing it; I think they’re chipping away at it. But it’s one of those things where it takes it takes a long time to build it, it takes a nanosecond to lose it. And it’s a lot more expensive to have to rebuild it. So I think we have antenna naturally, as audiences, about who’s doing something for the right reasons. And who’s doing something around motivated self-interest, right? So a simple thing is if we go online, and let’s say you want to download a piece of content or something you want, a video you want to watch, you can ask me for my email, maybe I’ll give you that. My name fine. You don’t need my birthday. AW: Absolutely Baron Manett: As companies, we have to understand value exchanges are human exchanges. Even if you’re looking at a screen. So I think there are some businesses or online brands that do a phenomenal job, you know, Dollar Shave Club, what do I really expect to get my razors every month? Right? And you know, they bother me when they need to bother me. And what do I need to know? Is it coming? That’s it. It was it shipped. That’s great. And then I go package, it gives me a little smile. And then do I miss going the grocery store and the drugstore and spending five times as much? I do not. So my trust in Gillette razors has evaporated from where it was because for years, they told me that was the price. AW: Wow. Baron Manett: It’s not the price. Right? It’s actually three times less. AW: Your story reminded me when people used to knock on the door and my mom would answer. And they’d be trying to sell food and she’d say, sell it to the grocery store first, and then I’ll buy it. And now that’s kind of turned on its head. But to your point, as long as there’s a brand, because there has to be a promise, or an expectation of trust associated with it. I think. Baron Manett: I think we were getting comfortable. People need to be held accountable. So we need to know, okay, great. Is this worth me parting with my money? parting with my time? Forget about money, right? Is this worth me reading? Is this worth me watching? AW: listening to a podcast? Baron Manett: Yeah. I hope people are still listening. But the fact is, it’s all it’s all choice, right? We’ve never had more choices. AW: I’m not only worth your money, I’m worth your time and attention. Baron Manett:  If brands are promises, and we bring those promises to life around stories, then we need someone to pay attention to those stories. And if you don’t have the attention, you’re not going to make that connection. Right. Right. So I think brands with high trust scores naturally earn higher attention. AW: Do you happen to know what some of the brands are that have the highest trust scores? Baron Manett:  Sure. At the University of Victoria study, some of the top performing brands are Mountain Equipment Coop, CAA, Home Hardware, Shoppers Drug Mart, Canadian Tire, … AW: So they’re all retailers? Baron Manett: Not all of them. I know that Tim Horton’s scores went down after the acquisition from 3G Capital, I believe. AW: So it went from being a Canadian company. We trusted you. As Canadians. Baron Manett:  Right. You’re a Canadian brand. You wrapped yourself in the blanket. And, you know, now you’re on a beach in Rio? I don’t know. Sunlife comes up. And Weber barbecues. Blue Cross in the US, like, you know, Band Aid brand is one of the top 10. I would hope that if you’re going to put something on a wound, it’s trusted, right? AW: Absolutely. Baron Manett:  I think food brands are really important on this. I mean, think of that all famous marketing story of Tylenol. AW: Tylenol! I was just thinking that too! Tylenol – that was 40 years ago? Baron Manett:  and what they had to do to bring back trust. In medicine, there are certain things that are kind of sacrosanct in terms of trust. And medicines… I think the brands that offer more trust, or that prove the payoff of trust, I think they’re probably – their business performance is stronger. AW: Certainly, you know, in terms of your point about margin, I think is a good one. Yeah, so you’ve touched on some of this, but I just want to end this part of the interview by asking you how trust may be different for brands that exist in different domains. So first one is they exist as a service versus they exist as a product. Is there a difference in terms of the trust construct there? Baron Manett:  I don’t think there’s – I think the idea of trust – that we have an expectation that’s been set, whether rightly or wrongly, I don’t know, given the situation, but the audience has an expectation. And then trust is earned if it meets or exceeds that expectation. And if we fall short, then we have a gap. AW: So but that’s at a meta level, or individual transaction level. If you think about it a service, there’s a person, probably representing a company, and then you have a relationship with the person and with the company versus a product. It’s just the physical product. Baron Manett:  Well, I think there’s an immediacy in service. Right? What that reminds me of is one of the top 10 brands in the study was Fairmont hotels. What an incredibly difficult job business, right? I mean, your “home away from home,” … we’re going to pamper you. Our expectations of luxury of just continue to go up and up. But when somebody gets it, right, and it’s interesting, what makes it right? Yeah, so, a room upgrade. A note from the general manager. Very thoughtful, small things that really aren’t expensive, you know, Hilton Hotels, I believe, is the brand in the US and they go on Twitter, they’re looking for travellers who have questions in various major cities. Whether or not you’re staying at the hotel, they try to answer them. Talk about trust. So the idea of trust and service with no expectation of short term payback. AW: Amazing. Whereas the product actually couldn’t really do that. I mean, they could but it’s more complicated, but it’s hard. Baron Manett:  There’s an almost a fourth wall there – that I have to go call or do something to get resolution. However, you know, Amazon solves it. If you don’t like it, put it back in the box.  They will take it back. You know, I have a real life example. I was traveling recently on a business trip. And I had a car rental with Avis, you know, and I was traveling with my family. And they didn’t have a car. I got to Miami and they didn’t have my car. And it’s one in the morning. And so what?!?  I reserved it, I gave you my credit card. I paid you well in advance, right? They’re like, well, we’re sorry. Good. Okay, so I go, “no problem. What should we do?” Right? Like how you gonna resolve it? All right, my trust is close to being broken. You can save it, I think, great – work with me. And she’s like, well, I can give you this four-door, four passenger car. I go, “but I’m traveling with six people with luggage.” She goes, “Well, you could rent a second car.” I know it’s 1:30 in the morning. And you want my wife and I to split our families up at added expense? So in line out of frustration, I just went on Twitter. “Hey, Avis, I’m having trouble anybody care?” And I got a faster digital response than a human. AW:  Wow. Baron Manett:  In in the place of business. You know, they still dropped the ball, right? And I promised Avis that because they dropped the ball,  whenever I have the chance to tell the story, that I would say you know, Avis gave me a bad experience… And I no longer bring my business to Avis – for both personal or corporate business. Because they didn’t give me resolution. But you know who did give me resolution? Uber. Uber got my family to the hotel, in one car. AW: Why do you even need a rental car? What a great story. So they broke the promise. The best thing they probably could have done for you would have been to go next door. Rent a car from you from someone else. Yes, they would eat it. Well, that would have been story worthy too. Baron Manett:  Absolutely, you know, I often think so, you know, and clients ask us a lot. What’s the easiest thing we can do to create – to earn trust? “Say thanks!” Say thank you. Remember the manners we got taught as kids? Please. And thank you. AW: And to your point from earlier, also apologize when something goes wrong. Baron Manett:  Yeah, take responsibility. It’s amazing that taking responsibility in today’s day-and-age is a tiebreaker. We are expecting the worst out of people. We are expecting people to take the easy way out. To not say sorry. To lie. So the people shouldn’t stand for this. But from a marketing point of view – what an opportunity. What is the audience? What are they looking for? And do we have the fortitude and the belief that yah, you know what, let’s stand up and say, this is what happened. And this is how we’re going to get better. AW: So my dissertation research concluded that experts in a particular product category want to have stories that demonstrate their expertise. And how do they do that? By sharing stories of positive consumption experiences. So they’re looking for these extremely positive outcomes. And sometimes that could include a transgression that was corrected Baron Manett:  I think it’s funny, if you’re going to tell your kid and apologize and make a mistake, why should we not hold a CEO accountable?…. I’m thinking of all those wonderful CEOs going to Washington, talking about privacy and data. So who has the opportunity to really step up? Because I think we’ll reward that company, that brand. We’ll see what happens. AW: We’ll see who’s rewarded then. To be continued. Now I’m going to move on to the five rapid fire questions. Baron Manett:  I hope I can do this. AW:Okay, number one. What are your pet peeves? Baron Manett:  Colleagues who start their sentences with “NO.” AW: Or “Yeah but” ? Baron Manett:  Yeah…  I do wonderful work with improv comedians, and people from Second City. And they joke that for a Canadian, “No” is “Yes. But…” AW: Wow, that’s great! Baron Manett:  Yes, but we can’t do it. AW: Right. Baron Manett:  But very often, just because we’re in boardrooms, trying to develop creative ideas with other people who maybe don’t do it every day. They think “no.”. And that just shuts everything down. So I’m always interested in how people start their sentences. AW: Interesting. Question number two, what type of learner are you? Are you visual, auditory, kinesthetic, or some other kind of learner? Baron Manett:  I’m the kind of learner – I need to learn by doing. AW: Experiential? Baron Manett:  I have to write things down. Or else I feel it drops out of my brain. But let me DO it with you. And I find that’s the quickest way that I can … AW: Okay. Question number three: introvert or extrovert? Baron Manett:  I’m interested because you know me a little bit from our past. So I am going to say – and people listening – if they know me – are going to laugh. I believe I’m an introvert. That forces himself to be an extrovert because I think it’s been better for my professional development. But so I talked so much at work, when I go home at night or spend time with my family,  if I go on vacation, I become quite intuitive. AW: So you’re more isolated, more solemn? Baron Manett:  When I’m tired, I just shut it down. Like people are sick of hearing from me. AW: Where do you get your energy from? Baron Manett:  Yeah, I guess recuperating. I had a mentor early on who was big on being extroverted. So you kind of forced yourself to be outgoing when the light is on at work, and then at the end of the day, it’s Great. Let’s shut it down. AW: Next question: what is your communication preference for personal conversation? Baron Manett:  Well, whenever I have my choice, it’s face to face. I love seeing people, especially as we get more digital. I think if it’s not face to face, if you are closest in my circle, you’ll be on text. And then I have degrees away from text. So whether that’s text, email, and social media, Instagram, a little bit, yeah, Instagram, LinkedIn, less Facebook. Snapchat, just with my kids, so I can understand how it works. But I’m an interloper there. I’m a big SMS fan. And it’s funny, I’m really a fan of memes and emojis and GIFs.  I love communicating with my close friends and family with images. I’m sort of trying to force myself to text less and just use pictures. I’m just fascinated with this as a communication form. I just, you know, the way they’re built. And because I think, you know, part of our role is to understand where pop culture is heading. And I think that’s a huge compass, in terms of what’s earning attention. AW: Great point! Nobody’s brought up that point. I love that. Last question. Is there a podcast, a blog or an email newsletter that you find yourself recommending the most to people? Baron Manett:  Yes, and I have all three. AW: So I’m going to put links to the show notes for all of them. Baron Manett:  Oh, great. So um, let’s see here. A podcast that I love right now. I’m a big music fan. So there’s a great podcast called broken record, okay. And it’s, it’s a collaboration between Malcolm Gladwell and Rick Rubin, who was a very famous music producer. He produced Eminem. He produced the Beastie Boys. In terms of a blog, there’s a blog called from a group called the non-obvious company, and it’s Rohit Bhargava, who is just a digital marketing monster. He’s just great. Every time I get an email to his blog, I learn something. He understands the audience.  Trust: he’s always, you know, when you sign up for his blog, “I’ll email you notification on this day, every week”. And he hasn’t broken his promises for seven years. AW: Wow.  I know I’m going to get some definitely gonna check that one out. Baron Manett:  So that’s a good one. And then in terms of email newsletter, a couple name – Rosie and Faris. And they are they are creative and advertising strategists. Originally, they were out of New York, but now they’re global nomads. So I think four or five years ago, they shut down and they now work and travel all over the world at the same time. So they have an email newsletter that tells me where they are in the world, what they’re thinking, who they’re inspired by. And they’re super, super smart. And then I added one as a self-plug here. My favorite event is the speaker series I’m working on called Ensemble. And the website is Ensembleco.com, where we pick four topics a year that are the intersection between pop culture and business. And our goal is to provide learning experiences for the next generation of business leaders. So our next one is June 18, in Toronto, with where we’re going to be talking about the future of cities, from a whole number of different perspectives. And then in September, our next one will be the future of wealth. So … AW:  very cool! Baron Manett:   We’ve got great topics and great speakers, and our tickets go to help raise money for our partner, the good folks@ we.org. So those are the things I’m putting my attention to, what I’m talking about and sharing. AW: I’ll also share them in the show notes. Baron Manett:  Thank you awesome. AW: Is there anything else you want to add about trust? Baron Manett:  it’s hard work. You know, you’ve got to think about it every day. And you’ve got to think about, you know, we are a product of our choices. And whether that’s personal, or whether that’s a company, people are watching our choices, and people are noticing. And if they aren’t noticing, then they can easily look it up whenever it fancies them. AW: So your decisions or your choices are cues or signals right there regarding whether you should be trusted or not? Baron Manett:  I agree they are proof points. You know, if the brand is a promise, then your actions are the proof points that support the promise. So if you’re a small business, return your emails, return your phone calls. You know, if you charge x for a job, and nothing changed, then that’s the bill. You know, your word is your bond. If you’re a big giant company, and you promised you’re going to do X and Y to your shareholders – do it. And if you did something wrong, say sorry. All the stuff we learned in kindergarten applies….  Thanks for having me on. AW: Thank you so much, Baron.   I’d love to hear from you. Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!: https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup  TALK soon!          ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #21(S2)TRUST with Per Se Brand Experience President Baron Manett appeared first on Talk About Talk.

Dr. Joshua Tepper, CEO of North York General Hospital, shares advice on how to talk to your doctor, including: come prepared with a list; ask lots of questions; if you’re Googling your symptoms, consider the quality of your sources; and lots more!  We have all felt unsure, and some of us have felt awkward around our doctor.  Here is our chance to learn how to optimize our communication with our doctors so we can receive the best medical care.   References & Links Dr. Joshua Tepper & North York General Hospital Joshua Tepper – http://www.nygh.on.ca/Default.aspx?cid=4658&lang=1 On Twitter – @DrJoshuaTepper North York General Hospital – http://www.nygh.on.ca North York General Hospital Foundation – https://nyghfoundation.ca/ Newsweek’s 2019 Hospital Ranking – https://www.canhealth.com/2019/04/10/newsweek-ranks-top-canadian-hospitals/ Medical Resources & References Dr. Tepper’s education & past affiliations Medical School – McMaster University Family Medicine – University of Toronto Public Policy – Duke University eMBA – Ivey School of Business Inner-City Health Associates Inner-City Family Health Team Society of Rural Physicians. Health Canada Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI). Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Kaiser (Henry Kaiser Family Foundation) – https://www.kff.org/ Public Health Agency of Canada – https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health.html Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) – https://www.cdc.gov/ Cancer Care Ontario – https://www.cancercareontario.ca/en Other Resources & References Books Atul Gawande, “Being Mortal” – https://amzn.to/2Qa5kRc Tim Ferriss, “The Four Hour Work Week” – https://amzn.to/2WoMPib Marie Kondo, “Spark Joy: An Illustrated Master Class on the Art of Organizing & Tidying Up” – https://amzn.to/2WeQ5aT Gretchen Rubin, “Outer Order, Inner Calm” – https://amzn.to/2WPuUAu Twitter Christine Elliott (Health Minister, Ontario PC party) – @celliottability Doug Ford – @FordNation France Gelena (Ontario NDP health critic) – @NickelBelt Andrea Horwath – @AndreaHorwath Justin Trudeau – @JustinTrudeau Donald Trump – @realDonaldTrump News Sources Fox – https://www.foxnews.com/ CBC – https://www.cbc.ca/news New York Times – https://www.nytimes.com/ The Washington Post – https://www.washingtonpost.com/ The Huffington Post – https://www.huffpost.com/ PODCASTS NPR Podcasts – https://www.npr.org/podcasts/ Tim Ferriss – https://tim.blog/podcast/ Talk About Talk Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com   Interview Transcript Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: Thank you very, very much for joining us and sharing your expertise on how to talk to your doctor. Dr. Joshua Tepper: Good morning. Thanks for having me. AW: So I’m going to start with a very basic question. What do doctors wish patients would do in preparation for and during an appointment? JT: First of all, we just want people to come in and see us when they need to. We wouldn’t want people at the end of this to feel deterred, because there’s all this work to do. Ultimately, if you’re not feeling great, or you have questions, just come and see us. But it is helpful if you can give a little bit of thought ahead of time to what you need out of that appointment. What are the important things? I increasingly have patients make lists for me. And those lists are really helpful. And then when you actually come into the appointment, you pull up the list and use it. I’m not upset that you made a list. So pull it out and use it and start with the most important things. AW: Okay. Okay, so you said at the beginning, “don’t hesitate to make an appointment.” And I have to tell you personally, and I’ve heard this from other people, “well, should I make an appointment? No, I’ll be fine. The doctor will think it’s nothing, I’m wasting their time, I’m wasting resources…” How do you know when to make an appointment? JT: You know, I think you have to be your own best judge. And it’s more important to err on the side of caution. And the other thing is, even if it turns out to be physically not important, if it’s emotionally distressing for you, that’s enough reason to come in just for the mental reassurance. I don’t want you at home worrying for three weeks, I want you to come in and have this conversation. AW: Right. So a written list. JT: Yeah, I mean, written on your phone, whatever. AW: Right. JT: But it is helpful because I do that before coming in…  like you and I today, you thought ahead of time about the questions to make this process go smoother.  And it just makes this interaction go a lot smoother. And you know, you’re getting the important stuff out. AW: One of the things that I’ve started to do, actually, partly because I have three kids, and I’m managing their healthcare as well, is I’m keeping a list in my phone of all the appointments that we’ve had. And I’ve personally found that to be really helpful. Because when you’re in the moment, and they’re asking you questions about the health history, about previous appointments, I have dates and everything all. there So I guess that that’s part of that too. JT: Right. The other thing… Two other quick thoughts. One, I think more and more in the future, we’re going to see what’s called asynchronous appointments, meaning text messages, emails, phone calls. We have not had a lot of that in healthcare in Canada right now, right? But in the United States, places like Kaiser, 50% of their interactions are digital and largely asynchronous. So you can have digital live skyping type things. But these are texts back and forth. And that will really encourage people to say, “Listen, this is happening. Should I come in or not?”  And I now text with a lot of my patients through secure means and email. And again, we can triage. And the one other clarification is you shouldn’t wait until you have a full list. If they are truly minor for you, that’s fine. But I don’t want people to take away that you have to have a list before you come in. AW: You can come in with just one thing, right? JT: The list could be one. AW: I think about your point about prioritizing as well. So, tell the doctor first what your primary concern is, and then go down the list. JT: And then what I do, what I think especially when I see a list, is, “Oh, this is good.” And so they may say, “oh this is the first thing on my list.” And what I’ll often do is say “why don’t you don’t just read me your whole list,?” Because then I can actually help prioritize as well. Because the worst thing for me is when I spent  my 15-20 minutes with somebody, talking about their tennis elbow, or whatever it is. And then they say, “okay, and by the way, there’s been this horrible chest pain as well, when I play tennis.” And like  maybe we should have started with that. And so if I see a list, I’ll often just say, this is great, tell me what else is on the list quickly. And then I’ll say what’s most important to you? And if it aligns with what I’m hearing, I’ll say great. AW: I’ve also heard that sometimes I guess, depending on what type of appointment you have, that bringing a friend or family member can be a good idea, what do you think about that? JT: Absolutely. I’m very open to that. I just always try to make sure it’s true to what the patient wants, what I don’t want, especially sometimes with teenagers, or even elderly people that this is truly voluntary? – the other person in the room? As opposed to somebody else intruding into that. And so I will try to just find a quick moment to really just say, “would you like this person here?” In case there’s something they didn’t want to say in front of their partner. Because it can be hard. Somebody said, “Oh, I’ll totally come with you.” What do you say? No, like it said, it feels like a generous offer. So I’m very open to it. I just try, as a physician, to assess, is this truly what the patient wants? Or is somebody else inserting themselves? AW: It can be very helpful to help remember things. JT: It can be very helpful for the patients who have memory issues or who are anxious or confused. And especially from mental health, and I have a lot of patients who have very severe mental health problems, it can be really helpful. AW: I think your point about it being common for teens, and for older people, to have someone with them, and not necessarily have that person be welcome in the patient’s mind is a great one. JT: And again, sometimes that physical exam is a time when I can then be along for the patient. And I’ll say, “okay, Mom, why don’t you step out?” And then when I’m taking the blood pressure and listening to the lungs or examining the knee or the ankle, or whatever it is, it’s just a chance for me to ask a few other questions or just open the door and say, “Oh  was there anything else you were hoping we could chat about?” And that’s when things like I’m worried about my acne, I’m worried about sex, I’m worried about  birth control, all these things, or I have a question. Just try to create that space and see what happens and they otherwise might not come up. AW: Is there anything that patients do with some regularity that make you roll your eyes? Or that you just wish … JT: Honestly? No, I mean, I  honestly, I think patients,… my experience is just patients are generally quite grateful and appreciative and thoughtful. And when I find they’re not, when they’re angry, or they’re quote, unquote, demanding  it’s usually coming from a place that I can understand  they’re in pain, they’re suffering, they’re depressed, they’re anxious, they’re in a state of crisis. I understand, why this behavior is what it is? And is it pleasant to receive? No, but it’s not personal to me. It’s reflective of the way this person is, unfortunately, in that moment. And so no. One of the best parts about medicine is it’s a people profession, for the most part, and you have to like people and be present with them and be where they’re at. AW: So talk to me about the Google effect. People are self-diagnosing, from googling their symptoms on the internet.  JT: It doesn’t drive me nuts. It’s modern healthcare in modern society, right? People are checking you out before they go into a restaurant people are going on to the Facebook pages of organizations, people are going on to websites, people are googling every aspect of their life to try to inform themselves better. From where they want a burger, to who’s going to be their heart surgeon. And so why would I suddenly expect them to use the vast internet for every part of their life: for buying a house; searching for mortgage; and then suddenly, on something that’s so important to them, like their health, they’re gonna be like, “oh, now I’m not going to use the internet,” right? That’s not what I would do as a patient. Or why would I expect them to suddenly isolate information from themselves? What I do though, is I try to guide them towards good sites. AW: Okay JT: I try to help them curate the web. You know, I think the challenge for all of us on the internet is, what website do you go to? Do you go to Yelp? Or do you go to this? Or do you go to that you go to  and so I do try to recommend to my patients and help them navigate the web and curate. And so if they’re worried about vaccinations, I’ll say these are the two or three websites, I really recommend that you go to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Center for Disease Control, if they have questions about cancer treatment, or screening, I’ll say go to Cancer Care, Ontario’s website, so I do try to help them curate and navigate. AW: So it sounds as if, based on other conversations I’ve had with other doctors that you may be a little bit more enlightened in terms of being open to patients coming in and being informed to some extent from internet sources. But I’m also hearing that, if you’re going to do that, make sure you’re on quality, non- “fake-news” websites. Can you share with us what are some of the more highly regarded ones that are more, for example, grounded in science? JT: Yeah. So you know, just one quick point, I don’t know if I’m more enlightened, or more realistic,…. AW: Also more humble. JT: But it used to be not “Oh, I went to this website…” No. It was, “oh, I was at a party last night and such and such said this” or “I was talking to my mom,” right? Chatting with my neighbor. People have always solicited outside information. Now it’s just easier, and there’s more of it. But people would always come in and say, Oh  you gave me this. But my aunt always says it’s much better to use this. Now, it’s not their aunt, it’s somebody on a chat room over in some other country. AW: Right. JT: But this idea that people are still living getting third party information of various levels of quality. And other times, I remember people coming in saying, actually, my dad’s a neurosurgeon down in Texas, and naturally, he wondered about this-and-this and you’re like, Okay. That’s like going to a better website, than your, whatever, neighbour who’s had a couple of drinks and has a view of your rash. So the point is, there’s the fact that people have always solicited outside information and advice is not new. It’s just now it’s digital. And there’s more of it. AW: So when patients are sharing the information that they have with their doctor, they should tell them the source. JT: Yes, I think it’s helpful when people say I was reading, I always say, oh, were you reading that online? Or tell me more? What website? And then that leads to your question about what websites do I recommend I typically do like publicly funded, typically, government type sites, like the Center for Disease Control, or the Public Health Agency of Canada type agencies. People are incredibly sophisticated these days. And so people will go and even read medical journals now because they’re online, and a lot of them are free, or don’t pay five bucks for the article or three bucks for the article. And so again, some of the I’ll talk about if you’re interested in that, people are very specific. You’ve got a PhD yourself, right? You’re very capable of navigating some fairly sophisticated material. But I might say – if you’re interested in this, here’s three or four journals, and you’re going to go and spend a bunch of money on buying a couple articles about a health issue. Here’s a couple journals that we think are really reputable journals. And so we’ll have that. What I say is – Be very careful about online blogs, or opinions. AW: So, when we’re reading the news, we try to always have in the back of our mind to be careful, right, in terms of considering the source, and not falling for the clickbait. And I know that the clickbait exists out there in the medical websites or the opinion websites that are masquerading as medical websites. So that’s, that’s a great point. Just to shift gears a little bit. I’m a big fan of Atul Gawande. And in his book Being Mortal, he highlights that hope is not a plan. And I was re-reading in preparation for this interview, one of the things that I read said that he means that for both the patient as well as the doctor or the care provider. JT: right AW: that hope is not a plan. And so this is a question, it’s a little bit turning the original question on its head, but how can we as patients, encourage our doctors to be as open and forthcoming as possible? We know that it’s important for us to be open and transparent and thorough in what we’re communicating. But we also want the doctor to be the same way, how can we encourage them to do that? JT: That’s a great question, actually. And it’s funny, I spend most of my time on this as a physician thinking, How do I create a safe space for people to talk openly and feel they can share? whatever it is they need to? But it’s a, it’s a good question. What allows me to be as open and forthright?  You know, one is to ask questions, because your questions, will push me farther in thinking through and sharing. And so the more questions you ask, the more it will prompt me to be fully disclosing. And it can be open ended question – is there anything else I should be thinking about? Is there anything else that other patients who are in my situation might also have asked? – Things that will broaden my mind to giving you more information. You know, simply saying  I’m somebody who likes to know all the risks, I’m somebody who likes to have as much information as possible. So if there’s anything else you’d like to tell me, I really, I’d be very open to it. I tried to do that for you as a patient, is there anything else today? These can be hard conversations, but I want you to feel comfortable talking about these things. Things like that. You can flip it back, if you will, and so to say, is there anything else you think I should know? I’m somebody who likes to have a lot of information, etc.? Is there anything else? Are there any risks? Is there any other options or risks? Is there anything else? This could be beyond what we’ve talked about? AW: I feel like some of these questions might be good things to add to our list before we come into the doctor. Right? JT: Yeah, I think they can be. Now, again, these are follow up questions to a specific issue. So as opposed to open-ended questions. They are more like – Okay, I’m coming in with these headaches. And now, as we talked about the headaches here – some ways of broadening that conversation. AW: Okay, here is the ultimate question. We all know that we should tell our doctors, everything. We should not be shy. And we’ve all heard that “doctors have seen it all.” Right? It’s basically become a cliché. But many of us are still hesitant and embarrassed to tell our doctors everything. Do you have any advice for patients on how to get over the embarrassment of sharing everything?  Peeing in a cup, seeing me naked, whatever the horrible thing is that they don’t want to talk about? JT:   A lot of it does rest with, to some degree, the physician and the health care structures. I’d like to think we’re getting better at some of this stuff. I’d like to use those two examples. I remember when I was in training  we sort of had people that come in the room and pointing down the hall, and they’d carry the cup down the hall with them. And actually, now in my clinic, those cups are all in the bathroom. You can just go into the bathroom and take the cup from there. And then there’s a little door that you can put it in. I remember when I was in training that we used to write notes, and the patient would step behind the curtain and change. And now I just completely leave the room, and give them total space, as opposed to just sort of drawing this curtain and pretending I didn’t know they were undressing on the other side – or knowing, but ignoring it. And so I think we’re much better, hopefully, at prompting questions. The questions they ask now. And how I ask them. Before, I might have said things like, “do you have any concerns about your sex life? Or are you sexually active?” And now I asked questions like, “are you sexually active with men, women or both?” We are much more explicit.  Now these days, especially in the populations I serve, when I first meet patients, I’m like, “Oh, hi  I see your name is Andrea, how do you like to be identified and called?” And for somebody who never would have – or might have taken years for them to get to the point of saying, “actually, I’m not sure where I identify as a man or a woman or where I am on this gender fluid thing.” I’ve suddenly created a space in the very first moment. And even if at that moment, they said, “Well, no, Andrea,” they know, I planted a seed that next time they can come back and say, “actually, it’s more Andrew.“ Right? Or I’ve wondered, and you just create an openness. Or ask questions. I used to just say, “oh, how are things at home? You know, are you married or not married?” AW: Right. JT: And I would say, “what are your living arrangements? Do you have any concerns with intimate partner violence? Be it like physical, verbal?” When I ask, I try to create space for the uncomfortable. And if people look embarrassed, I say, “I ask everybody.” Right? I ask this to everybody. AW: And now everybody wants to be your patient, Dr. Tepper. JT: No, I don’t know about that. But it is, it is trying to give permission for these hard conversations. It is trying to anticipate what people may not want to talk to them about. And creating that opening. And even if they don’t take that opening today, they might take it in six months or a year. Or you know, it’s just trying to allow, to create a really safe space. And then I think  for patients, it’s just – what is what is keeping you from sharing? And sometimes it is just that physical embarrassment. AW: I think oftentimes, it must be right? JT: I think it is, but other times, it’s where’s this information going to go? And especially now that you see us, you have seen us writing, but actually now, for better, for worse, it’s typing into a screen. And we all have this sense of – where the heck does this data go? And who has access and we read about files being lost? And so if it’s just pure embarrassment, that’s one thing. But if it is a concern about data, you should ask , “if I tell you about this, who else knows? Who else has access to this chart? I see these notes. Who else gets to read these, right? If that’s part of what’s driving your reluctance, it’s fair to inquire. And then, in fact, a lot of our charts can have what are called black boxes. And so we can black box certain information. So patients can say, “Listen  I don’t care if you know about my peeing and my pooing, whatever. But when it comes to whatever this is, I want this black boxed.” AW: Ok JT: And we have ways of sort of carving and locking certain information differently than other information. AW: I hadn’t heard of that. JT: Yeah. AW: If you had a family member who was having health issues, but told you in confidence that they were shy about talking to their doctor about it? How would you coach them in terms of their mindset going into the doctor to be more transparent about their questions? JT: Yeah, I think it would be, why are they shy? Is it something about that how that physician or nurse practitioner  has interacted with you previously, that has made you shy? Did they act in a way that made you feel like judged or judgmental? Did you talk about sex toys, for example? And they seemed to react uncomfortably? So now you don’t want to talk at all about anything about your sex life? When in fact, you have all these questions about you know, how to clean them, the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and sharing sex toys,… Maybe there’s a whole range of questions you have now. But you felt judged.  Is it something about what the providers created a space for? Or is it actually just you have a hard time? In which case I say, this is important. Just ask it. And if you need to use euphemisms, sometimes what I’ve asked patients, when I can tell them is this: write it out. Just give me a letter, send me an email. AW: that’s a great idea. JT: So I have had patients write me very detailed letters, draw me pictures, write out letters. And I’ve just sat there. They’ve literally walked in to the next appointment. And often when people are talking about very difficult things – around spousal tension, and they just feel they’re betraying their spouse or they don’t, they can’t talk about it without getting too emotional. And they’re too embarrassed to talk about it. They can write me a letter, and they’ll drop it off ahead, or they’ll come in and I’ll hand it to me, and I’ll just read it. And then I’ll thank them for sharing it. So often when it’s hard to talk about, it you can write it out. AW: That is great advice. And I heard you say something previously, I think, if a doctor is making you feel that uncomfortable, that you’re feeling judged, you probably need to get a new doctor. JT: Yeah, I think or if you’re confident enough to say, if you feel like you can engage. Like I had a patient once come in and say to me, like, we talked about this last time, and I really felt you didn’t hear me, or you didn’t listen to me and … that was great. I was so apologetic. And I said “that was not my intent at all. And I apologize.” And I thanked him. I said, I hope you can always feel you can let me know. I said, I don’t know if I was distracted, but I apologize. Let’s revisit it or let me try to hear you better. You know, and I for example, I had a transgender patient. And I was pretty consistent and calling them by their preferred name. But then one time, I got it wrong. And they said, “just a quick reminder, I’m not upset. But I just please, if you could really call me by what I prefer.” I said, Oh, I’m so sorry. You know, I do try, and I wasn’t upset, to be reminded.  Don’t assume that people take offense, don’t assume that your doctor or nurse can’t receive feedback and improve because we want to do a good job. Maybe you thought they were recoiling, because you were talking about whatever you’re talking about. Maybe you misread them,… AW: Right. Maybe they had a stomach ache! JT: Maybe … maybe their phone was going off and they were distracted or responding to their buzzing phone in their pocket, right. And you thought they were responding to you. So before you change providers, give them a chance to do better, and explain what better looks like for you. AW: Again, I think people are going to be lined-up to be one of your patients. Is there anything else? Is there anything else you want to add in terms of advice to people who are looking to optimize their communication with their doctor? JT: Just to, really see it as communication. You know, obviously we do tests and we do physical exams and stuff. Most of the value is coming from the communication. And so yeah, I’ll do a physical exam. And yes, I might order an X ray or some blood work or whatever. But most of what I need is coming from the communication. And most of what you’re going to need to get out of this is coming from the communication. And so again, as we’ve been talking about, the more we can structure the communication part to be as successful as possible is really the key. AW: That really speaks to the significance of this topic, right? JT: Absolutely, yeah. AW: When I, when I was thinking about this topic, I said, this can really help people, it’ll help people hopefully disarm them from any embarrassment they have, but also give them strategies. So that next time they go to their doctor, they feel more in control, but they’re also just improving the quality of the communication and therefore the care that they’re receiving. JT: You know, as I’ve gotten older and more experienced, obviously, I still do lots of physical exams, but it has become a smaller part of how I use that 20 minutes or 15 minutes or whatever. Because I’m really appreciating that so much of the nuance and so much the what I actually need is coming from the communication, and not just the laying on of hands, there’s still the laying on of hands. But it’s really the communication that allows that laying on of hands to be much more focused and much more, extracting more relevant information. AW: Interesting. Okay. Let’s move on to the five Rapid-Fire questions. JT: I was nervous about this. AW: You shouldn’t be nervous!  That’s funny. First question, what are your pet peeves? JT: So I think we share one. This one, which is clutter… I do tend to like some white space. And I’ve talked a lot about this with my spouse, who perhaps has a different view on this. I think our lives are so full and so intense with information and with activity and with so much, that the more there’s this sort of additional visual noise, or where it’s hard to find things as easily. And it hasn’t always been that way. But I think as I’ve gotten older and as you know, in our mid-life, and things are so full with young kids and a busy clinical practice and administrative practice. There’s so much to do that just the shoes in the middle of the hallway, the bags casually thrown down in the middle of the hallway, papers strewn over the dining room table. It just, it just feels like it just adds up. AW: I agree. And I think when you believe it, it becomes even more true. JT: Right. AW: You know what I mean? JT: Absolutely. And so I did actually read, the night before I started in this new job, that Maria Kondo book. AW: Tidying up? JT: The tidying up book. And it really resonated. it’s a funny story. So I was nervous. I was a first-time hospital CEO, and I was nervous. And so I couldn’t sleep. So I went on the library, I downloaded an audio book. And it was this book, and I thought, This is great. So I got up in the middle of the night, like one in the morning, and I spent like three or four hours, doing the first two chapters of the book. My wife woke up, and there’s bags of all my clean stuff. But I must say, my drawers have not reverted back. I didn’t get through all the chapters in the whole house. But when I open the closets in the morning, when I come home at night, whenever, it just feels a little bit easier. AW: So Gretchen Rubin, who originally was studying happiness, recently published a book called Outer Order, Inner Calm, but I feel like you could write the book. JT: I don’t know. I think I’m a fan of it. AW: Okay, question number two, what type of learner are you? JT: I typically need to read, to really assimilate knowledge. And especially I think, as I’ve gotten older, and there’s just so much more visual information, noise. I’ve just appreciated that. And it’s interesting, I read a good book a few years ago, on Harvard Business for Management series. And they just sort of talked about different learning styles. And it’s really important as a leader, to know what your learning style is, and to communicate that to make best use. And so now I tell people, like  I’d really love to meet with you on that. But if you could send me you know, just a couple bullet points ahead of time for me to think about, or learn about or… In fact today, you very thoughtfully sent these questions ahead of time. It really helped me. I did read them, and it gave me a chance to think. And I’m an active reader. So I’ll make notes. The copy I first had actually has notes all over it. AW: Oh, really? JT: Just quick bullet points, because I’m an active reader. So I underline. I highlight. I write in the margins. AW: Do you write in your books? JT: I used to yes. I’ve gone mainly digital on my books.  Yeah. But when I had paper… AW: Because you don’t want clutter around. JT: Right, that’s exactly why. AW: I have to show you my bookshelf, they’re all categorized by color. JT: That’s awesome. AW: That IS awesome. JT: That is awesome.  Treatable.  Diagnosable. But awesome. AW: That’s funny! Okay, question number three, introvert or extrovert? JT: I’m actually right in the middle. I’ve done the Myers Briggs a couple times, and I think it is actually true, I’m pretty much right down the middle. AW: So you get energy both from being in a group and from solitude? JT: yeah, solitude. And I find I need a bit of both. This interview well, this interaction, and the excitement of it will really get me through my day. But I also know, if I’ve had a day where I do three or four of these, and actually, today is going to be an interesting day. I’m going from here to see an international visitor, and then I’m going down to teach a bunch of doctors. And I know that by the end of the day, I am going to need a little time. This day is going to have a lot of … teaching for four hours this afternoon and this, and so, it is a balance. And so I do find I am right in the middle. AW: sounds intense. But it’s good to be aware that you need both right? JT: Yeah, exactly. And I think I’ve become more aware with time. AW: Question number four, communication preference for personal conversation. So I’m not talking about the work emails where you’re copying the chair of the board on your next steps or whatever, it’s more about, you’re trying to get something off your to do list or answering a question from a friend or family member, what do you use? JT: So it’s changed. And in fact, I would say it’s been a bit of a full circle. A while ago, it was just all face-to-face. And then I really just started using emails, because I love the asynchronous nature of it. You know, I love the fact that – I’m a night owl. And so I love the fact I could just sort of sit there from 11pm to 1am, which is my prime thinking time. And, just send emails and feel focused on it. But now actually, I’ve been shifting back a little bit to a bit more of the face=to-face. So then the phone, particularly the phone,… One thing about this job I was dreading was the commute, because my old drive was like a seven-minute bike ride. Maybe a 10-minute bike ride. Now I’ve got 20 minutes in the car. But actually, I really use that time now to reconnect with friends and I call my family. So it’s just really a nice sort of downtime … AW: so it sounds as if you’re strategically using the various communication medium, depending on what your objectives are, right? And what the constraints are, I guess, JT: I think I have in the last three years become much more purposeful and mindful of them – mediums for communication. I think I’ve just been much become much more mindful. I’ve read a lot around email management, inbox management, time management. But I have been much more deliberate thinking about communication as part of an act of leadership and communication in its role in my personal life, and then how to be sort of deliberative about it. AW: emails are really getting trashed right now. Have you noticed? JT: yeah. AW: people are like, just stop with the email! JT: So I think so. I actually now teach a course about how to manage information, and particularly email. Because I think there’s very good evidence about its impact on culture in an organization, its impact on personal wellness, its impact on effectiveness and efficiency. And so it’s like anything else? It’s a tool that can be transformationally positive, but also transformation can be risky. And it’s how do we use it effectively. AW: Agree. I’m going to do episode on email. I think everybody wants that? JT: Oh, absolutely. And there’s so many good books. There’s somebody who did a really good book on this is  The Four-Hour Workweek. AW: Tim Ferriss. JT: Tim Ferriss. AW: So he’s one of the people that inspired me to get into podcasting. JT: Yeah, he’s fantastic. And so I read, I listened to his audio book, The Four-Hour Workweek, and much of it did not relate to what I do. But he has a chapter on email. And that chapters and when I get out as reading Oh, really, yeah. And there’s a couple other books like that. AW: you know what I’m going to do, I’m going to put a link to that in the show notes so that the listeners can go take a look at that. Well, last question. It’s related to Tim Ferriss, maybe. Is there a podcast or a blog or an email newsletter that you recommend the most? JT: Yours? AW: Oh yay! Ha-ha. JT: OK.  It depends on the context. In the context of my medical learning, I use certain podcasts and stuff. For others, for personal enjoyment and for learning outside of the medical world, in my leadership, I tend to go to other sources. And so what I think what my view is, is just be very diverse. I think one of the biggest risks of social media is that we create echo chambers. And I think that’s the biggest risk. We delude ourselves into thinking that we’re in this massive internet taking in all this information. And actually, what we’re doing is we’re just defining tiny, tiny echo chambers, where we reinforce our own messages. And so,  I scan  Fox News almost every night I scan CBC every night, I scan the New York Times every night, I’ll take a look at the Washington Post every night. I’ll take a quick look at the Huffington Post every night. For my Twitter followers. I follow you know; I follow Trump I follow Ford. I follow Trudeau. I follow… You know, I’m pretty careful to follow an equal number of people from all parties. I follow Andrea Horvath, I follow from Gelena who’s the health critic for the NDP. I follow the Health Minister from the PC party. And I get podcasts from  NPR, but the I also get podcasts from the UK, and I get podcasts that are Canadian based. And  I just tried to do some fiction, but I try to do some nonfiction. And I just think that the biggest risk in this information world is that we actually kid ourselves about how much information we’re getting. AW: It sounds as if you have exceptional media hygiene, which is something that I also am trying to do. And I’m the same way,  warning my kids about  – sure you can follow Donald Trump, but careful who you’re liking and be definitely be careful about what you’re saying. JT: what do I recommend, is diversity, and true diversity. The New York Times has this great new series, I don’t know, it feels like 18 months old, we’ll say it’s called writings from across the spectrum. And so they’ll take a topical issue, a new bill was brought in the abortion issue, which is very topical now. And they will present you with  links, and a quick summary of somebody who’s writing from a very far right conservative perspective from a far left, and from an economic … AW: I’ll put a link to that, too. JT: Yeah, and  it changes I think, I don’t know if they do it every day, but every week, and they’ll pick something that’s really – like the Brett Cavanaugh nomination, and they’ll put in three or four writings from the republican from Fox News, from people who are right of center. And then they put in some from the far left, and put in some in the center, they put in some with a high political tone, some from a sort of a women’s advocacy group who obviously had certain views about the nomination. And you can just skim it and sort of really, I think it’s just so important. AW: It sounds as if it’s efficient. JT: Yeah, right, but also an effective way of scanning multiple perspectives. And what I’m also really looking for is just the gap, I’m looking for the difference. So one thing I am not interested in. One risk when you read all this stuff is just reading stuff to reinforce.  If I’ve picked up Fox News, and it’s sort of the first paragraph is saying exactly the same thing is the New York Times, I’m not going to finish the article. But if they’re coming at it and something new, I’m like, okay, and I sort of think there’s something there for me, then I might do it or even just scan the headlines right now is fascinating. If you just open the headlines on five online newspapers, you would actually think you’re in completely different worlds. AW: Amazing, isn’t it? JT: You know, what one person puts us above the fold, or their landing page article may not be anywhere on another send your stuff? AW: That’s fascinating. JT: It is. Because if you’re only reading that one paper, you sort of think that’s the issue of the day. And another large paper hasn’t even put it anywhere on their first page. It’s like nowhere. AW: I love that you call it paper. You don’t use the paper though. JT: The only time I use paper is when I get to fly. And then I love taking these papers on the plane. AW: That’s funny. Okay, is there anything else you want to add? JT: No, I just think it’s great. I think it’s great to have these types of conversations. I think it’s very important. AW: Thank you so much for sharing your perspective on how to talk to your doctor and everything else. Thank you. JT: Absolutely.   I’d love to hear from you. Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!:   https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup   TALK soon!       ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #20(S2) TALKING TO YOUR DOCTOR with North York General Hospital CEO Dr. Joshua Tepper appeared first on Talk About Talk.

Andrea Warnick, a registered psychotherapist specialized in grief support, discusses how to genuinely help grieving friends. She emphasizes the importance of using direct language about loss and avoiding the urge to 'fix' their pain. The conversation dives into the complexities of grief, critiquing traditional models and stressing the need for personalized rituals. Warnick also sheds light on children's unique grieving processes, advocating for community support and compassion in communication.

Fonts are on our screens, on paper, on the products we buy, and on signs everywhere! When used effectively, fonts can significantly improve our communication. Patrick Griffin (“the font guy”) shares his advice about choosing the ideal font, considering the white space, and emojis!   References & Links Patrick Griffin Canada Type – https://canadatype.com Font references – https://typedrawers.com https://slashdot.org Fonts Referenced in this Podcast On Fonts The Unicode Consortium – https://unicode.org Emoji proposals – http://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html Fonts Researcher Frédéric Gosselin – https://recherche.umontreal.ca/english/our-researchers/professors-directory/researcher/is/in14360/ History of Helvetica (Wired magazine) – https://www.wired.com/2015/04/legendary-redesign-helvetica-reborn-30-years/ History of Fonts (FastCompany magazine) –https://www.fastcompany.com/90322896/who-was-garamond-anyway-the-people-behind-typographys-famous-names Fonts vs. typefaces FastCompany magazine) – https://www.fastcompany.com/3028971/whats-the-difference-between-a-font-and-a-typeface Talk About Talk Fonts BLOG – https://talkabouttalk.com/talk-about-fonts-and-emojis COLOUR Podcast – https://talkabouttalk.com/10-communicating-with-colour-with-daryl-aitken-jenn-purkis-lori-ryerson/ Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com   Interview Transcript Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: He has a business card, I’m really curious to see what fonts are on the business card. It’s very clean looking. Thank you so much, Patrick for being here. Patrick Griffin: Pleasure. AW: So let’s start if you don’t mind by talking about the font industry Patrick Griffin: Okay, let’s start with what I do. I make fonts on demand; I made fonts for retail and make fonts. I just make fonts. I’d be considered a font designer. And I’ve been doing this for about 19 years now. AW: How many fonts do you think you’ve designed or developed? PG: I stopped counting years ago. It’s quite a few. AW:  So who are you designing or developing these font families for? PG: I do fonts for banks, I do fonts for publishers, I do fonts for the five major movie studios are like constantly customers of mine. AW: Really? PG: Yeah. AW: because I assumed that graphic designers or maybe  designers of packaging, for example, for consumer-packaged goods or who are creating labels, or maybe even who are designing brand logos would be coming to you. PG: those company as well. Yeah. AW: so you can own a font? PG: Absolutely. Yeah, they pay good money to own a font for the simple reason is that, that they own it, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. And that’s one good way to stand out. AW: So if I have a font on my business card PG: So actually, Okay, I know the guy who designed it. This font was originally published by a company called Font Bureau based in Boston,… AW: you can tell just by looking at it – instantly. PG: Yeah, the shapes are very, very distinct, right. I mean, it’s like, there are people who are so into cars that they can tell, you know, tell which car it is, you know, half a mile down the road. Right. Okay, it’s coming towards you. I’m the same with fonts. When I grew up I had two local heroes in Toronto, and they were both type designers. AW: Really? PG: Yeah. I’m very good friends with them now. I grew up. Basically, I was fascinated by the fact that these guys, they just get to draw letters for a living. AW: Yeah, this is fascinating. I agree. Do you think of it as art? Do you think of yourself as an artist? PG: Not reall.? I don’t. I I’m a functionality guy. I make tools for people – I guess to have an easier time with their project to communicate. Yeah, absolutely. Well, that’s, that’s what I do I make communications. AW: That’s also why you’re here. PG: first and foremost, they are communication tools. Fonts. I mean, there’s a lot of history dates back. The moment we invented the alphabet, and the moment with the to reshape the alphabet, we have in effect decided that we want to change the way we communicate.  And they’re everywhere. So they are everywhere. Yeah, they’re everywhere. Magic. Actually, something very interesting. In Sweden seven or eight years ago, one day, Stockholm woke up and their main street, all the signs that not have anything on them, the signs were all blank on one of their main streets. But it turned out to be some sort of stunt, that due to tell people that, okay, we are eliminating communication, try to live with that.  Like even the street signs, they didn’t have anything on them to prove a point. Sure enough, everybody who was walking on that street was very, very disoriented. And it’s like, they were not sure if this is the shop that they actually go to every day, when the language on the side disappeared on the fonts on the side disappeared on the words have disappeared. And the sign was like, it was always yellow. But now it’s just the yellow with nothing on it. Right. It kind of kind of threw them off. AW: I can imagine that sounds like this scene in a movie. Right? PG: Yeah. It was pretty freaky. AW: it actually makes me feel anxious to think about that. I imagine walking down a familiar street now. And being completely disoriented. Wow. What are the fonts that work or don’t work? PG: at the University of Montreal in 2011, this one guy Frédéric Gosselin. He went through 10,000 people trying to figure out what fonts would work better on the side and he came up with the weirdest thing –  that slab serif are the most efficient. It has these serifs at the bottom that are really long and thick and they’re actually slabs there. They don’t have any refinement on it. It’s just a slab. AW: I thought it was smart just knowing what a serif was, but now there’s other different kinds of serifs! So we have the slabs with right angles, PG:  Right. And then if they’re at non right angles like triangles for example, it’s the wedge there.. AW: and then the rounded serif PG: well the rounded we call that “old style,” so that’s like the old Garamond serif… AW: Yeah. My learning curve is almost vertical!!! PG: Yeah, and then you have you have the modern serifs, and you have your the stem of the high which was like the trunk of the tree. And then you have the stems that are very, very thin. And what are those called the modern serif. So, the reason they call them modern is because the higher the contrast, the more modern it is. And from what you just said. I can tell you learned cursive when you were in school. AW: So talk to me about cursive. Is it just calligraphy? Should we continue teaching kids to write cursive in school? PG: You know, in Finland they pretty much did away with pens all together. Now kids when they go to school, they just learn keyboards. they worked with the with the trackpad or the mouse with the keyboards and that’s it. Right? This is this is a recent development like three years ago. kids growing up and filling now. and about 10 years, 20 years, you’re gonna you’re going to ask them, you know, you have a pen, like, I’ve never had a pen in my life. Wow. Or I don’t know what a pen is? Or – Oh, you mean the old thing. AW: As the world is shifting away from handwriting, whatever it may be asking someone for their phone number, writing a grocery list, whatever, and towards doing everything, on their phone, on their laptop, they’re typing more, they’re using fonts, and I guess the curse of fonts are going away, though, are they? Are they becoming less popular? PG: Not really. We call those scripts. It’s been kind of gaining a bit of a revival, recently, over the past, I don’t know, 10 years or so. With the with the whole rise of the, you know, by local and organic try to step back a bit from everything that has to do with a machine and do human stuff. crafty stuff, right? This is why when you go to Starbucks, you don’t see a machine, you don’t see a screen out there, you see a board with some doodles on it. You see a sign standing outside that some handwriting on it, very carefully done handwriting, some of the stuff was beautiful. Yeah, I stop and take pictures. The problem with scripts is that sometimes you can get carried away. You start using the really high-end script, all the swashes and all the and then suddenly, it’s not personal. just seems like you hire the million-dollar calligrapher to do this. AW: I just thought of this example, in my wedding invitation. My husband’s name is “Jon.” His Christian name is “Jan.”. So on the wedding invitation, it says “Jan”, and it was in such stylized script that the Jan really read as “Ian,” and we received several checks, as wedding gifts written to “Ian and Andrea.” PG: Yeah, and the wrong font start hitting you in your pocket! The banker has to tell you, Hey, you know, this is not you. Right? That’s a problem. AW: Yeah, that was a problem. It hit me right in the pocket. That’s funny. I hadn’t thought of that for years, but it was, it was because we chose a font where the “J” looked like an “I”. Can you imagine that? PG: Yeah. It’s very common, actually. AW: So let’s get into some nitty gritty in terms of prescribing or suggesting to people, what fonts may be more or less legible, more or less appropriate. Is there a difference in how various fonts are perceived by readers? PG: It depends on what we grew up with. It depends on the person, when they grew up. You might thinkTimes New Roman is an old-style font, it’s not. WhenTimes New Roman came out, It was the summit of modernism. We took the old style and made it new style, really, so they call it Times New Roman, dating back to the Roman days, right? So this is the new roman and times was because it was done made for Times newspaper. AW: I thoughtTimes New Roman as the generic font, I think of it as generic. And that might be my age. PG: Well, it has become generic because they ship with so much software. Now. I mean, it was the standard font in default font than Windows for the longest time. And this was back in the in the 90s. So it’s times new roman, as in The Times newspaper, and then new as in the modern version of Roman lettering. To this day, if you talk to somebody who’s 70 or 80 years old, and you, you ask them what they think of, you know, revolutionary typefaces they might bring up Times Roman, and say, Oh, this is a very modern type face. AW: one of the questions I wanted to ask you, though, is also about trends in fonts? PG: trends in fonts are very, very fickle. Very fleeting. And it also, again, it also depends on who you talk to, and what they grew up with. If you’re talking to a designer who grew up, I don’t know, go into raves. They’re going to be partial to san serif fonts are going to be partial to technical fonts, they’re going to be partial to fonts that are really hard to read, right? Or fonts that are really clean. If you talk to somebody who grew up reading a lot, then they going to like serif fonts. There is a perception of what a font does. But that perception varies from one person to another. AW: so last night, my son was creating a poster for really important school project. And I suggested to him that the font may matter. PG: Fonts always matter. I think the fact that fonts are not on people’s radar these days, not as much as they used to really professionals anyway, it has something to do with the glut of fonts that we have out there. AW: When I click on the fonts, because I am interested in fonts and all that — optimizing my communication effectiveness! I click on the font thing, and PG: there’s about 700 fonts and that list keeps growing. AW: It’s actually overwhelming. It’s like decision fatigue. PG: And I really don’t want to spend 15 minutes on this. So what I’m going to do, is I’m going to pick something from that first scroll on the menu. So between fonts that start from A to maybe C or D right. So you end up using Calibri, you end up using Comic Sans, you end up using Arial. Arial was so common because of that, because it starts with an “A.” So you know, if any font designers or people trying to sell fonts are listening to this. My advice– name your fonts, something with an “A.” AW: Wow. Shouldn’t they be categorizing them? PG: It’s becoming a bit of an interface issue, right? It is an interface issue. It used to be about 100 fonts, or 100 families shipped with the operating system. Yeah. And then whatever software you bought, say you bought Photoshop, then you got 150 more families. But this was still limited. If we get about 400, 500 fonts, you can manage that. But then you start talking about 20,000 fonts, 30,000 fonts, that is it’s a mess, right? AW: Do you need some sort of filter? PG: The problem with that stuff is whoever’s working on these things, they’re usually not tied to designers. And they’re usually not very well versed with type history. And so these categories you end up with categories like well, ironic. Or cowboy font or something. This comes down to why fonts are in such a sad state of affairs these days. AW: Do you think it’s a sad state of affairs? PG: I think so. Yeah, I think there are still many of them. And there’s too many amateurish fonts out there that that people are using for important stuff. Okay. You’re a good designer. But typography could turn your design to turn you into an excellent designer, right, versus a good designer. It’s a really important element of graphic design. Look at the coffee can that you buy. It’s full of typography. Look at the screen on your phone. It’s full of typography, right. You know, if that stuff is not done very well, then it affects sales of that particular product. AW: Right. So even on the device itself, if you turn your phone PG: Yeah, absolutely. AW: Down on the back there are words and font back that are implicitly communicating something about the brand. PG: Absolutely. AW:  So you used the word, amateurish fonts. And I can’t imagine honestly, other than maybe being inconsistent. I can’t imagine what an amateurish font is, but most people that are listening to this podcast, are not designers. But they are professionals who are communicating things with fonts — whether they’re real estate agent who’s got a pad of paper, or a business card or whatever. So do you have any guidelines or advice about how to present yourself in a professional as opposed to an amateur way? Using fonts? PG: I think there are two most important things about choosing fonts. The first thing is, you have to be very, very familiar, you have to know the project that you’re working with, inside out. And then you have to translate that knowledge into adjectives. Okay. AW: Right. And then it’s almost like a creative brief? PG: yeah. And then take those adjectives and find a font that fits them. And just as important, you have to take yourself out of the equation. You have to remain objective; you have to remain clinical. This is about the project. This is not about you. Okay. I don’t care if you like Helvetica. If it doesn’t fit your project, don’t use it. Okay? I don’t care if you love Futura. If it doesn’t fit your project, don’t use it. And stay away from system fonts. AW: What’s a system font? PG: A font that ships with the operating system. Like, you know, Arial comes with Windows. That’s how you know, Comic Sans comes with Windows. That’s how you know about Verdanda and Tahoma. AW: Why should I stay away from those because people are familiar with them? PG: They’re familiar with them. But I’m gonna give you a funny story here. So my kid was to like, I think, grade four. And one day, I get a letter from the school about the school bus that went in a ditch. They sent that letter to everybody, all the parents, right?  It was a horrible thing. Like, you know, it’s a bus full of kids fell in a ditch, right? And that’s what the letter was saying. And the letter was set in Comic Sans. AW: Which looks very unprofessional. PG: What Comic Sans? You know, was made for comic book bubbles. AW: but it’s a teacher favorite. PG: It’s a fun font. And it’s a great comic font. But it may be great in the classroom when they’re doing, but don’t use it on people a bit, is, you know, our stuff like this, right? It’s crazy, right? So I actually went to the school and yelled at the teacher. So when the reason I’m saying stay away from system fonts is because they are used too much. And, you know, you say people are familiar with them, you know, what familiarity brings? AW: Passivity? PG: Lack of attention. Meaningless, right? They just stopped meaning anything. Those fonts stopped meaning anything. AW: so let me let me ask you, if you’re taking the time to choose a font, given that the font can help establish whatever your communication objective is, … PG: this kind of goes back to your question about trends. And, you know, speaking of the adjectives, you know, I, when somebody comes to me, and they say, they want a custom font for this company’s bank, whatever.  They  come to me and I ask, what do you want that to be? What do you want from the font? You know, what kind of feeling? Do you want this or that? If they say, “I don’t know,” then I started asking them specific questions. Who is your target audience for this one? AW: for example, if  they’ve created a document that is proposal to win a business, they they’re pitching on something, so I want it to look professional and my target is this 55-year-old vice president who’s got the decision to make of whether or not he hires me, right? PG: What are you trying to tell this fight 55-year-old vice president? Who are you? AW: I have experience. I’m dependable. PG: Experience automatically puts it in a safe category and takes it back. Dependable. You want something that’s done centuries ago? AW: what if I wanted to say that I’m the innovative? I’m a creative thinker. PG: then you might you might want to use like a humanist font. That’s the thing. The sans serif now, thanks to, I guess, corporate culture and advertising and branding from the 70s and … now the only thing you see out there is Sans Serif everywhere. You go even on your screen and with the real estate squeeze boom. Serifs are ornamental, so there is no room for that stuff on small screens. And you want people use sans serif now because it’s clean, clean, it’s minimal. And while the other thing is when you look at the letters don’t just look at the letters, look at the space around the letters. When you use a sans serif, everything seems airy. When was the last time you saw a new condo development being are using a serif font or an old-style font to pitch themselves? AW: never PG: even a modern serif. What do real estate people sell these days? They sell really really tiny places by making them look bigger. Right and how do you make something look bigger? You put a lot of space in it. Sans Serif you know there’s a lot of space. AW: so I love this. If a real estate agent is trying to communicate implicitly that they are going to sell you something that maybe is bigger than it seems they would use an airy font. PG: So every everything they use, they use white paint in the rooms, right? They use a lot of mirrors, to make things look bigger, right? That’s the same thing with a font, you know, whatever, whatever you’re doing to other design elements. Pick a font that you can do the exact same things with. So same thing. AW: An adjective that I think a lot of people are trying to ensure is clearly communicated is trustworthiness. PG: Trustworthiness is a bit of a double-edged sword here because do you trust the machine? Do you trust the human being? Do you trust the machine more than a human being? Do you trust me being more learn machine and your target audience? What’s their take on this? It’s going to be different right? Now, in a sense of the word you get you have the humanists sans they’re self-shapes. They’re minimalist shapes based on calligraphy. Based on the hand strokes that you do with a hand. And there’s the machine sense of the word, like the Helvetica, we call those the gothics or the grotesques. AW:  the grotesques? PG:  Yeah, it’s a name that dates back from when the when the sans serifs first came out, people looked at and said, this is pretty grotesque. And the name stuck. AW: Wow. Well, when would that have been? PG: 1800s. But now, it’s the prize style. Right? Everybody wants to use sans serif. Nobody wants anything else. But things happen with these categories. Right. Black letter used to be the norm in Germany, AW: what is the Black letter typeface? PG: you know, the typeface that you see on certificates? The really complicated German old looking? AW: Yeah, it’s like, it looks like it’s done with a calligraphy pen. PG: Yeah. AW: with lots of tails? PG: Yeah. Or this is actually, you know, like, heavy metal is all usually based on black letters, that’s called Black letter. Black letter used to be the norm. People used to actually read entire books and that stuff, right? Imagine that at 10 point really small. Odds are, if you pick up a mass paperback these days, it’s still uses a serif font, right? That’s what we grew up with. The publishers don’t want to take their chances on changing things. If you pick up an art book or design book, then most likely you’re going to end up with sans serif font use being used for other things. Why? Because you control the last fast, lightweight a big deal, right? AW:  You said it really depends. You really need to know your target. You need to know the demographic that you’re communicating to. Is there a table of if they are age 10 and under this is the type of font if they’re in their 20s? PG: It depends on the product. okay, I have this light bulb that I want to sell, and I want to package it. But I don’t want to sell a light bulb I want to sell happiness. Happy fonts are bouncing happy fonts are bubbly, happy fonts are soft. AW: Let me ask you about emojis. Perfect segue to emojis. What do you think about emojis? PG: Emojis are just an evolution of what we used to call dingbats. Remember dingbats? AW: Oh, yeah, right? I remember wingdings and zap dingbats. PG: You know, the there’s actually, there’s actually a technical term called the Unicode. It’s actually a map of Zap dingbats that you can emulate in font editors and by design programs, but that’s what emojis are. They’re basically dingbats that, that we use, much more frequently now and texting. AW: Well, this is this is something that I’m really, really interested in. PG: What’s interesting about your question is that it hits the mark, because the body that regulates the character set that people work with all over the world. It’s called the Unicode Consortium. Now they’re assigning entire blocks for nothing but emojis. Like blocks are like cellblocks. The Unicode Consortium, that regulation body, they are treating emojis exactly the same way that they’re creating other languages, or other scripts. for example, you know, it’s a language in and of itself. Well, that’s what those guys are thinking, I don’t see it. AW: fascinating. It sounds like they have a lot of power they can basically sensor… PG: Actually, that they used to have a lot of power back in the 90s. Now, they’re just basically bought and sold by the Googles and the Apples of the world. Really, yeah. I mean, those are the guys who will sign emojis and was that it was a bit of a thing. Look, with fonts, the way we know them, we’re talking about an alphabet. Okay. I mean, it could have different shapes and different scripts, like in Russia, the alphabet is different than Greece. The alphabet is different from ours but still an alphabet. And there’s only so many ways you can draw in a before it turns into a Salvador Dali thing. But with emojis you know, you’re notdealing with alphabets, you’re dealing with images. So putting them in this net of standards. It’s impossible, actually. Yeah.again, yeah, to answer your question: emojis are just dingbats that grew up and became really annoying. AW: annoying, and they’re also funny. I think they’re funny. PG: Some are, yeah. About two years ago, were some company  had a contest. If you can write an entire letter in emojis, and we can read it entirely, without problems, then we’ll give you some money. Well, nobody won anything. Because it was it was impossible. It’s not an alphabet, right. So… AW: Going to go back to another question, How many fonts are too many? PG: If you’re using a document that uses more than two fonts, one for headlines one for tax, then you’re probably doing something wrong. Clear communication. You can’t change horses on people all the time. … AW:  nice metaphor! PG: what you’re trying to do with most messages of considerable length. You’re trying to get people to the point where they’re actually reading immersively. When you send your resume, you want people to be immersed in it. If you put five or six fonts in there, they’re just jumping from one orient to another. that’s ineffective. AW: So Wow, that is – I think that’s a really critical point. If I’m consciously and strategically choosing a font, my first objective should be to engage the reader. PG: Absolutely right. AW: and then to communicate the right things, but then at the same time not doing it in a way where they’re thinking about the font, it should be, where the font is complimenting their interpretation. PG: There’s another mistake that people make when they’re choosing fonts. The common wisdom (and this was in the typography field) is that if a font calls attention to itself, it failed this job. fonts are supposed to be transparent fonts are supposed to be the servants of the content. Choosing a font means you are actually in effect, deciding on a form thing. But that form should always serve the content, people get carried away with the font thing. Oh, look, that “A” is so beautiful. I want to choose it. But then they have another thing about choosing fonts. Don’t fall in love with a single letter, you gotta test a font or look at a font and its entirety. The a maybe beautiful, but you put it beside the queue, and it looks like &*$%#! Never judge a font from ABC, the you know, look at it in the paragraph. If you’re having a problem choosing between three fonts then you have three paragraphs on the screen just set each paragraph in a different font and you see what kind of vibe you’re getting from them. Like every time you go to Dairy Queen or any of those ice cream places. Those huge billboards… Look at the letters there. Look at what they’re trying to do. AW: They’re trying to actually make the letters look like ice cream! PG: and it’s always soft. It’s kind of wavy, there’s no hard edges. And that’s just, that’s just one industry and  that kind of design is called it’s part of the Art Nouveau aesthetic. Things are soft and no, hardly any corners there. But still, you’re dealing with the alphabet. So letters have to have the same DNA. Now imagine Dairy Queen, selling their products using Helvetica with the Swiss, this would never work. It’s inconsistent and it’s just a waste. Yeah. There is such a thing as packaging your product with a wrong font. And that is actually more common than you think. AW: What are some other brands that you think do a great job of it? PG: There are tons of horrible ones. The really good ones are the ones that actually, you know, you look at a brand that last of a long time with the same aesthetic without changing, that means they did a good job. AW: So I’m thinking of Nike, and Nike has a couple different versions. I can imagine there’s one where it’s all caps, and it’s italicized, and then there’s one where it’s a small I-K-E. PG: it’s interesting because it’s almost every year they change their typography around that swoosh. It depends on the trends. In the 90s they were into grunge. They were selling the cleanest shoes ever, but they wanted grunge, and started using grunge typography and … AW: What’s grunge typograph? PG: it’s exactly what it sounds like it’s really messy stuff. It’s like this distressed typography you know, faded out letters. Letters doubled up on each other. In the 90s there was this grunge thing going on. And, and it was around the time when font editors became affordable to the general public. And so you had all these students taking existing fonts and just destroying the hell out of them with Photoshop filters… And then putting them something for sale somewhere or for download somewhere. And there was this big boom, and it was around the same time that pixel fonts were happening. It was around the same time AW: I was just thinking back to the Nike brand logo with the word Nike, it’s capitalized, and I italicized I think, but I’m interested in the capitalized. So we’ve all heard that capitals means you’re yelling, and some people will they’ll start typing in caps. They’ll go Oops, sorry for yelling! PG: It’s just another means of emphasis really. Caps are just the different aesthetic, right? AW: Why do people consider it yelling? PG: Well, it’s bigger. Well, if you make the font bolder, are you yelling as well? AW: I’m curious. PG: if you’re texting then it’s hard to tell a size or bold. So if you want to emphasize something, I don’t think it’s a big deal to just capitalize one word and you know, or two words. But if you type in entire text and in caps then I guess you’re giving people the cue to ask you is your caps lock on or, are you yelling? AW: like Trump was asked with that famous tweet that he sent out? Are there any differences in your advice or observations in terms of fonts that are on a printed page versus on a screen? PG: Yeah, absolutely, certainly the case. To steal from Marshall McLuhan – The medium is not only the message, the medium dictates how the message is wrapped. And that affects the fonts as well. When you turn on your phone, all the fonts that you’re seeing that you see, they’re all Sans Serif fonts. Why is that? It’s because the screen is small, and they cannot any room for ornamentation.  When I deliver the message fast and transparently… So it depends. If I’m reading a novel by Stephen King or somebody, and the font is sans serif  font that I would have problem.. It seems inconsistent. Right? So it absolutely depends on the media, okay. Things are done on the screen very differently from… and to this day, we’ve had about 500 years to perfect design and layout on paper. The internet’s only about — what is it– 30 years old now? It’s still very inconsistent. And the thing with the internet is that now everybody’s on the internet. So anybody and his grandfather is a designer. They slap a few things together without having any idea what they’re doing and it’s on the web. And you know what, it might become famous. People in the design industry are have a vested interest in telling you that design is important. But they don’t have a vested interest in telling you is that sometimes it’s not. People can become successful without good design. Right? AW: Same thing applies to photography, right? Like photographers all sudden everyone’s a photographer. PG: There’s a lot of font designers out there who honestly believe that they’re artists and they treat themselves like artists, they actually behave like artists –  really cranky. I’m not like, I think of myself as the guy who makes it words, you know, making something. AW: So you’re like manufacturing something as opposed to … PG: Yeah, because designing its functionality, AW: I noticed that you called yourself a developer, not a designer and I was expecting, anticipating that you would call yourself a designer PG: Oh my – you know, my title is type designer, right? But again, Me, I just like to keep my head down and do the work and go hang out with the family or watch a movie or something. AW:  you’re obviously obsessed with fonts and fascinated by fonts. PG: It’s what I like to do. I notice fonts everywhere. And there’s something in the back of my mind, whenever I’m outside with somebody, I’m always aware of which fonts they’re looking at. And their bodily reactions to what they see. And when, when I’m walking around with my kid walking downtown, or shopping. I look at the things that he’s attracted to, to buy. And I try to process them first and in terms of influences, or why does he like this thing? And then sometimes I find myself thinking, Well, you know what, this font that they’re using on the packaging must have had something to do with this. AW: That’s why they call you the font guy. PG: I’m really fortunate that I’m doing something I like to do, which not a lot of people can claim. AW: And by the way, ladies and gentlemen he’s wearing a black t-shirt that has Helvetica written across his chest in what looks like a Metallica font. It’s awesome. I love it I’m going to take a photo for sure. PG: You know, I like doing it. I make fonts because I want to see them used. I want people to use them. And I am very proud when I’m driving down the 401 and I see my font on a billboard.  I’m like “YAY!”, you know, I’m a happy guy. Right? Imagine when I go to the airport and I see my font use for their signage and all that stuff. I love it. AW: Okay, I’m gonna ask you to five rapid fire questions now that I asked every guest. PG:  shoot AW: number one What are your pet peeves? PG: too many to count. I don’t like clutter. I don’t like smartphone zombies. I you know I’ve got way too many to count pet peeves, but I try to be tolerant. AW: Number two – what type of learner are you? PG: Probably predominantly auditory. AW: Really. PG: I’d say 70%. More auditory than visual. Yeah, but I’m also I also play music and, I’ve done that for a long, lot longer than so I’m a bit of both. AW: Number three, introvert or extrovert? PG: I’m a thoughtful person. Making fonts is actually a very relaxing, like you get into a zone where it’s very, very quiet. Very AW: Do you think you get into flow? PG: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, it’s, it’s very flow. Not everybody’s cup of tea, but I like it. Yeah. I think I’m an introvert if I go to a party within about half an hour, 45 minutes on. I don’t I don’t mind people’s company. I think I think people like being around me. AW: So that’s what they tell you? PG: They don’t tell me but I get I get a vibe that they do. And you know,… AW: that’s funny. Okay. Number four, communication preference for personal conversation. PG:  First thing I do is pick up the phone. I’m old school that way. I like email because you can actually attach stuff and if you want to show somebody something, like a photo or something like that, right? Like, you got to see this. Like, you can’t exactly do that over the phone. I prefer hanging out in person. And the phone is kind of as close as you can get. I stay away from social media because to me, it’s a time sink. It’s a real rabbit hole. I’ve seen people just lose years of their lives on it. AW: Okay, last question. Is there a podcast or a blog or an email newsletter that you find yourself recommending? PG: I’m a tech nerd. So I read Slashdot, a lot, Slashdot. And I’ve been reading it since the mid 90s. It’s a tech blog. It’s a tech nerd thing. And there’s something called the type drawers, type drawers. AW: So is there anything else you want the listeners to know about fonts? PG: I like type and I think it’s a glorious history. Everything we know about fonts now is actually the evolution of a grand beautiful craft that dates back centuries. And I think it’s, magnificent, you know, magnificent, in a Lord of the Rings kind of way, you know, but that’s just me. If somebody wants a hobby, typography is a good thing to get into. AW: You know, I thought it was interested in typography before I spoke with you, but now I’m definitely more interested.  It’s fascinating stuff. PG:  it is. AW: Very cool. Thank you so much. I really learned a lot and I had fun. I hope you did too. PG: Great.   I’d love to hear from you. Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com THANK YOU for listening!  And READING! Have a great week!  And TALK soon! The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW! Talk About Talk – Communication Skills Training & Podcast TALK soon! ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #18 (S2) FONTS, TYPOGRAPHY AND EMOJIs with the Font Guy, Patrick Griffin appeared first on Talk About Talk.

What do our possessions say about us? Award-winning marketing professor Russell Belk talks about how our possessions (including our clothing, cars, people, collections, gifts, social media pages,…) become part of our identity –or our extended self. Professor Belk highlights the significance of the sharing economy and de-materialization, cultural differences, and our evolving identities in relation to our possessions.   References & Links Professor Russell Belk Schulich School at York University – http://schulich.yorku.ca/faculty/russell-w-belk/ Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_W._Belk Professor Belk’s scholarly articles – https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=klSyVxYAAAAJ&hl=en “Possessions & the Extended Self” – http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.588.621&rep=rep1&type=pdf “The Extended Self in the Digital World” –https://www.msi.org/uploads/files/ATreview13-Belk.pdf Gift–Giving – https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/3/3/155/1792065 Royal Society of Canada – http://schulich.yorku.ca/news/professor-russell-belk-elected-royal-society-canada/ Papers & Scholars Referenced Ralph Waldo Emerson on a “True Gift” – https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/303 William James on Possessions – https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin10.htm Thorstein Veblen on Conspicuous Consumption – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption Healthy Avatars – https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2009.0130 “The Gift of the Maji” story by O. Henry – http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/GifMag.shtml Nicholas Carr (Atlantic Monthly) – “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” – https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ Grant McCracken – clothing as language – https://amzn.to/2LtylZk Jerry Zaltman (Harvard) – https://www.hbs.edu/Pages/faculty-search.aspx?q=zaltman John Deighton (Harvard) – https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6446 Talk About Talk Possessions BLOG – https://talkabouttalk.com/talk-and-learn-about-our-possessions SOCIAL MEDIA podcast episode – https://talkabouttalk.com/7-social-media-with-volterra-founder-andrew-jenkins/ FASHION Podcast episode – https://talkabouttalk.com/16-s2-talking-fashion-style-with-toronto-fashion-weeks-carolyn-quinn/ STORYTELLING Podcast episode – Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com     Interview Transcript Russell Belk: Pleasure. Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: I thought it’d be great to start with definitions. So maybe let’s start with self and extended itself. What do we mean when we say self? RB:  You picked a difficult topic.  No one agrees on what the self is, but I guess a simple way of thinking about it would be is what we think about who we are and what others think about who we are. And so extended itself is how that self is conveyed through the things that we own and the things that we do with them. AW: So I keep thinking the word identity, right? RB:  Yeah, self and identity are pretty much interchangeable. AW: Okay. So I read in your paper, this quote that I just pulled out, because I thought it was interesting. The core self is a belief rather than a fact. Can you elaborate on that? RB:  Sure. We’d like to think that we have an inner self that is unchanging, that is the same self we had when we were children. When we are old and die. But that’s not true. Our self is continually changing, continually evolving. There may be a few things. If I asked you who you are, you might say your name, where you’re from, what you do. It’s a little bit different in different cultures. In India, people would begin with who their parents and their grandparents were and where they’ve lived. And maybe eventually get around to themselves. But by and large, what we answer to that question is what we think about who we are. And as we think about ourselves, we begin to bring in places people and things as a part of that as well. That’s what I’m calling the extended itself. AW: And so there’s a layering… I don’t know if you want to call it a hierarchy?  Does that vary by culture? RB:  It does to some degree, some cultures are less materialistic. And some are more into lineage. In Chinese culture, for example, you owe a debt to your parents when you’re born for making the gift of your birth to you. And so you pay that back over a lifetime and even after they’ve died. For example, burning paper goods for them to use an afterlife. AW: Wow, wow. Okay, I want to get into materialism in a minute. But first, let’s shift now to the definition of possessions. If I just think about possessions and the extended self, the first image that comes to my mind actually is someone who’s driving a certain brand of a car. So the possessions that come to mind, I think it’s kind of a low hanging fruit in this context, is brands. But in your paper, you actually say that that’s not what you’re talking about, exactly. Right? RB:  I mean, it can be brands, but it need not be. It could be something that you found on the beach, and that’s a part of who you are, you saved it, perhaps it becomes a part of a collection. But while you say that’s a low hanging fruit, the car that you’re driving might be a rental, or could be a part of the sharing economy as a car or something of that sort. So it’s getting a little bit trickier. And the other thing that is relatively new is the digital economy, because those are intangible things. If we put something up online or if we download something. Those are possessions. We can we can legally own, we can do things with them. But they’re not tangible stuff. They’re not what we used to think about as being possessions. AW: So do possessions have to be legally owned? RB:  No, it’s something that we think about as being ours. So, if I have students in a classroom and they sit in the same seat every time and I haven’t assigned them, they begin to think of that as their seat. If someone else sits there they get angry and upset. AW: Does it have to be a noun? RB:  No, you could call your temperament …  Actually we describe ourselves by what we do, what we have, and ultimately what we are. There’s some inner sense of who we think we are: our predispositions, our values and so forth. AW: So that’s a little bit related to what I was talking to Professor Jerry Zaltman about. When I was interviewing him, he said that he was at a farmers’ market and he saw a sign on the wall that said: “you are what you eat.” And he’s been thinking you are what you think. And he said, “Now, Andrea, you’re saying, you are what you say.” So it’s, as you say, it’s what we do. It’s what we have. It’s what we are. And as Jerry said, it’s what we think. And as I’m saying, it’s what you say. RB:  Those latter two categories are a bit more ephemeral. What you say becomes forgotten more easily than the house that you live in or the or the car that you drive. AW: True. It’s intangible? RB:  and fleeting. I mean, it’s there, as long as the echo of that sentences is there in your head, or the thought that you are thinking is there in your head but tomorrow morning, you may remember it differently and others may as well. AW: Unless you’re in the digital world. RB:  Sure, you are making an imprint that some would say will last a lifetime. At least it’s going to last a while. AW: I actually was listening to NPR the other day and they were talking about how people are starting to assume that it is there forever. But then it’s not. And they’re freaking out when companies go under, and stuff that they’ve written is gone. RB:   Yeah. And you could have invested a lot in it. And the same goes with how if you created a digital avatar that you put great care into and spent real money, equipping and clothing and so forth. And that platform shuts and you don’t have it any longer. AW: Okay, so one of the questions I really want to ask you is, is an avatar, a possession, or a self or does it matter? RB:  It’s a pseudo-self. It’s a self and a possession. It’s an alter ego. People usually have some semblance of who they think they are or playfully would like to be. And so they’ve invested a bit of themselves in it, but it isn’t identical to saying that is their self. It is not like the movie Avatar where you literally become your avatar. You go into an online world. AW: And there’s all sorts of fascinating research being done on that people believe they can segregate themselves from or disembody themselves from the avatar. But then the avatar is taking on more and more of their own personality traits. RB:  Yes, and vice versa. If you assign someone a taller and more attractive avatar, they become more self-confident. And that self-confidence carries over offline as well as when they are operating through the avatar. With an older avatar they become more concerned with saving money, and with a more physically fit avatar, they become more concerned with exercise. These effects once again are carried over from the online world to the offline … AW: …so that’s like a life hack! Actually, if I want to be fitter. For example, my Bitmoji — I should make it more fit looking with the more physically fit body type. RB:  I would put it in with a bit of a caution. The studies show that it carries over are when you’re assigned a particular avatar, versus when you create it yourself. It may or may not be the same sort of effect, because … AW: I would have guessed the opposite — because of attribution. Right? Like I chose this I want this I’m working towards this versus it was randomly assigned? RB:  Unless you do it playfully. And in that case, you may not be taking it as seriously. You’re getting out your aggressions with a World of Warcraft, a hostile avatar that’s not really you. AW: Fascinating! Okay. Let me just ask a couple of other questions related to possessions. Are people, other people, can they qualify as possessions? Like my child? RB:  People would often say that — yes. And even a dating partner sometimes is referred to as someone that you’re wearing, especially in the gay community. Or the notion of “a trophy wife” would also imply that is a possession. When Veblen talked about conspicuous consumption, he talked about moguls who would dress their wives and children in finery that they themselves weren’t particularly inclined to wear. It was a vicarious expression of their wealth and who they thought they were. AW: And it’s extended self to another that they’re considering as a possession. Even if it’s… RB:  I mean, listen, if your child or even your dog misbehaves, it reflects on you. And so a barking dog or a crying baby, is your responsibility and reflection of you as and your motherhood or the fatherhood. AW: I’ve heard catty mothers criticizing other mothers who dress their kids up and it’s like, does the kid really care that they’re wearing designer clothes? That’s ridiculous. Well, they’re not doing it for the kid. They’re doing it for themselves, right? It’s kind of the same thing. RB:  True, but even funerals are really not for the deceased. They are for the survivors. AW: Right. RB:  We do that in other ways as well. AW: Fascinating. Okay. So I think one of the most important questions that Talk About Talk listeners would want to hear from you is, what are some of the ways that we may be communicating through our possessions non consciously where we’re telling people things about ourselves, and maybe we should be more conscious of the message that we’re communicating when, otherwise we wouldn’t be? RB:  I guess, think of an example where there’s a conflict between how people would perceive us and the image that we’re trying to communicate — or implicitly communicating — would be when we see an older person in a mini skirt and an outfit that we associate with younger people. We could also see it in other contexts. And we think — That person is putting on airs, or they just don’t know what’s appropriate for their age, or who they are. AW: Who did they think they are doing that? And it it’s particularly targeted at women. But don’t you think that they are conscious of that? RB:  Sometimes, yes. And sometimes it’s, you know,  I don’t care what other people think. I’m going to dress as I feel that makes me feel good. And if other people look at me askance, it’s just too bad. So there are people that are seemingly more impervious than others. AW: So it’s like the teenager who dresses up in black and they’re all goth because they’re trying to reject whatever their parents think they should be communicating through their clothing,  and then the kid just looks like a kid that’s conforming to the goth culture. RB:  Yes. AW: Ironic, right? RB:  We all have these tendencies to try to fit in and try to stand out. And different people have a different balance between those two. But even nonconformance… it must be recognized. You mentioned goth, a recognizable type of nonconformity. And Grant McCracken is an anthropologist here in town. You know him, I think. He talks about clothing as language. It is language, but only to the extent that we can fit it into an existing meaning system. So if you wear green top hat, and an orange to tutu and Vans, sneakers, and you’re skateboarding in a residential area, you’ll be striking. But people won’t know quite what to make of it. It doesn’t fit into enough existing codes or there’s too many conflicting codes. There’s degrees of conformity and degrees of standing out and, you know, there’s different looks that we might be trying. The different systems rather that we might be trying to communicate within. And so COOL, for example, is a different status system than the socioeconomic one because it is not so dependent upon wealth. It’s more dependent on demeanour and rather than putting on cool things, you’re endowing things with coolness. If you are taken to be a cool person, it means you have a bit of an air of superiority and unflappability. You don’t show emotions. These are some of the characteristics of cool people who have to pull that off so that their peer group recognizes them as being cool. And then what is cool is based on what that person has, and how they talk and how they walk. AW: And so it’s like how they’re displaying the possession or the clothing or the attitude. Right? RB:  Yeah, I guess the attitude is kind of the start of it. And then the accoutrements become the definition for other people of what is cool. And there’s sort of a trickle-down effect here. Less cool people adopt these things, and the cool person must innovate to continue to look cool. AW: I’d like to shift to gift giving. I cannot be involved in a birthday party or gift opening or whatever it is, without thinking of your papers and a couple things in particular stand out. There’s the process of procuring the gift and then presenting the gift and then receiving the gift and then displaying the gift. And then the reciprocation, of course. RB:  Right. AW: Which is huge. And I’m actually trying to teach my kids this now. I also love all this stuff about how emotion-laden gift giving is — for both the gift giver and the receiver and how layering on top of that, there’s traditions and when to households combine, like mine and my husband’s and he’s got certain traditions and I’ve got certain traditions and some of the mesh but most of them don’t. People get their feelings hurt, right? RB:  That’s right. Anytime two people get together they have to decide how they’re going to regard especially rituals and the way that we celebrate things and how we eat our dinner. AW: Is a dinner a gift? RB:  Yes, it certainly could be. And even such things as do you serve it family style ? Or does someone dish it out for you? It is a different sort of power. AW: I hadn’t thought of that.  So I was wondering, in the context of gift giving, then, how would a gift differ in terms of its relationship to yourself and identity then..? RB:  I guess it’s different for the giver and for the recipient. The way you regard that gift is ideally to remember the giver and remember them in a favorable light. Now, it’s not always favorable, because you may get an inappropriate or quote unquote, “ugly” gift from someone. And yet, because they’re going to come to your house and see it, where it should be, you have to continue to own it. And so that’s tarnished your personality or your self-concept, because if you feel it’s not really you, you don’t really like this thing. But the social obligation is that you should continue to display it. AW: And that may be part of your identity as well — being gracious. RB:  Sure. And the worst thing you can do is refuse the gift. To say I don’t want this. So somewhere in between would be re-gifting, where you take the gift to give it to someone else, hopefully not forgetting who was the original giver, giving it back to them. But in that case, this is developing as a more acceptable thing to do. AW: It’s becoming more acceptable? It’s used to be extremely insulting, right? RB:  Yeah. And it used to be insulting and still is to some degree, to give a monetary gift or even a gift card rather than tangible gifts that you’ve actually sought out and thought about and found to be appropriate to the recipient. Emerson said that the true gift should be a part of you. And so, you bring your skills and your interest to bear on the gift, from the receiver’s point of view. So from the recipients point of view, you’re more appreciative because it really is a part of that giver. If you send your secretary out to buy a gift for your partner, that’s inappropriate because they haven’t put the time and effort and love and thought into it. You probably know “The Gift of the Maji “ by O. Henry?… I think when you hear it you’ll recognize it. Della and Jim were lovers and they each had a special possession. In Jim’s case, it was an heirloom watch, pocket watch. And one thing that people used to do was wear it on what’s called a watch fob. He didn’t have one. He just had the watch. Della had beautiful long hair. And Jim noticed as they passed a store that there were some tortoise shell combs in the window that Della eyed with envy and desire. And so what happened in the end — and this was Christmas time — was that Della cut her hair and sold it to buy the watch fob for Jim. And he pawned the watch to buy the tortoise shell combs. So they were both functionally worthless gifts, but in terms of the thought and the communication, they were perfect, because they had sacrificed, they had thought of the other person. They had done away with any pretense that they might have in trying to get a perfunctory gift. AW: Staying in the in the gift giving realm. You mentioned that digital comments on social media, are gifts.  I had not thought of that. So in my research (which is on word of mouth), I remember John Deighton kept grilling me. “What is word of mouth? What is word of mouth? What is word of mouth?” and then I said at one point, “it’s a gift.” And now we’re seeing that with all the social media comments, the likes, and particularly when people take the time to share things or to write comments about them. They are gifts, right? For many reasons,… Can you comment on that? RB:  It is sometimes called digital patina because you’re adding to the person’s Facebook page or social media page, whatever it might be. Let me describe something that happens on Facebook, for example. Someone tags you in a photo and you put up a comment, “Oh, I look terrible. I just didn’t get enough sleep the night before.” And they of course they say, “Oh, you look beautiful. I wish I looked that good on a bad day.” So they’re reinforcing and affirming a positive self-concept for you. You’re expected to do the same thing for them. AW: So the reciprocity thing? RB:  It’s reciprocity, but it also looks like it’s a spontaneous comment from someone else, rather than one that you really sort of said, you know, tell me something that contradicts the negative feeder that I’m putting out there. And the same thing happens on LinkedIn. Now you endorse someone’s skills and they’re expected to endorse yours. AW: Absolutely RB:  And again, it’s reciprocity. AW: So I could bait someone into complimenting me? RB:  We have to remember reciprocity can also be negative. And so if you say something snarky about someone else, they’re likely to say something snarky about you. AW: Hmm. When I interviewed Andrew Jenkins on social media for a previous episode, he said, Twitter is the snarky channel. So don’t be on Twitter if you can’t stand snarkiness. Stay away. RB:  Well, look at Trump. AW: Yeah, well, there you go. That’s true. I wasn’t even thinking of Trump. He comes up by the way, every episode. Every episode. Sometimes implicitly, but usually not. I wanted to ask you, what are some of the most profound ways that you think the Internet has affected our possessions? RB:  Well, if you think about music, we used to make mixed tapes for someone. That was your ideal soundtrack for their life, and expressing what you thought about them, what you thought they would like. And then I guess it went to mix CDs or DVDs and now it’s sort of playlists. And in terms of how people might capture that music and save it, if you will, regarded as a possession might be, you know, as an mp3 file, that they keep categorized, perhaps, and put on their digital device. Or it might be just the playlist and you create a similar playlist on Spotify or some other streaming service. And this is different by generation, but if you’re able to divest yourself from your physical music collection, and only have a digital, that’s one step. And then the other step would be not to have the digital files on your device and computer, but to simply subscribe to a streaming service where you can call them up. AW: I hadn’t thought of that. I had thought of the first step, right. So you hear these people  transcribing their physical possessions into digital possessions, but then to actually forgo, that you this wouldn’t happen in a in a photograph context, but in a music context, it would, where you can say, Well, I can access that anytime on the internet, so long as you have access to the internet. I can always count this as part of my playlist. RB:  Yeah, you know, it’s interesting that you mentioned photographs because they are conceivably not ephemeral. But they’re not tangible either. It’s so cheap and easy to take more photos, we are inundated with photos. We don’t have curated collections of photos oftentimes other than perhaps a timeline. Yeah, it goes when they were taken. We can date stamp them as well. But you’re right that you can’t, you know, call one up out of thin air and it’s your picture of your beloved mother or something. Yeah, I mean, sometimes people will print out a photo or will create a tangible piece of digital music, burn a CD, still something of that sort, for the music that they really like, and for the photographs that are really important to them. But as I say, I think that may be generational and the digital immigrants, such as us, I guess, are different than the digital natives that have always growing up in this ephemeral world. AW: It’s frightening, isn’t it? I create photo albums for my kids whenever we go on vacation, and my older aunts have said your kids don’t know how lucky they are. And then I’m thinking Actually, I don’t think they will ever care. So it’s definitely it’s…. RB:   That’s nice. Then they’re looking at another way to curate their photos. AW: Related to the ways that the digital world has affected possessions. One thing that you brought up in your 2013 paper is dematerialisation. And I found that fascinating because when I think about possessions, I think of functionality and symbolism. And I’m wondering if when you talk about dematerialisation, if that’s related to a shift, maybe away from symbolism towards functionality, or…? RB:  Yes and no. I think there can still be symbolism in digital goods. And we can still store memories in digital goods, we can have online memorials for someone who has died, for example, and there’s a great deal of symbolism and expression. That’s a part of that. But we used to have love letters that we would write to a potential partner in longhand, and send in the mail, and they might take a while to get there. So in different places. And now we exchange email.  So there is still symbolism, but it’s slippery, it can get away. AW: When I think of possessions and displaying them, the first thing I always think of the lawyer in the 80s, driving up in his fancy white BMW, right, the classic symbol of the 80s, which was very focused on materialism. Can you comment on whether you think that there are cycles in displaying materialism or whether over time, it is just generally becoming less important? RB:  Yes, this differs culturally as well. Yes, there are cycles and to some degree, they’re geared to the economy. To some degree they’re geared to the size of the local population. Let me start off at a small village level. Now, there are villages in India where things are changing, but it used to be that people would not display their wealth, because that would provoke envy in other people and that’s a bad thing. When it gets big enough or the economy is flexible enough, you have the freedom to change spending patterns at least. Then you can go the opposite direction and try to provoke other people, envy.  Sort of more in your face, rather than avoiding that, and that’s provocation. AW: Interesting. So if in a society there are opportunities for people to change their socio- economic status, then it’s more okay to display that — you have succeeded, for example? RB:  Yes. We’ve studied materialism and various countries, and the places and times when materialism is most rampant are times of rapid economic change — when you either have the ability to try to climb and social class or you want to safeguard your social status position from the newcomers who are trying to emulate you. And so those are the places and times where we find materialism is most evident. AW: So another trend that I’m sure you’re familiar with is the small house and the tiny house thing, where suddenly …I mean they’re actually quite conspicuous. Because they’re small, and ironically, they’re very conspicuous. But they’re communicating a value as opposed to success, right? RB:  In times of ecological consciousness, or in times of energy shortages, like during the 70s, when the first era of our oil embargo took place, it becomes a status symbol to have a small, efficient, fuel efficient car. And it may be that, again, it’s catering to the values that are salient at that time. But also trying not to provoke envy because you think the economy is hurting other people and you don’t want to rub it in their faces quite as much. AW: So that provoking envy thing reminds me of another question that I have, which is, can you share with us some misperceptions or mistakes that people make in their beliefs and then in their behaviors of displaying possessions where they might think they’re communicating something, they’re actually communicating something else that they hadn’t intended? RB:  Well, you’ve just given me a lovely gift of wine, and I hesitated on opening it, because there are different cultural standards about whether that’s appropriate or not. And so usually in the West, we would open and say, Oh, this is lovely. It’s really thoughtful of you. Whereas in Asia, and particularly Japan, that would be extremely rude to open what’s in there, because it could be a disappointing gift, and that would bring shame on the giver. If you with your expression, even unintentionally convey that, well, this is not the best yet. So in Asia, there’s much more attention to saving face. Then there is typically in the western that’s one way in which that’s done sorts of things. And so people that are going into another culture have to learn new norms on what’s appropriate and conspicuous. But we can overtly stereotype. I was co-hosting a conference in Perth, Australia. And I was asked also to be a discussant on a paper about the difference between luxury and France, and luxury in Australia. And the image of the French is that they’re happy to flaunt it, whereas the image of the Australian is the tall poppy syndrome. That if one stands out above the rest, you cut them down. So everyone’s equal. I began my talk by saying, well, this kind of rings true to me, but I have to say, when I was reading this on the way in from the airport, I had to ask my wife to turn down the TV on her side of the backseat of the limo so that I could concentrate on the paper. So even though we think of these cultural stereotypes, they don’t always ring true. AW: And it’s true. RB:  Yeah, it’s painting with a broad brush. You have to learn to be natural in a culture. It’s not natural for you to behave that way. AW: Wow. Okay. Is there anything else that you can advise the listeners on in terms of communicating through our possessions? RB:  Well, again, cultural norms are important. And so before you travel to another culture, try to read up a bit about what is appropriate and cultural norms and faux pas and things that can go wrong. I guess it’s a type of communication but also mindset with the so-called sharing economy. Millennials in particular are becoming less attached to possessions and they’re renting smaller places. AW: And so again, the dematerialisation. There’s evidence of it everywhere. RB:  Yes they can rent furniture they can do without a car and get by without cars. AW: You can rent kitchen gadgets; you can rent just about anything. RB:   maids and butlers AW: people! RB:  So anyway if we think about that, it could be one of two things. It could be that these Millennials are still not having families and children. And when they do, they’ll move out of the downtown core to the suburbs and buy a big home and fill it up with stuff. Or it may be that this is a generational difference. And they’re going to continue on this sort of simplified lifestyle and lack of attachment and dematerialisation of possessions. And I think it remains to be seen which of those is going to be likely to be true, but … AW: If you had to guess? RB:  Well, I can see a future where with electric cars and the sharing economy, owning a car becomes a cultural faux pas, a brutish thing to do and a materialistic thing to do. And you must be a fat pig if you own a car. So we could, you know, hire cars, we can share cars, we could share other forms of transport. And if that’s the case, rather than getting attached to a brand of automobile, the white BMW you mentioned, we just get a standard car from a pool of cars. And it doesn’t matter whether we own that car or not. It’s just that it’s lost some of its symbolism and become more of a functional possession. I don’t think we’ll ever do away with symbolism, but we may find other ways to communicate what we think about ourselves and of other people. AW: Okay, I’m going to move on now to ask you the five rapid fire questions that I ask every guest. RB:  Okay AW: The first question is, what are your pet peeves? RB:  Well, I have about a 45 minute to an hour commute to come into the university and I don’t like people who drive slowly in the center lane rather than the right lane that can be as slow as they want in the right lane. AW: A lot of people share that pet peeve with you. RB:  Interesting. So I’m not alone? AW: No. So what do you do with them? Do you honk at them or do you just …. RB:  I just pass them, but I might give them a snide look, shake my head as I pass. AW:  Okay, second question what type of learner Are you? RB:  You know, the good academic answer to your question is “It depends.” It depends on whether I’m, for instance, trying to learn a physical skill, in which case kinesthetic — being able to feel what it is like to do that ski movement AW: …versus watching a video or whatever. What if you’re trying to memorize something, what’s the fastest way or most effective way for you to get it into your brain? RB:  To outsource it to Google.  AW: YES! ha-ha! RB:  There’s an article by Carr in the Atlantic Monthly asking: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” because we no longer have to remember things. We just google it on our device. But I mean, we have gotten comfortable with spell checkers and with calculators. Even though we may not be able to do the math and spelling as well as we would have if we had to do it ourselves. But this is actually a very old argument between Plato and Socrates. Plato is sort of the first of the great authors. Socrates was the last of the great orators. And so Socrates accused Plato of making us and dumb because he only looks things up in books. He no longer has the material in his mind. So it’s a pretty old argument. AW: I hadn’t thought of that. Question number three, introvert or extrovert? RB:  Depends, once again. If I’m in an airport, I don’t try to strike up conversations with other people. I’m not that outgoing. But in a classroom, I become extroverted. And if I’m giving a talk in front of a conference, I’ve become more extroverted. I’ve even introduced things with the song and dance and… AW: Really? RB:   Sure, AW: I haven’t seen that. I gotta check that out on YouTube. Are you dancing? I’m going to check. Fourth question, communication preference for personal conversations. If you need to connect with someone socially about something quickly, how would you do that in terms of what media would you use? RB:  It depends on the person. I’m saying it depends, again. My wife, bless her, is only literate in email, and so I can’t text or even for that matter, AW: So she checks email a lot? RB:  She does. We both spent a lot of time in front of a screen each day. And it’s a … it’s a little message saying, “I’m thinking of you. I’m here.” And when I’m traveling abroad, we do the same thing. It’s sort of saying, “Yeah, I’m here. I’m in touch if you need me, and I’m thinking of you.” If it’s a social relationship with a friend and I want to congratulate them, I would post something on their Facebook wall or do a variety of things. AW: Because you want other people to see? RB:  Yeah. AW: I just did that this morning. Jerry Zaltman got an AMA award, I put it on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. RB:  Those are the contagious things as well. AW:  Okay, Last Rapid-Fire question, podcast or blog or email newsletter that you recommend the most? RB:   I suppose TEDTalks blogs or podcasts. AW: Is there anything else you want to say about possessions or gift giving in the context of communication? RB:  There’s so much to say. I wouldn’t know what to pick out. But this has been interesting. AW: It was fun. Thank you so much for your time. RB:  Thank you.   Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com I’d love to hear from you. THANK YOU for listening!  And READING! The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!: https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Have a great week!  And TALK soon!   ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #17 (S2) WHAT OUR POSSESSIONS SAY with award-winning marketing professor Russell Belk appeared first on Talk About Talk.

What’s your personal style? Carolyn Quinn, executive director of Toronto Fashion Week provides us with insights on fashion trends, environmental sustainability in the fashion industry, and tips on purchasing clothing and pulling together a great outfit!   References & Links Carolyn Quinn, executive director Toronto Fashion Week Toronto Fashion Week – https://torontofashionweek.to/ Recommendations: Retail Insider – https://www.retail-insider.com/ The Daily Beast – https://www.thedailybeast.com/ Fashion Talks Podcast – https://fashiontalks.ca/about-fashion-talks Designers Smythe… – https://shopsmythe.ca/ … designers who dressed Meghan Markle – https://whatmeghanwore.net/tag/meghan-markle-smythe-blue-coat/ Rosaria Lamanna – http://www.lifetoolsforwomen.com/b/rosaria-lamanna.htm Supreme – https://www.streetwearofficial.com/collections/supreme TalkAboutTalk Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com     Interview Transcript Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: Thank you so much for joining us, Carolyn. I really appreciate it. Carolyn Quinn: Happy to be here. I’m excited to talk about all things fashion. AW: So I wanted to start with a question that is a bit of a cliché. And hear your take on this. And the question is, what do you think about the saying, You are what you wear? CQ: I think it is such a true statement. I think that we all have to get dressed in the morning and I think we make a decision based on so many different factors. When it’s mid-February and it’s snowy and it’s cold. I find myself personally, I’m in all-black. And you see everyone sort of in this city and in the world dressed dark and I think it really impacts our feelings and now that it’s starting to get warm out you know, I’m starting to pull out all the bright colors and whites and you can see, you can feel that spring is in the air. We also get dressed in a way, in the mornings, almost like an armor. I think that if there’s something that is happening in our life, or you know, affecting our mood. It’s impacted by what we wear very much. And I think that what’s happening internationally in the world, whether it be economic, wars, whatever. Designers design collections based on what is what is happening globally. And it impacts what we what we wear. And again, it’s like an armor. You know, if there’s something negative happening, or positive, or weather, or economics, we outwardly project ourselves based on what we wear in the mornings. Yeah, yeah, very much so. AW: So armor is an interesting word, right? Because I feel like armor is something you put on to shield yourself from the outside. But you’re saying that may be true. It’s also true that you’re communicating from the inside out. CQ: It’s so much a communication piece, you know. There are designers now that are — and I’m sure everybody’s seen it — on either social or in the city. There are slogans on a lot of clothing, right? So whether it be “I’m a feminist” or equal pay, or don’t ask me to smile, and the whole #MeToo movement has really moved that forward. So again, it’s the armor, it’s the subtle, you know, wearing black or wearing bright colors. But then it’s also very much putting it out to the world, right? You know, your stance, your position on things. AW: Right. So there’s the style of what you’re wearing, there’s the color of what you’re wearing. There are the brands that you’re wearing. And people used to, I think, assume that that was communicating a lot. But now, we’ve really gone a step beyond that. And it’s literally having the sentence or the phrase or your motto or your mantra across your chest or on your toque…. CQ: You’re right, very much so. And there’s also the Make America Great Again. The Red Hat. Obviously, the famous Red Hat by President Trump. I’ve seen a number of different renditions of that with different slogans. Where it’s really a take on that and what’s happening in the politics of the world right now. Right? AW: I’ve seen those too. Basically reversing the message. CQ:  exactly, AW: Exactly. There are so many things from what you said in terms of directions that we could go … but I actually think the listeners might be interested to hear what you’re wearing. I would be curious if I was listening to this! So Carolyn’s wearing a white short sleeve v neck t shirt, with no branding on it that I can see. And jeans and a lovely blue blazer that has nice piping on the inside. This strikes me as I love the red and white stripe. CQ: When I got dressed this morning, it’s funny… My husband said to me, “where are you going today?” because I’m dressed sort of differently than I normally am. I always I always wear Canadian something. Some small piece of what I’m wearing is always Canadian. Sometimes it’s hard to tell, but there’s always some piece of Canadian. So I’m wearing the blazer that I’m wearing is a design team based in Toronto here called Smythe. And I own pieces from them that are 10 years old. And this designer duo has dressed Meghan Markle and numerous celebrities around the world. They have very much grown over the last number of years. They are very talented. AW: Yes, yeah. Good for them and good for you for doing that. So you’re also dressing purposefully to encourage our local economy? CQ: Absolutely. I’m the executive director of Toronto Fashion Week. My work is very much about encouraging and supporting Canadian designers and the fashion industry in Canada. So I always am, you know, purchasing Canadian designers wearing Canadian designers and supporting them. Promoting them. AW: So let me just ask a few questions about the business then. I think when most people think about the fashion industry, at least from my perspective, I think about backstage at the fashion show. But there’s so much more to it right? CQ: There sure is! During Toronto Fashion Week it’s you know, it’s glamorous. That happens twice a year. It’s runway shows, Canadian designers presenting their latest collections. There’s craziness, backstage. Hair and makeup. It’s very glamorous. But most of the time it isn’t glamorous. I spend most of my days you know, in the office, hunched over my computer, meeting with designers looking at their collections. It’s glamour for a couple of days, but most of the time it’s like any other business and industry. It’s about the work. AW: So is your mission, at  Toronto Fashion Week, to advocate for…? CQ:  To promote Canadian designers, both nationally and internationally. Yes, and to generate revenue and trade for them. AW: So I guess the obvious thing then is — you have a lot of power. Because I would imagine if I was an up-and-coming designer in particular, I’d really want to impress you. Because you have this power to promote. CQ: You know what? There’s so much talent here! There’s so much talent here, and a lot of people don’t know Canadian designers. I think here in Toronto and maybe in Montreal or Vancouver, the bigger cities in Canada, may know them more than, you know, in the smaller communities. I’m from Nova Scotia, I’m from a teeny tiny little town in Cape Breton and I certainly, growing up, did not know anything about Canadian designers. I didn’t even know whether was Canadian designers ,until I started going to school – until I went to school at Ryerson and then started to learn about them. So it’s really about promoting them to people in Canada that may not know. AW: Okay, and I think people would also like to hear your background. So you went to Ryerson. And you studied fashion design? CQ: I did. I went to I went to St. Mary’s and I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in business, And then I came to Toronto to study fashion, essentially because where I’m from, there’s no real industry there, that’s for sure. I came to Toronto, went to Ryerson and George Brown, and then started to work in the industry. AW: What was your first job out of school? CQ: I worked for a designer called Rosaria Lamanna. And I was a studio assistant. Yeah. AW: Wow. And look at you now.  A couple minutes ago when you were just talking about the “you are what you wear saying,” it something else came to mind that I’ve heard that I think is pretty funny. And I want to hear what your perspective is on this. Have you ever heard that women don’t dress for men? They actually dress for other women. Have you heard that? CQ: I have heard that. I absolutely agree with it. AW: You do? CQ:  I absolutely agree with that. I think that we do too. I think primarily, I think we dress for ourselves. Yes. But I think that if we,… I don’t think it’s for men. I think it’s more for ourselves and maybe for women. Yeah, I think women love fashion. You know, most women, maybe not everyone, but most women love fashion. So I think that we’re dressing for our girlfriends, we’re, you know, we’re dressing for our girlfriends. AW: So that’s an interesting segue into the next question that I have for you. Before we pressed record, you were telling me about sitting on a panel between —  was it a neurosurgeon and an economist? CQ: A neurosurgeon, and somebody in economics, for a career day, a couple of days ago. The students were asked the question, “what do you want to do? What do you want to be? What kind of industry do you want to go into?” And a lot of them said science or economics or a number of things that the parents wanted to hear, right? But then later that evening, a lot of the students emailed me.  They were saying we want to go into film, I want to go into a creative field. And I think that’s what is expected of them. And you know, I think that it’s not a traditional industry — fashion (or any type of creative trade). So I was interested in hearing that and … AW: That that’s really fascinating that they held on to their questions until later when it was more private. Yes, interesting. I have a friend who is really into fashion and she always looks phenomenal. And she’s also brilliant. You know, she has a PhD in psychology, and she’s smart in many ways, not just academically. She told me once that her husband said to her, “I think you need to calm it down on the fashion a little bit because people might think that you’re not as smart as you are.” And her response was, “I dress like this because I love it and they can make whatever assumption they want about me.” CQ:  That’s very interesting. And again, it’s back to the we are what we wear and it’s about you know projecting almost our personality coming out through our what we decided to put on. AW:  Right CQ: .…and what we decided to wear. But you know, some days I’m in full leopard, and some days I’m in black. I think that it’s about projecting who we are. AW:  right. And sometimes that can change. CQ: Absolutely it can change, but I would never … I absolutely don’t agree with that statement. AW: So I think he was trying to be helpful, though, right. He’s like, “you’re a really smart woman. I don’t want people thinking otherwise.” Fascinating, right? Just his perception was — people that are really well dressed can’t be that smart. Well, look at your wife. CQ: Yeah, exactly. AW: Exactly.  So she obviously has the confidence to curate her personal style. I was wondering if you have any pointers? They could be things that people have heard, and maybe things that people haven’t heard — about developing a personal style. First of all, should you? And if you should, how do you do it? CQ: I think the most important thing about creating a personal style, or you know, when you’re shopping is to always dress for your body. I think that’s it’s so key. You know, in the early, I say, mid 2000s, when skinny jeans came out. I spent five years trying to find the perfect pair, they are not meant for my body and I came to the realization that they don’t look good on me. I can’t wear them. You know, I have to move on to something else. And I think that we have to dress for our body type. And I think that we have to not focus on trends, which people often do. AW: that’s interesting! To hear from someone who does what you do. CQ: I don’t, I do not focus on trends. I buy things that are — that have longevity. I have things in my closet from 10 years ago, and every spring I’ll pull out my summer dresses. And people always Oh my God, that’s amazing. And I always say it’s vintage. 10 years old is not vintage, but   it’s about being able to pull things out that you can wear again and again. AW: Again, you always look stylish. You tried to find the perfect skinny jeans. Can you comment on ripped jeans? CQ: I have them on right now. I love ripped jeans and you know they’re current right now. They’re current, but I think that they’ve been they’ve been around for you know, a number of years. They’ll go away. The skinny jeans will be back then the wide bottoms will be back again. I’m wearing them to the office today. So I think that they’ve become more commonplace. Again, fashion is cyclical. AW: That’s an interesting answer. I’m sure you’ve seen images of models walking down the runway and there’s literally a one-inch strip of fabric down the side holding the jeans together and the whole front of it is ripped out of you know… CQ: Yes. Yeah. AW: When I saw that I was like I am not doing the ripped jeans thing. CQ: Fashion always goes to the extreme. So waist lines for example, they go hi hi hi, until they can’t go higher, and then all of a sudden the trend is low cut jeans, and they when they can’t go any lower. That’s when I feel that the trend changes. AW: Yeah, same with heels, right? They go wide, and then they go skinny and they go high, and they go low. CQ: And then flats are in and then back to heels. It’s interesting to introduce trends into your wardrobe through accessories and those types of things that that you don’t have to invest a lot of money and it’s fun and you can update your wardrobe in that way. And that way, you know, you have pieces in your closet that you can wear for 10 years that are enduring. They stand the test of time. AW: So I’ve heard similar advice regarding interior decor, right? So you buy a couch that you hope you’re going to love for 15 years, but you change the cushions, you change the vases. CQ: you change the accessories, yes.  So yeah, exactly. And you know, I think that that’s an interesting comment because I think that fashion and home decor, one sort of influences the other. Yes, the design aspect of it. AW: Which is the leading indicator? CQ: Fashion for sure. Absolutely. And trends are cyclical. And you know, you can have something that you buy now and sits in your closet for five years, but then you can pull out again, and it’s relevant once again, right? AW: I’ve had pieces in my own wardrobe where sometimes I’ve gotten rid of it because I thought it was trendy and the trend was over. But then I that I think a couple years later, that turquoise crossover blouse, I could wear it now and it wouldn’t be trendy. And it was good quality. Why did I get rid of it? CQ: I made the mistake about 15 years ago of completely doing a big edit of my closet. And I think once a week, I think back to some of the pieces that I had there that I wish I had. AW: You were in a purging mood. CQ: I was in a purging mode. So since then I’ve kept everything. I don’t throw anything away. And really, I don’t throw anything. AW: So therefore you are buying for long term. CQ: Absolutely. When I am standing in a store making the decision to buy something or not, I think I wonder if I’ll wear this in 10 year’s time? And if the answer is yes, I’ll often buy it. I very rarely buy anything that is a one or twice wear outfit. AW: I was gonna ask you this question at the very end, but just it relates to your focus on buying things for at least 10 years. The fashion industry, I’ve heard in the media and seen evidence of the fact, that it’s focusing more and more on environmental sustainability and responsibility. Can you talk a little bit about that? CQ: Fashion is one of the biggest industries that generates waste. Fast fashion, is really giant, disposable fashion, you buy something and again, it’s back to trends. You wear it for a year and then you’re throwing it away. I think that again, you know, it’s about buying things that maybe are a little bit more expensive. But you will wear it. It will stand the test of time. It will have longevity. Also, I think it’s about maybe buying vintage and supporting pieces that you can you can have in your closet that have been worn have been celebrated and loved. AW: So and buying the things that will last longer, CQ: Absolutely. AW: My grandmother, who was a school teacher, and she was very well dressed, but she didn’t have a lot of clothes and twice a year every spring and every fall. She would go to Holt Renfrew. And by the outfit, head to toe including hat, accessories, gloves, nylons, like everything right down to the shoes, and she introduced that into her wardrobe. CQ: Yeah, it’s about interest introducing new pieces, you know, as the season each new season and updating and refreshing your closet, but still being able to wear the pieces. And also I think it’s important also to have pieces in your closet that are seasonless. So I have pieces that I can wear in the summer, but also in the winter. And then they again you’re able to wear them more often and not needing to be buying and fast fashion and continually adding things that aren’t gonna stand the test of time. AW: So is this bad news for the industry though? CQ: I think the industry’s changing. Like H&M has introduced a new eco line. So it’s about them recycling the clothes.  Zara has also introduced a line of recycled clothing. So I think that fast fashion is still happening. And you know, there is waste. But I think that bigger companies are recognizing, noticing that consumers are a savvy. Consumers are smart now and they want to be able to buy things that are contributing to… AW: You’re making me think about a couple of purchases that I’ve made recently. I really like the animal prints, the reptile. And I bought some jeans recently that are, you know, really comfy stretchy jeans but they have the reptile print on them. Am I going to be wearing those in 10 years? CQ: I think you will. I think you I absolutely think you will. I have pieces that, you know leopard print is so big right now. I have pieces that I bought seven or eight years ago that I’m now pulling it again and are relevant again. AW: That’s true. Can you talk about the difference between style and fashion? CQ: I think that style really endures. It’s something that is more of a classic look and feel. It’s more of our personality. Fashion to me is trends. Fashion is you know, buying pieces that are latest and greatest and newest and things that you’re seeing on the runway that that again are not going to stand the test of time. Style is about — it’s much more of a classic look and feel. AW: Yeah, now you’re reminding me of a friend that I have. A friend of mine who always dresses really well, but she surprises people, I say “gorgeous wrap coat!” She says, “Winners!” What? And she just has impeccable style. She knows what looks good on her body — to your point. And she has friends who spend a lot of money on head to toe labels. And I said to her, the difference between them and you, is that you have style and they’re into fashion. CQ: I always say you don’t have to spend a lot of money to be — to have a great sense of style. You don’t have to be shopping designers or, or labels or brands. Going to places that aren’t necessarily well known, and really picking out pieces that are classic to add to your wardrobe — that add to your style. AW: Again, it sounds like something you could do for your host curating pieces. CQ: Absolutely. Yeah. And then changing things with you know, every season, changing a rug, changing pillows, drapes, those types of things. Just it’s like dressing accessories. AW: So focusing on trends, then I have some questions for you. I guess, from a business perspective, when you’ve observed different trends, be it a color or a shape, or a certain fabric that comes in or out of style, in and out of fashion. Do you see it as a cycle?  First of all, that is everything’s bound to come back. I want you to comment on that. And also, the pace of the cycles. CQ: Fashion is absolutely cyclical, something that is in style that is trendy today. We’ll come back in years to come and it’s usually a four or five year cycle, you’ll see things come back. AW: Four or five years? CQ:  Yeah. The difference is though, is that there’s always a little bit of a different spin on them. AW: Right. CQ: And the best example of this is men’s ties. So my husband has hundreds of ties. They’ll be wider for several years and then he’ll go and purchase new ties and they’ll be thinner. Then again a couple of years later, they’ll be wider again. The difference is — and I always say, why do you want all these ties? you know you can re-wear them. Why? He gets rid of them because the there’s always just an inch or two off from what they were several years before. So there’s a little bit of a different look.  The fabric’s different. There’s more innovation and things change quite quickly. So it’s always a little bit different. I do think though and it back to the sustainability topic.  Things can be altered. Things can be changed to be wearable again. So you can kind of get to that happy medium to what the when the style comes back. You can alter it so that it’s fresh again. AW: So big shoulder pads were in recently. But then of course, they really we’re in the 80s. But they definitely look different. I  look at the way I was dressing in the 80’s and my clothes were really big. They weren’t fitted. Even though I probably thought they were. CQ: And it’s come back. But again, you know, to your point, it’s there, it’s a bit different. They’re a bit more fitted. Now, the silhouette is different. And it comes back, but it always has a special twist on it. AW: So it’s four or five years. I was wondering, you know, people say that the pace of change in our world, in technology, things are changing faster and faster. Do you think that’s true in fashion? Or is it? Is it a pretty consistent every four to five years? CQ: I think that it’s changing. I think that that timeframe is narrowing. Even the way designers and retailers issue their collection. So it used to be four seasons, designers. You’d see the clothes in the store the new collections. Now. There’s a different drop. Some designers are dropping collections every week, new pieces every week and introducing them that way. AW: Wow. CQ: Yeah, the best example of that would be Supreme. Which instead of, you know, dropping the collections four times a year, rather they’ve decided to do it once a week, to keep the consumers interested. AW: Wow. CQ: And they’ve been so successful is because we our attention span is narrowing . So with the introduction of social media, everything is immediate and we can see everything — we can find out anything we want. AW: And fashion is obviously huge on social media, particularly Instagram, because it’s visually oriented. Do you want to make any comments about that? CQ: Social media has such an impact on the fashion industry. It does. Even in my work with fashion week’s designers.  They used to present collections six months in advance of anybody seeing them. We’re seeing that timeframe really narrow because people are immediate, they see it — a designer presents a collection on the runway, and people want it right away. AW: And can they can get it done? CQ: Well not normally with a fashion week because designers wouldn’t produce that collection until the show’s ended. It’s in stores until six months later, right? AW: Oh. Those are the samples. CQ: Yeah, exactly. So the model is changing now. Designers are presenting “see now by now.” So they’re showing the collections that are actually in store so people can go and buy it. Or they’re introducing collections that are specific for “See now buy now”. So Burberry did that. Tom Ford did that creating a number of pieces that people could actually go into the store immediately following by physically into the store. I was imagining, you know, take your phone out, if you go to this website, you can you can click or you could do that, or you could argue,…. AW: Yes, yes. It reminds me I was recently listening to a TED talk about Nike shoes and how it’s consistent with some other industries where they have releases. Like think of the gaming industry. They have a new console or a new game that get released or whatever. People line up. People are lining up for new Nike shoes, especially Air Jordans every week. They’re physically lining up outside the Nike stores every week. So this is consistent with what you’re saying. CQ: It’s those drops. Yeah. To keep people interested in excited and, and an immediate people want things right away. They see it they want it AW: but that sounds like it’s it’s trendy stuff. Right? I feel like that’s fashion for a different reason, then CQ: it is. It’s not that it’s not pieces. It’s not endurance, it’s not endurance, it’s feeding the immediate appetite of consumers, right? AW: Although you could say my personal style is that I’m leading edge. CQ: Yes. Some people have that. Yes. AW: I’m wondering if you have generic tips that you think would help people just look better in terms of what they’re wearing when they’re choosing what they’re wearing in the morning? Are there some general things that we should be thinking about? CQ: I think that first and foremost, quality of clothing is key. So it’s wearing fabrics that are not natural fabrics and wearing fabrics that are a little bit more high-end then fast fashion. And consumers. I think it’s about spending a little bit more money on clothes, if you can, and having higher quality. I think that everyone looks better in that type of quality AW: really quality? CQ: Yeah, it’s quality. AW: Hmm. So if I’m not sure what to wear, and I’m trying to decide between two outfits, the deciding factor could be quality, right? If I’m choosing between — I’m going to a board meeting tonight I’ve got this suit, or this dress. I really don’t know what I want to wear. Which one’s better quality? Done. Go for the better quality one? CQ: Yeah, I agree. And quality and fit. Fit is also important. So you can have something that you know if it’s not the right size, or if you have put on weight… Fit is really important. And having something tailored properly. AW: I agree. Because there’s some things that I really love and they just they pull or they are baggy. Whatever. It’s just, it doesn’t you don’t want your clothes to be a distraction. I hate it when I’m in a meeting or, particularly if I’m doing a presentation or meeting with a client, and I’m thinking about my clothes. That’s not right. CQ: When I get dressed in the morning, I often will think about what I have that day: what meetings I have, do I have to Am I going to be in and out of my car? You know… I often think about if I’m going to be — what meetings do I have to go to, do I have to do any walking, am I going to be in and out of my car, you know, because it really impacts how I dress. And if I’m going to be on the run or if I’m going to be sitting at my desk all day. Comfort is key. AW: I heard this advice probably 20 years ago from a friend of mine who was a really successful model. She said that when they were in modeling school, they taught the models when you’re dressing you need to think about your hair, your hands and your feet. So if your hair looks great, if your hands are well manicured, and if you have great shoes on or a great pedicure, whatever however you define that. That’s what matters. Forget about the rest of it. What do you think of that? CQ: I think head to toe.  You need to consider the whole look. So it’s about hair and makeup. Makeup is so important and makeup is another — is an important thing — when you’re considering what to wear. And its head to toe. You know you if you have bad shoes, but a great outfit. You know, it’s a distraction. I think that it’s key. The head to toe look is so important. AW: I’m going to ask you the five rapid fire questions now that I asked every guest. CQ: Okay, let’s go. AW: Okay. Question number one. What are your pet peeves? CQ: Late. People being like, I’m always on time, or I’m 10 minutes early. If I can be on time … I drive quite a distance to get to my office every day. I have two kids and crazy mornings, and I always manage to make it on time. I think it’s one of those things that … I think it’s rude. I think that people – Why is your time more important than mine? AW: Second question: what type of learner you? CQ:  Visual. Absolutely. And I think it has a lot to do with you know, the industry and the creative industry. Everything is visual for me. I have to see it. I have to, I need to see something tangible. 100%. AW:  I’m not surprised. Introvert or extrovert? CQ:  A little bit of both, depending on the environment that I’m in. Yeah, I can be very much an extrovert and sometimes very much an introvert. AW: Okay. Question number four, your communication preference for personal conversations. CQ: Face to face ….always face to face. You know, we spend so much time on our phones. So much time over email, social media, the internet. It’s nice to have a face to face with people. I often schedule meetings purposely face to face, rather than conference calls or whatnot. AW: Last question, is there a podcast or a blog or an email newsletter that you find yourself recommending the most? CQ: Every morning, I always read Retail Insider, which is an online retail portal. That is the latest in the retail news in Canada. AW: In Canada? CQ:  In Canada. I always read that every morning. I always read The Daily Beast for the sort of global perspective of what’s happening in the world. And then also Fashion Talks, which is a podcast hosted by Donna Bishop. It’s a fashion focused podcast that really is all the latest and greatest that’s happening in the world of fashion and how it relates to our daily lives. So I always tune into that. AW: Great. I will put links to all of those that you mentioned in the show notes so the listeners can find them as well. How can listeners connect with you if they have a question for you? Or maybe they want to work for you, or they have questions about career advice in the fashion industry? CQ: They can go to the website for Toronto Fashion Week. And all my contacts are there. AW: Okay, great. Thank you so much for your time and your insights. It was really fun! CQ: Yes fun. Thank you.   Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com   THANK YOU for listening!  And READING! TalkAboutTalk CORE BELIEF: “When we communicate effectively, we can be a better friend, parent, partner and work colleague.”   TalkAboutTalk BRAND PROMISE: “TalkAboutTalk is the communication learning platform that enriches our relationships and enhances our career success by providing us with knowledge, strategies and confidence.”       The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!:  https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup  TALK soon!       ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #16 (S2) TALKING FASHION & STYLE with Toronto Fashion Week’s Carolyn Quinn appeared first on Talk About Talk.

Are you optimistic about our future with ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE? Avi Goldfarb (professor and author of “Prediction Machines”) shares a brief history of AI, various AI applications that are being used in the marketplace, and specific reasons why we should be optimistic about our future with AI.   References & Links Avi Goldfarb Rotman UofT – http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/Faculty/FacultyBios/Goldfarb.aspx BOOK: “Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence” – https://amzn.to/2GoX6Ac LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/avi-goldfarb-46a7473/ Twitter – https://twitter.com/avicgoldfarb The Organizations Creative Destruction Lab – https://www.creativedestructionlab.com/ Marketing Science – https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/mksc/editorial-board NBER – National Bureau of Economic Research – https://www.nber.org/ AtomWise – https://www.atomwise.com/ OpenAI – https://openai.com/ Articles, Books & Concepts Artificial Intelligence – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence “Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence” –https://amzn.to/2GoX6Ac “It’s Complicated: the social lives of networked teens” by danah boyd – https://amzn.to/2PiorYK Machine Learning – https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/an-executives-guide-to-machine-learning Deep learning – https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deep-learning.asp Google Search + – https://www.fastcompany.com/90308480/40-incredibly-useful-things-you-didnt-know-google-search-could-do AI impact on trade – https://www.nber.org/papers/w24917 Wikipedia pages impact on travel – http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp12053.pdf AI & Communication – https://becominghuman.ai/how-has-ai-changed-the-way-humans-communicate-10369fc2453a AI & Communication – https://www.quantifiedcommunications.com/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-communication “The Matrix” movie– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_(franchise) The People Ajay Agrawal – http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/Faculty/FacultyBios/Agrawal Erik Brynjolfsson – http://ebusiness.mit.edu/erik/ Elsa Kania – https://twitter.com/EBKania Joshua Gans – http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/Faculty/FacultyBios/Gans.aspx Geoff Hinton – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Hinton Larry Tesler – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Tesler TalkAboutTalk Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com COLOUR episode – https://talkabouttalk.com/10-communicating-with-colour-with-daryl-aitken-jenn-purkis-lori-ryerson/   Interview Transcript Professor Avi Goldfarb: Thank you. Dr. Andrea Wojnicki: Let’s start with some context. I think our listeners would love to hear how you came from studying economics and then working as a marketing professor at a business school to writing a best seller on AI. AG: Okay, so I was a graduate student in the late 1990s, in economics. And there was this crazy new technology called the internet. So, my dissertation was about competition between search engines before there was such thing as Google. AW: Just to remind some of us or to provide context for the younger listeners… What were those search engines again? AG: So AOL had its own search engine. There was Lycos, there was HotBot. And the dominant player was Yahoo! AW: right. AG: Yahoo! is still around. And I should say Google was in the final data that I use for my dissertation because it was from 2000. And Google had just come out of beta. And I had 20-something search engines in the data and Google was number 17. So they were there, but they were tiny. My teaching was marketing and statistics. And Ajay Agrawal, my co-author in the book, started this program called the Creative Destruction Lab. And the Creative Destruction Lab is a program to help science-based start-ups scale up. And we started in 2012. And in that first year, there was this company called Atomwise, which called itself an AI company. And we never really heard of AI outside of science fiction. And they were building AI for biotech. And then the next year, there were a couple of AI companies. And then the next year became clear that this was a big new technology, because there was a flood of companies doing AI. And pretty soon at the lab, we had more AI start-ups than anywhere else in the world. Because of some quirky history of Toronto, having an important place in that. AW: So Toronto is an AI cluster? AG: Yes. Or at least it started that way, it still plays an important role. But the core technology underlying current excitement of AI, something called Deep Learning. And the perhaps the core researcher and deep learning is man named Geoff Hinton, who’s a computer science professor emeritus now here at University of Toronto. His graduate students and people who worked with him were walking through University of Toronto 10-20 years ago. And those people now run AI research at Apple, Facebook, and OpenAI, etc. So Toronto had this really important role, especially in the early stages. And so then, when people realized there’s a commercial opportunity here – which was around 2012. AW: What happened in 2012? AG: The team of Geoff Hinton’s, graduate students, essentially won this competition called the ImageNet  competition. And what ImageNet is a competition to label pictures,… AW: what does that mean – labeling? AG: So figuring out what’s in a pixel. You see a picture of a Bernese mountain dog, and the machine has to predict it. “Oh, that’s picture of a Bernie’s mountain dog instead of a chihuahua and instead of a muffin.” So it’s a machine vision competition. Hinton’s team in 2012, was much, much better than anyone who had ever come before, and anyone in that year. He was using the newly applied technology called deep learning. And in some sense the technology goes back 30 years, but we finally figured out how to commercialize it in 2012. And it really worked. And the next year, almost everybody was using deep learning. And so people started to pay attention, more generally, around the commercial opportunities in this particular technology. And that led to lots of start-up excitement here in Toronto – people largely coming out of Hinton’s lab, but also out of Waterloo and a few other places. And then more generally, around the world. That was when the opportunities became clear. AW: And so then you fast forward to 2018, which is when your book was published. Can you give us a little bit of background in terms of definitions? So you talked about deep learning. And we know a little bit about machine learning, and it may be a subset of AI? I’ve also heard machine learning, I’ve heard you say that machine learning is a subset of computer science. So how do we think about all those terms when we hear them? I know the media can be sloppy when they’re talking about them? AG: Okay. So artificial intelligence is defined as machines that can do what normally requires human intelligence. It’s a very broad definition. And it’s a moving target. So in the sense that you can imagine the 1940s, artificial intelligence would have been arithmetic. But then, you know, computers do arithmetic really well. In the 1970s, we thought artificial intelligence was chess, the computer can do chess, and we don’t really think about that as AI anymore. So it’s this moving target. Now, what machine learning is, is the branch of artificial intelligence – a type of artificial intelligence research – that has had massive advances in the last few years. So the reason we’re talking about AI in 2019, and we weren’t talking about in 2009, and we weren’t talking about a 1999, is because of machine learning. And most notably, within machine learning this technology is called deep learning. AW: So, deep learning is a subset of machine learning. And machine learning is a subset of AI, and …. AG: which is a subset of computer science. AW: Okay, got it. AG: But what we should think about machine learning is, is prediction technology. So if you’ve taken a stats course, and you learned how to use regression, or an average to predict something, machine learning is a variant of that kind of tool. AW: So you just started to answer my question. But I’m looking for something maybe a little bit more definitive. And I’ve been actually thinking about this for the past week. Is machine learning anything more than linear regression? REALLY? AG: Yes. Because it’s really good.  So we’re no longer… So for what we call supervised learning, which is the dominant type of machine learning that we’ve been focused on, which is when you’re using inputs to predict outputs, which is what you do with linear regression. So that’s the same thing, yes. A bunch of X’s and you’re using those to predict Y. So you have a bunch of images, and you’re using them to predict the label, you have a bunch of sentences, and you’re using them to predict meaning. Okay, it gets trickier. So though we can’t do those things of linear regression. AW: So it’s an ok model to use when you’re trying to picture AI in your mind? AG: Yes. AW: But beyond that, because to be honest, over the last couple weeks, when I’ve been doing a little bit of research on AI… I just keep coming back to: this is what I learned in stats class, it’s all about analysis of variance, finding out which variables predict an outcome, which ones account for the most variance. AG: Yes, yes, make a few nuances and tricks…  So I have some machine learning text books on the shelf here. If you open them up, the first 10 chapters will look like the first ten chapters in your stats class. AW: okay. AG: And, you know, they re-label things. So what we used to call cluster analysis is now a version of unsupervised learning. And maximum likelihood is now part of machine learning in some sense. So, there’s a few things that are different. One is, in inventing a new stats method, you had to prove that it worked in theory, before showing that it works in practice. And the machine learning norms are a little bit different, where they’re very much about showing that you can predict out of sample. And so there’s these hold out samples, and you show that you can predict out a sample. And if you do a good job, then we’ll figure out the theory later. Typically, they do figure out the theory later. But the starting point is: can you incrementally improve the prediction? Rather than: Can you prove formally that this works with an infinite number of observations? AW: So the other question that I was thinking about, I think, particularly, when I was thinking about the title of your book, Prediction Machines, there’s an article by Malcolm Gladwell, where he talks in the New Yorker years ago, like 15 years ago or more, he talks about collaborative filtering, which is early AI, right? AG: Yes. One hundred percent. There’s a lineage from that Malcolm Gladwell article to AI if you sort of, you know, track the academic citations. That said, that wasn’t really how we thought about it. Because collaborative filtering doesn’t really seem like artificial intelligence. It just seems like good stats. AW: It hadn’t been labeled that way? AG: It hadn’t been labeled that way yet because, what happened is a few sort of nuances of what happened here, which is, you know, I guess, in some sense, communication related, which is: The inspiration for deep learning, the idea of deep learning, was to be inspired by the model of how brains work, how neurons interact with each other, to build a computer that could think like a human, AW: and then maybe think better than a human, right, faster, more thoroughly, whatever. AG: Now, in practice, it doesn’t really think like a human. But what it does, what it turned out to be really good at, is predicting, which is the process of filling in this information. AW: Got it. So can you give us some examples of AI that we use in our everyday lives could be at home or at work? And I was thinking maybe even commuting between the two. AG: So the most obvious is Google search. Others are your maps, for example, in Waze or Google Maps for that matter. How do they figure out what the best route from one place to another is? That’s a prediction technology. They’re predicting traffic and laying that on top of information they have about the map and speed limits to give you both a prediction about how long it’s going to take to get there, but also a prediction about what the best route to take. AW: Waze is my number one favorite app on my phone. And I say a couple things about it. First of all, it has I’m sure saved me hours of time. And secondly, it’s saved me mental capacity that I can spend doing other things. I literally said to my son, the other last night, when he was arguing with Waze about how to come home, I said, Can we just let Waze make that decision? And you and I can talk about something that matters? AG: So yes. To the extent that machines are doing tasks that we don’t, we don’t really enjoy, or that are that take time away from things we’d much rather be doing, this is fantastic. And Waze is a good example of that. But beyond Google and Waze, one of the most exciting applications, I think, are a little bit outside maybe the everyday, but they’re really big. So more than anything, the one I’m excited about is translation. AW: Right. That’s definitely related to communication. So let’s talk about that. AG: It’s getting really good. Erik Brynjolfsson and his co-authors have this new paper showing that when eBay added machine translation to eBay pages, it massively increased the propensity of Americans to start buying stuff from Latin America. And vice versa. So this easy translation lead to much more commerce. And the translations are still pretty imperfect. But they were good enough that you could deal with the uncertainty. They showed a some 15 to 20% increase in sales, just because of translation. AW: Okay, and so it’s on the screen? So you know, when you pull up a certain screen, sometimes it’ll say, do you want to translate this page? Is that what you’re talking about? AG: So yes, eBay is one example. They were doing that automatically. But if the seller wanted it. But yes, that’s the kind of example. And that just that makes communication much easier. And when uncertainty is reduced, you’re willing to do things more. And so to the extent that people will travel more if it’s a little less intimidating to go somewhere where you don’t speak the language at all. But if you can at least take a picture of a street sign, and now read it and match it to the directions you want to go. That’s a big change. AW: That’s exactly where I was headed – to travel. So do you think people may be more likely to travel if the language challenges are diminished by AI? AG: No one’s done that study yet. So it’s hard for me to AW: Oh, low hanging fruit for your next paper! AG: So what do we do know – Michael Kummer, has this paper showing that Wikipedia pages have increased travel. So just simple reductions in uncertainty. In particular, what he showed is when … something along the lines of – pages from I think Spain, but in Southern Europe, were translated into German, we saw an increase in German travelers to those towns. OK? AW: Wow. AG: And so that wasn’t machine translation.  That was human translation. But it showed that lowering the language barrier… that’s not about travel there. But it’s about getting information about the town. And it led to an increase in travel. AW: So does AI exist such that you and I could have a conversation, either face to face or over the phone and have our conversation simultaneously or instantly translated? AG: Not quite yet. To the extent that there has to be a pause, because your meaning isn’t clear until after the sentence is finished. In the short term, it seems unlikely to be as smooth as face to face. That said, for the purposes of business communication, where you’d have a translator, or retail transactions where that little pause doesn’t matter so much, we’re going to see massive advances. For casual friendship conversations, there’s still going to be this awkward pause while you wait for the translation. It’s gonna be harder. AW: Right. So another question that I wanted to ask you later is about skills and jobs that are likely to grow versus go away because of AI. And I guess the translator is one, right? I mean, we’re going to need some great translators to help us program the artificial intelligence, but then the job may go away. AG: Yes. There’s the vision of – in some time, you know, decades in the future, these translations will be perfect. And then we don’t maybe have any use for translators. In the short term, a lot of the places where we hire professional translators, today, we need the translations to be very good, right? And to get the nuances of the culture and all that right – in a way that we’re still not there with machines. In contrast, for lots of casual transactions, where maybe you’re not going to hire a translator, but it would be nice to have a guide. Those will be much easier. If I were advising, my children on job things, I might say, translator is not the best way to go. But at the same time, in the foreseeable future, there’s gonna be plenty of things for translators to do, right. But they’ll be they’ll have to be quite skilled, not just about translating language. It’s about understanding nuances and culture and all that. AW: So for a separate podcast topic actually did a little bit of research for body language. I had an episode about body language. And I stumbled on robot learning where robots are being programmed to both encode and decode body language as another layer of communication, so there’s the verbal, what we hear, and then body language and robots need to be able to perceive and also to communicate, yes, it’s a little bit frightening to think that there’s all these layers of things. AG: Or exciting, depending on your point of view. AW: why would it be exciting? And then also, why would it be scary? AG: Okay, so let’s start Daniel Kahneman. We run this economics of AI conference every year and Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and he’s a psychologist, we’re talking about AI. So we asked him to sort of speculate on how we thought about it, and comment on the ideas of the conference so far. And one of the things he emphasizes, we have this idea that, for example, caring occupations are inherently human, and that we’d want humans to be doing that. And he said, I don’t think that’s true. In our old age, do we really want our children taking care of us,? They’re going to get frustrated, they’re gonna get angry. No. We want our children to come and love us and talk to us. But it’s gonna be much better to have a robot take care of us, because they’re not going to get frustrated with us, they’re not going to get angry at us. They’re going to be programmed to deal with our both our body language and our voice, and what we’re asking for, and what the doctor prescribed, and how to figure out how to gently nudge us in that way. And one of the things is, he said along the lines of  – it’s not that hard to create a robot face that people respond positively to, because it’s gentle and kind and cute. So his take was this is, especially with an aging population, this is a great thing, not a bad thing, because we humans can interact with each other on the things that are really human on the love and caring side. And not the frustrating day to day, anger inducing, you know, take your pills, did you rest properly, when did you go to bed — things. AW: Interesting. AG: That’s the that’s one version of the opportunity. AW: So you’re saying that …. some people say that AI can never take our caring-type or nurturing-type roles as human beings. So it could be parenting, it could be nursing, for example, it could be teaching. And in fact, there are examples and good examples of why we should be excited that AI can fulfill some of those roles. AG: Yes. My examples were different from yours on purpose. So my example was, was mostly about taking care of senior citizens. And that was for a particular reason. It’s not just a demographic issue. But more importantly, the parent child dynamic. AW: So there’s, there’s a few more valuable interactions that parents and children can have. Yeah. So when they’re older than looking after someone medic, medical needs AG: Exactly. I haven’t seen any evidence or talked to anyone about sort of the, that it will be better for machines take care of young children. So I haven’t heard that story. I guess I can imagine it to be true. But it’s a bit of a stretch. And  I don’t have research to rely on or at least, you know, people have thought about it deeply to rely on. AW: You hear the opposite. You hear TV is not a babysitter, and video games should not be a babysitter, and they should not be raising your children. And I have a friend that says, fortnight can’t be my child’s best friend and babysitter. AG: Right. And so you know, there’s this value to human to human interaction. Although I don’t know if you’ve read The Kids Are Alright by  danah boyd. So what she emphasizes in there is that we have this idea that as our kids, the kids she’s talking about, mostly teenagers are using electronic communication more and more, and they’re interacting with humans less. We tend to think about that as a bad thing. But there’s all sorts of — it’s more nuanced than that. So one example that she talks about, is that there’s evidence of a reduction in risky behavior, because essentially, kids are staying home, and still interacting with their social network but they’re doing it digitally. And yes, there’s risks about doing it digitally, but in some sense, those risks are lower than if you’re actually physically present with somebody else. AW: right? So if my 15-year-old son is at home at 11, o’clock at night, on a Saturday playing video games, where he’s killing people, with his friends online, that’s actually much less risky, than if he was out at a party, you know, being surrounded by all sorts of risky temptations, right. So why else should we be excited about AI, in addition to it alleviating us of having to decide the fastest way to get to work, or helping us look after our aging parents? AG: So the highest-level point is similar to any other new technology, in the sense that it’s going to make some economic sense. It’s going to make us more productive. What does that really mean? It’s going to make us wealthier. So society as a whole will have more resources, and we’ll have more choice and how to spend those resources. They’ll be, you know, there’s a big issue on inequality potentially. But if we spread those resources equally, or somewhat equally, everybody can be better off in terms of having more choices for how to spend their time. And how to spend, and how to spend their money, and how to consume. So productivity improvement is a good thing. AW: And that’s the meta benefit. AG: The meta benefit comes from a whole bunch of little benefits: what does this particular technology do? And that depends on articular applications of language translation, we can see all sorts of benefits there. You know,… AW: it’s another step, I guess, in the progress of technology and making the world a smaller place. Are there other ways that we can purposely use AI to make us better communicator? So we’ve got the translating. How else can AI help us be better communicators? AG: There’s a few pieces to this. So the first piece is who we communicate with. So in some sense, we’re getting prediction, you know, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, to lesser extent, they are all giving us predictions about what information we want to see from whom. AW: And also increasing the access of to whom we have communication opportunities, right? AG: Yeah,  technically that’s a platform point, not an AI point, but .. AW: OK. Fair enough. AG: Sorry. AW: Don’t be sorry. AG: So AI ends up screening, who we have communications with. And so that’s going to affect the nature of communications. And to the extent that we.. AW: Sorry to interrupt but who and what right? The content and the person who’s providing the content, right? AG: So, yes, absolutely. It’s not that hard to imagine that when you open up your phone to dial or text, somebody, there’s a prediction about who you’re most likely to want to dial or text. And beyond the most recent, most recent right time of day, what city are in, and that can affect who you communicate with. Potentially a very good ways depending on how the algorithms design. So in terms of whether this is good or bad, or how this all plays out, is a question of what we call reward function engineering, which is: what are you telling the AI to predict? Are you just telling the AI? Who are you most likely to call it this moment? Or is there some other longer run maximization problem? So for example, every once in a while, it might throw in a surprise. Oh, you know, I haven’t talked to Andrea in a really long time! AW: I was just thinking that would be fantastic. If my phone actually reminded me that once a week, you really enjoy calling this person or you should talk to this person. AG: Right. So that’s just the to figure that out is going to be a challenge on figuring out what to tell the machine to predict. AW: Right? But if I mean, I could, of course, set myself a reminder, but wouldn’t it be nice if my phone, contained the machine learning an algorithm to predict that without me telling it to? AG: right, and there’s no technical reason, you know, at least in an abstract level of that couldn’t happen. There’s also it’s practical challenges. But there’s opportunities there too. AW: So what about AI affecting our communication with each other across the generations? AG: One reason to call elderly parents is to make sure that taking care of themselves, and in some sense, AI means you no longer have to do that. That can lead to two consequences, one may be better, one may be worse. The better one is, then when you call them, it’s a much more positive conversation. The worst one is maybe you don’t bother to call them anymore. And so there’s an opportunity here, because now the communication can be better. But it might, you know, as the technology advances, it might reduce these casual surprise interactions that enable you to be close to people. AW: true. So what about in a professional context at work? AG: So the most obvious AI, in work communications, I think, are these automated replies. So if you have Gmail, Gmail will populate what you’re saying, you know, your email before you even send it. LinkedIn has a similar function on Oh, here’s what you probably want to respond to this person. It’s just something very simple, like, thanks, exclamation point, AW: or a thumbs up. AG: or thumbs up or something like that. But the first thing is, that makes some communications more efficient, and allows you to triage and the emails that you actually have pay attention to, versus the ones you don’t know that you can just reply quickly, better. As that technology improves, though, it might lead to much more efficient communication between people at the organization, because right now, as you move to the top of the organization, essentially, you have people who screen lots of your communications. AW: The Big brother way? AG:  No, oh, no, I didn’t mean to the big brother way, I meant the executive assistant way. AW: Okay. AG: But both, there’s both. And AI creates an opportunity, because potentially it could do that better. Without the sort of whims of somebody…. Humans have moods, and they get hungry, and we make better decisions, when we’re not hungry, than when we’re  hungry and tired, etc., right? And the risk of that, there’s an important risk of that, which is that those decisions – it’s not so much those decisions might be biased (they will be because they can be trained on human data and humans are biased). But they scale. And so the issue, this gets to issues around bias communication, which is – the headline we always see is that AI is going to be biased, and that’s bad. It is bad, but it’s probably better than the average human because we can audit the AI and figure out why it’s biased, and improve it. AW: Except when the bias is scaled. Is that where you’re headed? AG: Yeah. So it’s not that we can’t audit it? Yes, but we can even a little biased. If it scales massively, then those few people who are affected by that small bias, end up being massively massively hurt. And so at the individual human level, yes, on average, we’re probably more buyers than any machine is going to be designed well, AW: but we’re all individuals. AG:  We’re all individuals. There is some randomness and heterogeneity and how people respond even within an individual. People tend to be more bias from what I understand in the research at when they’re hungry, relative to when they’re not hungry here when their tireless but they’re not tired. Some have all these other. Even within individual, there’s variance that the machines like unlikely …. AW: Hmm, so there’s factors that impair human thinking that would not affect a machine. Here a not so random question for you that’s related to TalkAboutTalk. What communication skills will be the most important, or maybe the most affected by AI? AG: Beyond grammar and spelling. Which in some sense, will matter less because you can get that corrected. I actually don’t think it’s that much different… AW: At least in written. AG: At least in written. Good point. In terms of high-level skills and communication skills, I don’t think an AI world is that different from a non-AI world. In terms of very particular, here’s a type of communication that we do right now. We have people respond to company queries by hand. And instead, we’re going to have a machine do that. Sure. We’re gonna chatbots instead of right people chatting. But at a high level, the set of communication skills needed, or the set of any skills needed. For example, you what we should teach our primary school and high school age kids? I don’t think it’s really changed. Beyond grammar and spelling being a little less important. AW: I’m trying to answer the question also, in my own mind, AG: I’m curious to hear what your thoughts are? AW: Well, I think you’re right, because everybody says that we don’t pay enough attention to body language and our nonverbal communication, and it’s way more important than we think it is. And I don’t think that’s going to change with AI. Because then when you do meet someone face to face, and you’re not behind a screen, they’re still making a lot of conclusions or judgments about you. Right?. And so it’s still remains important. AG: I think it’s actually really useful to recognize that a lot of cases, there’s nothing new here. And so, you know, not so much about communications, but when the questions I get most often is, I have a 10-year-old, how should I get them ready for an AI world? In our book, we say, you know, there’s, prediction is getting better. And there’s these other things that therefore become more valuable. And so one is the ability to take actions. Okay, so what does that mean? In a practical sense, you know, there’s a whole bunch of action related jobs that involve physical work. The most obvious are entertainers, whether as athletes or, you know, actors is a whole set of professions that are about enjoying masters and podcasters. Yes, absolutely. That aren’t going away. Then there’s what we call judgment, which is knowing what matters which predictions to make and what to do with them. That’s very much about the social sciences and humanities and understanding what matters to you as an individual, to as us as a society, and to your organization, right. And then there’s actually people who need to build the machine. So there’s all bunch of science and technology there too. And so that covers, you know, science, math, humanities, social sciences, gym, and art and drama. Okay. So those skills how they’re  going to manifest themselves in the workforce will be different. But the skills are all there. And I think the same is gonna be true communication. AW: Wow, that is much more optimistic than I think I was feeling when I came in here. That’s great. I love that. We’re perhaps overly fixated on the technology stuff. Because we’re thinking: someone’s going to be programming the robot and the rest of us are just, you know, going to be at home unemployed. Well, no, there’s people that are programming the robot, but how do they know what to program? And then all of a sudden, there’s all these inputs. And also on the other side, what do you do with the output? Right? AG: Yeah. You need people all the way through. AW: Hmm. Well, that makes me feel better. Now, I’m going to ask you the five rapid fire questions that I asked every guest, you ready? Number one, what are your pet peeves? AG: People who confuse correlation with causation. AW: You’re so funny. Or who say things without a citation? AG: A little bit of that, too. AW: Okay. Second question, what type of learner are you? AG: I learn by reading. AW: You learn by reading? AG: Yeah. AW: You absorb the written word? AG: Yeah. AW: Third question. Are you an introvert or an extrovert? AG: I’ve always thought of myself as an introvert. But my job is increasingly going out and talking to people and in large audiences. I find with a large audience, I seem to be more extroverted. But in casual, small talk conversation, I’m definitely an introvert. AW: Interesting. So it depends on the size of the group that you’re communicating with. AG: It depends on the context. And, you know, for me to go up and perform that’s different than me chatting. AW: True. But you feel energized after you speak in front of a large audience? AG:  Yes. AW: Interesting. Well, you’re in the right profession then right? Because you’re researching, and then you’re going out and you’re presenting to large audiences, and you’re feeling energized by both. AG: Yes. AW: Beautiful, okay. Question number four, your communication preference for personal conversations? AG: With a small, the very small number of people who I’m very close to, obviously, verbal, just talking is best. Face to face. But otherwise, for even long-distance communication with those people, I like email. Email and text. I kind of use the same thing as because they’re both on my phone. But mostly, it’s email. AW: Email and text is the same? That’s not the case for other people. AG: So in terms of quick conversations with, you know, my wife or my friends or a meeting, then they are substitutes.  Perfect substitutes. There are things that you can do in email that you can’t do in text. You know, long formal work emails, I can’t do those on text. AW: right. AG: And emojis don’t work quite as well on email. But for quick things, you will have to have a conversation with email and text with the same person in the same half hour. AW: Interesting. So there’s not a clear preference there. Interesting. Last question, is there a podcast or a blog or an email newsletter that you find yourself recommending the most? AG: So there’s a handful of people I follow on Twitter that I find really useful in terms of what they link to.  Erik Brynjolfsson at MIT…  posts all sorts of good stuff. My co-author, Joshua Gans in the book also posts all sorts of good stuff. And I follow him. And then there’s a woman whose expert is in international security and technology named Elsa Kania. And I find her stuff on the impact of technology on military fascinating. AW: All right. So how can listeners connect with you? AG: LinkedIn is best. AW: Okay, I’ll put a link in to your LinkedIn address in the show notes, and also to your book, Prediction Machines. And I want to thank you very much for your time. AG: Okay. Thank you.   Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com YOU for listening!  And READING!   TalkAboutTalk CORE BELIEF: “When we communicate effectively, we can be a better friend, parent, partner and work colleague.”   TalkAboutTalk BRAND PROMISE: “TalkAboutTalk is the communication learning platform that enriches our relationships and enhances our career success by providing us with knowledge, strategies and confidence.”   The TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting knowledge & strategies that will help us become more effective communicators. SIGN UP NOW!: https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup TALK soon!             ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #15 (S2) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: TALKING WITH SIRI & ALEXA with professor & author Avi Goldfarb appeared first on Talk About Talk.

Are you the bossy eldest? The troubled middle child? The baby of the family? Or an only child? Does your personality fit with your birth order stereotype? What about your kids? Listen as Dr. Andrea and her brother, musician and sound producer Brian Campbell, talk about birth order effects, how the stereotypes fit with their family, and why the research is so inconsistent. References & Links Brian Campbell • Email – brian@talkabouttalk.com • LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-r-campbell-2018b9b6/?originalSubdomain=ca • Photos – https://talkabouttalk.com/about/ Siblings • National Siblings Day – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siblings_Day • Qs to ask your siblings – https://www.rootreport.com/sibling-tag-questions/ Sibling Order Effects Communication Skills • https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01755.x • https://www.jstor.org/stable/1128089?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents General • https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00193 • https://www.pnas.org/content/112/46/14224.short • https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656610001406 • https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED074426.pdf • https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/conscious-communication/201709/sibling-relationships-are-cradle-grave • https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/the-brother-sister-bond/ • https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/field-guide-families/201210/the-secret-powers-middle-children • https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/how-raise-happy-cooperative-child/201605/the-effect-birth-order-children Explanations for Inconsistencies • Ernst & Angst, 1983 • https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691100345X TalkAboutTalk • Weekly Email Blog – https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup • Andrea – Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com • Cynthia Barlow Body Language episode – https://talkabouttalk.com/1-body-language-with-executive-coach-cynthia-barlow/ • Bradley Christensen Using Your Voice episode – https://talkabouttalk.com/2-using-your-voice-with-baritone-opera-singer-bradley-christensen/ Other Resources Mentioned • “Bond with Health” with Vanessa Bond – https://www.bondwithhealth.com/ • “Foothills Famous” with Jonathan Stoddart – http://foothillsfamous.com/ • “Portfolio Career Podcast” with David Nebinski – https://www.portfoliocareerpodcast.com/ • “Prediction Machines” by Avi Goldfarb – https://amzn.to/2X9LO9v • TEDTalks – https://www.ted.com/#/ • Toronto Fashion Week – https://torontofashionweek.to/   Interview Transcript Brian Campbell: Yeah, respect, absolutely. Agree with one another all the time, maybe not so much. Andrea Wojnicki: True. Where are you, Brian? BC: Currently, I’m in Half Moon Lake Alberta, in my cozy home just east of Edmonton. I’m sitting in my basement. This is typically the space where I do all my production work. Although once in a while I do come out of my cave and sit at our kitchen table. But I’m sitting in front of a couple of big KRK speakers with my trusty headphones beside me and my laptop. So and this is typically where I sit and do all the production, whether it’s the Edit notes with you, or the audio edits themselves. Yeah, I spent a great deal of time down here either working on my day job or doing the work for TalkAboutTalk. AW: You know, what I think would be cool would be if you took a photo, and we’ll post it in the show notes so that the listeners can see where the editing and mixing happens for each of the podcast episodes, I’m actually curious as well. BC: Okay, I will get my housekeeper on it. His name is Brian , and he’s gonna clean up the base on before he takes a photo. AW: Excellent. Anyway, as the producer and editor of the 13 podcast that we’ve recorded and released so far, you are intimately familiar with the TalkAboutTalk material. And I was just wondering if you have any comments regarding season one. BC: It’s been a journey and a really good one. When we started off I, I viewed it as an opportunity to support my big sister, it was viewed from my perspective anyway, as kind of the collision of our careers. And I’m really happy with the way it turned out. I’ve always been obsessed with communication and perspective, and to be able to be a part of a production where we’re doing the deep dive into how people affect one another, through their ability to communicate. And to, quote, talk, if they’re interested. The content is interesting. I think we’ve got a lot of great guests as well. And then looking at what we’re rolling into. And season two, I think we’re really just getting my feet under so some, some more taboo topics on the horizon, which I think is really important, because I think it’s important to speak to people and to speak to some of the more difficult topics. AW: Yeah, I agree. I’m really excited about those as well. Can you share with the listeners, maybe some insights or anecdotes or favorite moments from season one, BC: There’s a number of moments that have jumped out to me. I have the privilege of being the person who gets to hear everything. And there’s some pretty hilarious moments. I’ve multiple times had to put my coffee down to make sure that I didn’t accidentally spit coffee across the keyboard. One of those moments that sticks out was the first time that I listened to the Cynthia Barlow interview. And when she starts really getting into it about Trump, it’s just, it’s amazing. I love how candid she is and how open she is about how she feels about him. And I’ve even seen since then some of her social media posts which are right in line and she walks the talk, and she talks the talk too. Yeah. the Bradley Christensen moment was one of our technical moments where you can come in here like this is going to be amazing. I’ve done to do I got to do 10 seconds, and I turned my speakers up appropriately. And thankfully, I turned it down slightly, just before the moment that he started singing, but I just got knocked over the back of my chair. It was still amazing. Like I just to hear him belt it out like that. I love it. AW: Yeah, he’s such a great guy. He has such a fantastic voice. And I said in Episode 13. Unfortunately, my recording equipment was not manufactured to record an opera. BC: Yeah, episode to episode. There’s been highlights for me. Absolutely. But I think the understanding is that we’re riding a fine line between academia and every person connection. And I think that we’re progressing the right way in that direction, where people learn something. And they also feel truly connected to the communication information that you Dr. Andrea, are offer. Hold on, let me do something that AW: Oh my! Was that a zipper? BC: That’s my hoodie. AW: By the way, that’s a keeper. BC: Totally…. I’d love it, if down the road, we could to have a celebration ended the season dinner party where we would invite all of the interviewees from that particular season to a nice dinner party, where we all had the opportunity to sit down and we would record the communication that everyone had amongst themselves. AW: I agree. I think that’s a fantastic idea. I think we should make it happen. BC: The dinner table is a bit of a foundational element in family communication where you know, don’t bring your phone to the table, turn off the TV, we’re all gonna sit down. We’re all going to talk to each other nicely. We’re all going to talk about our day, whether we want to or not everyone sit together and be a nice family. AW: That’s true. Ha-ha. BC: I love throwing random facts in there, thank you…. AW: Where are you going with that? I thought you were going to start reminiscing. BC: No, no, that was it. AW: So now we’re going to talk a little bit about our personal experience with as well as some of the research that I’ve done on siblings and specifically, sibling birth order, and sibling communication. There’s all sorts of academic research that’s been done on this topic. And I will put the links to the research that I found up in the show notes, if you want to take a look at the website. BC: Andy, I feel that you and I as producers have a podcast about communication might be very well qualified to discuss this. AW: Well. That’s what I was thinking. I mean, we’re going to be talking about the research — what the experts say but you and I have some personal insights that will help illustrate the points that we’re making here regarding the research, but also allow the listeners to get to know us a little bit better. Let’s start by talking about birth order stereotypes. Do you know what they are, Brian, the stereotypes of the eldest, the middle and the youngest? BC: I would suggest that perhaps the oldest would be bossy. I think a lot of unfair stereotypes about middle child, where it’s like the board, middle child, I think there’s a lot of great middle children even have one in our family. Ali, who we will meet at some point here. And then there’s the youngest, who can be spoiled, sometimes the black sheep of the family. Can be into themselves. Typically, maybe going a little bit more against the grain than the other kids. AW: So just to people a little bit of insight into our family. I’m the oldest and I have always worn the bossy older sister label, not necessarily proudly so, but I have always worn that hat. And Brian and I have a middle sister between us, Ali. And for the record. We did the research on the middle born. Brian was saying they talk about the middle child syndrome. She does not fulfill this stereotype at all. Apparently, people think that middle children are shy, envious and less bold. But research shows, this is not the case. And our personal experience with our sister Ali also demonstrates that this is not the case. And you’re going to hear as we go through some of the research on siblings, sibling rivalry, and birth order effects that there are a lot of stereotypes and myths out there. And the research does not necessarily back it up. Ali is absolutely the most social person in our family. And she’s a great team player. The academic research does show that about middle children, they learn to negotiate, they create their own identity. And they learn negotiation skills, and they learn to socialize, and to be more social as part of their identity. And when I think about other families where there’s a middle child, I think, actually that is true, but that’s not necessarily what the stereotype is. So research shows that middle children are actually social. They are great leaders, which I found interesting, because that’s the stereotype of the oldest child, right? They are trusting. They are collaborative, and their innovative. And this one really blew me away. 52% of US presidents are middle children, I thought that was the case for oldest children. But no, it’s the middle children. And, other impressive people, including Madonna, Bill Gates, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many more, are also middle children. So whatever stereotypes you have of middle child syndrome, the research has blown that out of the water. BC: That’s really interesting. Maybe that’s because parents have a particular way that they will instinctively deal with oldest children and younger children and the middle children are somehow separate from that, and therefore get a more moderate medium upbringing. AW: Well, there’s another interesting piece of research saying that it depends on the economy that you’re living in. So if you’re in the first world, then some of these stereotypes may be more likely to be true, because the first child gets a lot of attention paid to them. So they have higher expectations, they are read two more, etc. And then when it comes to the last child that, you know, the joke is that there’s no photographs taken of the youngest child because the parents are so busy. And some of those things may be true. In the first world, in our economy. In other more subsistence economies, the relationship or the correlations for the oldest and the youngest actually flip. And the oldest one, instead of having all this fabulous attention paid to them, they’re actually expected to go out and work. And they end up being the ones that are less likely to read, they’re less educated, they’re less likely to be leaders, because the parents actually had to lean on them to help make money for the family. BC: So what about only children? AW: Research is pretty clear that only children suffer absolutely no psychological or social deficit. And I was really relieved to hear this because I have some friends have only children. And I hear sometimes implicitly and sometimes even explicit comments about, oh, well, he’s an only child. Well, that explains that. And in fact, the academic research shows that whatever negative stereotypes or psychological effects that you associated with only children — are not true. And cognitively, only children tend to be more advanced, with stronger vocabularies, a more sophisticated sense of humor, and a better grasp on current events. So that could be because of the attention that they get. But there seemed to be more benefits to being an only child… BC: I have a bit of a unique parenting situation. I have, for all intents and purposes two only children. I have a 25-year-old son, and I have a six-year-old son. They love each other to the end of the earth, which is an amazing thing to experience and to observe. But both of them are very single minded, while they share and they’re they’re both empathetic, they will show a balance between the drive and the personal motivation, as well as the ability to relate to people around them and to empathize. AW: That’s interesting. So and I was gonna say that the other stereotype that comes to mind, the positive one is that they’re very independent. And they both are, they are happy, they’re proactive, independent beings, right. But there’s also social to your point. BC: Yeah. AW: Another fascinating thing that I read that I had heard before, is that our beliefs about the stereotypes are exaggerated. And there’s a couple of reasons why. The first reason why all of the stereotypes that we have in our mind about the firstborn, the middle born, and the youngest children. The research shows that birth order effects do matter, within the family, but not outside of the family. In other words, the research that was done, where they ask people about their own family members, the relationships and the personalities may show birth order effects are significant. But when they ask people in general about different people’s personalities say that they work with or that they’re friends with, all of a sudden, these birth order effect personality traits are minimized. And I’ve heard anecdotally, and then I read recently, in the research that when people come home as adults, and they are in their nuclear family that they grew up in, they revert or regress, to the teenage behaviors and stereotypes and personalities that they were growing up, even though that’s not a part of their identity as an adult. And I just find that absolutely fascinating, don’t you? BC:I could totally see that. I think there’s something with how comfortable we are with our family. There’s the family we choose versus the family, but we’re given. We’re talking about the family that were given, and the people who know the most intimate details of our existence, and who have been there for some of the most emotionally specific moments of our lives. And I think, when relating the interpersonal communications that we have, with people who can touch us as deeply as family members can, we may see those moments and those people with a slightly exaggerated personality, frankly, a lot of these memories are when our minds and our emotions are being developed when we’re learning to regulate our emotions. And I think that has a big impact on the memory, the deepness of the memory. AW: That’s a very fair point. The other interesting insight that I just stumbled upon recently is the reason these stereotypes persist is because parents and even siblings that are in these relationships, are considering themselves, but at different ages. So if you think about it, the stereotypes that are associated with older siblings, so the first born are more mature, right? So leadership, because they’re teaching their younger siblings, and whatever the more mature stereotypes are. Whereas you even hear it that the last born is the baby of the family. The research would be more valid, if parents videotaped their children at the same age, and then compared the personality traits. So first, when I was 10 years old, if mom and dad had taken a video of me, and then when Ali was 10 years old, they had taken a video of her. And then when Brian’s 10 years old, take a video of him and then talk about our personality traits, they might actually find that there’s nothing to do with birth order effects. But when they think of us collectively, they’re thinking about us sitting around the table, and what role was Andrea taking, of course, she was more bossy, she was the oldest kid at the table. Right? BC: I think the difference is due to the fact that they’ve been influenced by their siblings. The firstborn was not influenced by anyone near their age. And it’s, I think it’s instinctual for a next child to look up to be mentored to treat their older sibling as an instruction booklet, when one that the first one wouldn’t add. So they would have had to do a deeper dive into the various aspects of growing up of learning to go to the bathroom on learning to tie their shoes, all these things that they’ll teach the younger ones. AW: Right. Right. And then and then for social psychology researcher to go in and ask, Brian, what do you think about the personalities of your siblings? Your you’re in it, you can answer that right versus, versus asking about somebody at work, who you don’t necessarily know that they’re an older sibling, and it actually doesn’t matter in your relationship with them. So they therefore have totally different responses, and the birth order effects suddenly go away. I think that’s a real valid explanation for why there’s so much inconsistency in the research. BC: And how can you expect somebody who had to learn to do everything on their own not to be a little bit bossy when they come out the other end of it? AW: Well, thanks, Brian. BC: I can’t believe I just gave you a pass on that. AW: I’m gonna hold that against you forever more. BC: Great. This is this is not going the way I’d hoped. AW: Okay, I have a totally different question for you. Have you heard of sibling ESP? And do you think it’s a thing? BC: I’ve heard it with respect to twins, not so much as siblings. Do I think it’s a thing? That’s a bit of a rabbit hole to go down. Probably not. But, we did pick a very specific day to do this interview :April 10. Neither of us apparently had any idea but today’s national sibling day. I might suggest that somewhere in here it we may want to note that while we may not consider Sibling ESP a thing, we did happen to randomly pick the one day out of the year. That is National sibling day to record this interview AW: Are you joking? I had absolutely no idea. BC: No, it’s, it’s a thing. It’s today, Facebook told me so in memories. But apparently, after 2016 we weren’t celebrating anymore. So I’m not sure what happened between you and I the last couple years, but we didn’t post anything nice about each other. AW: That’s funny. I haven’t checked social media today. But you know what, I am definitely going to post something. And I guess I’ll everyone all about you. BC: Oh, good. AW: So I was thinking about this sibling ESP thing, and you know, the researchers say it is not a thing. But what is a thing is the fact that siblings have an essentially a cradle to grave relationship. So we know each other better than anyone else on the planet, arguably, and the sibling bond has the distinction of being the most enduring. And egalitarian of all family relationships, and frankly, of any relationship whatsoever. So that’s something to celebrate. Happy Sibling Day. BC: I think it is – happy sibling day. I think the way that people in general, relates to their siblings can speak a lot to how much self-awareness they have, and how much they accept who they are. Because these are definitely some of the most intimately detailed relationships you can have. These are the people that know me better than anyone. They’ve seen you at your best they see you’re worse. They see you strive and fail. And they’ve seen you succeed beyond expectation and your ability to relate to them. Over the long term, it shows how much you can accept yourself because they see possibly better than anyone else. AW: I agree. And I you know, when I read this cradle to grave thing, I thought, well, that’s kind of morbid, but then, actually, it’s just really cool. Right? BC: Yes, yeah. I think it’s about time for Andy and myself to discuss the specifics of our sibling relationship. AW: Ooo. That sounds dicey. BC: That’s right, folks. It’s Dr. Andrea turn to answer the question for us. I’m going to ask a question, Andy. And then you can ask me the same question back. Does that sound good? AW: It does, but only if I get to choose the next question. BC: Okay, deal. What was your expectation of me when we started TalkAboutTalk? AW: Well, I think that’s a great question. I really, Brian had no expectations whatsoever. I wish I had recorded the phone call where we were talking about this. And you raised your hand and volunteered and said, this sounds really exciting. Why don’t I write some music for the intro and the trailer? And I was like, wow, I was honestly thinking I was going to go online and find a musician to do this. And you raised your hand. And I kept thinking, pinch me. This is absolutely perfect. Because I can be open and honest with him. And he knows me. So to answer your question, I had absolutely no expectations at all. But I just want to add that you have absolutely blown me away. And I am so thankful and grateful. And I hope you know that I do not take your participation in this pursuit for granted whatsoever. I value everything you say, and everything you do. And I’m really impressed with the quality of what you’re turning around. So I thank you BC: Oh, thanks, Andy. I’m blushing now. Can you see me see me blushing over here? AW: It’s a good thing. We’re only audio for now. Anyway. So what was your expectation of me when you heard about this pursuit? BC: It was very intriguing. And I expected you to flourish. My protective younger brother side came up quite quickly, where I immediately recognized that there was an opportunity for me to support you on this path and help you get through some of the initial early learnings along the way to get uncomfortable as a host and as producer of a podcast. The reason I said yes is because you’re my big sister, I want this worthwhile, and I truly believe that with you behind it, it’ll work well. And with me behind it, we’re guaranteed success. AW: No pressure, no pressure do this. BC: Yeah. AW: So this is a related question. I get asked the question now, right. Okay. It’s my turn. We’re taking turns. Okay. Has our working together on this project affected or changed the way you think about me? BC: No, not necessarily. It’s been a blend between professional and personal And I’m aware of the perspective of my big sister versus the, you know, the host, the golden goose, the person running Dr. Andrea, TalkAboutTalk. I’ve learned how adaptable you are, you know, frankly, I’ve been proud of how well you’ve filled the shoes that that are required for a host of a podcast. As someone who’s played in lots of bands in the past has been on quite a few stages of my time. I know what it feels like to be in front of a bunch of people. And I’ve really enjoyed watching you transition into a level of comfort that works really well for hosting this. AW: Oh, thank you. And by the way, and I don’t think anyone’s ever called me adaptable. Ever. BC: I’m going to edit that part out. AW: Because it makes me sound bad. Okay, self-deprecation. Very good thing is true, though. Nobody’s ever called me adaptable. BC: So how has talked about talk shape your opinion of me? AW: Ah, so this project actually has influenced my perception of you, Brian. It’s not that I’ve changed my mind about you in any way. But I’ve learned things. And I would say the one thing that really sticks out in my mind is how do I put this — your hard work and your integrity? So sometimes, you know, I’ll be firing transcripts with edits to you. And I’ll be like, how’s he doing this? He has another full-time job. And never once have you even said, I need an extension on this or whatever. It’s just you get it done. And you get it done? Well, and I think it’s because you and I’ve actually never really worked on something together. We’ve never built something together there six years between us, right? So the things you wanted to build when you were growing up. And the things that I wanted to build were different because of the six years between us. But now, the six years doesn’t really matter. And so working on this project with you provided me with an opportunity to see what a hard worker you are, how much integrity you have are, and I’m really proud of you. I’m going to start, I’m gonna stop gushing about you. Now let’s get some better question. BC: Well, I just want to put a bow around that because I think we’re both motivated for the same goal, which might be quite contrary to when we were growing up and possibly fighting about things and potentially motivated in completely opposite directions. So the outcome was not quite as productive. AW: Okay, Brian, next question. describe me in three words. BC: Driven. genuine, unapologetic AW: Oof, you know what, as the older sister, I’m reading into those for the, for the little snipe from the little brother. But those I think those are pretty true. BC: Andrea, describe me three words, please. AW: The first word that I have to describe you is irreverent. I love this word. Irreverence is something to aspire to, it means that you’re smart, and you’re confident. So irreverence is the first word that I would use to describe you. The second one is musician. And when I picture you, in my mind, and someone says, Brian, boom, the picture of you that I have, you’re either mixing music, listening to music, or creating music on a stage. So the second word is musician. The third word goes back to what I said, regarding previous question that you asked me about how TalkAboutTalk has shaped my opinion of you. I keep thinking about your integrity, and your hard work. So I guess that’s kind of cheating, because it’s two words, but it’s one it’s one idea. It’s just the integrity and hard work So there you go. BC: Thank you. Um, what’s your favorite thing about me? AW: Actually, that’s an easy one. My favorite thing about you is the way that you treat your family, the way you are raising your son, the way you treat your wife, the way you talk about your wife, the way you interact with our parents, the way you interact with me and Ali, I think that the way you treat your family and I don’t mean that in a selfish way, because you’re nice to me, but the way I observe you also treating other family members is probably my favorite thing about you. BC: I’m smiling. AW: You should be. What’s your favorite thing about me? BC: Your genuineness, which just really reinforces everything they see just said about me because I know you meant it. You, you really genuine and you speak your mind, you speak your mind, your family, you speak your mind to everyone and I you know, some that could seem to imply some negative perspective it, it doesn’t. I mean that in the most honest way. I think it’s really important that people speak their mind and are consistently able to communicate transparently with people around them. Because all we do is waste one another’s time. If we’re speaking in riddles, AW: I wear my heart on my sleeve. I will agree with that. Okay, your turn. BC: Well, I got one more for you. AW: Okay. Yeah, time. I’ve got time. Okay. BC: Would I choose to be gorgeous, or filthy, rich and successful, or smart, AW: filthy, rich and successful is together. Okay. I think it’s definitely not the gorgeous one. Because I don’t think you value that. It’s not that you aren’t gorgeous, Brian, it’s just that I think you value, ambition, hard work and success and you value intelligence, I think you might go with the filthy rich and successful because of the connection between hard work and the outcome. And if you attain that, then it would be evidence of your hard work. BC: That’s fair, to be completely honest, I would say I would go with smart because I think you can get the rest of those, at least in perception from other people. If you’re smart about it. And I’m just going to blow your mind with my answer about you. There’s no reason for you to choose between any of these because you’re smart. You’re gorgeous. And we’re producing a podcast. So filthy, rich and successful, might be a little bit of a rich right now. But I am confident that with our smartness, we can get there. AW: Yeah, there’s not a lot of money in podcasting. But.. Wow, if you’d asked me, I would definitely say the smart, but let me tell you why I know that about myself. Because when I have been most offended by people, so offended, in fact that, you know, I’ve lost sleep over other people’s perceptions of me. It’s when they have implicitly communicated that they don’t think I’m smart. That is the biggest dis for me. I think it’s pretty evident for me anyway, that if I had to choose between the three, I would be smart. BC: Good. I like it. And I agree. Yeah, we’re aligned. That was fun. AW: Brian, I’d like to flip them to the rapid-fire questions that you know, I asked every single guest, can I ask you them? BC: Yes, you can. I want to ask you them too? AW: Sure. First question. What are your pet peeves? BC: drivers around me that don’t meet my expectation of what they should be doing. Maybe they’re driving too slow, or they’re changing lanes without using their signal lights. There’s various words to describe this act, I understand my part in the equation. Driving is the most random social interaction that we do every day. And we have the responsibility to respond appropriately and control our emotions. So I look at it as a challenge. But I certainly do appreciate someone who’s a great driver. AW: The funny thing is, you don’t really notice the great drivers. It’s the bad drivers that you notice, isn’t it? BC: Yeah, it’s true. AW: Next question, what type of learner are you? BC: I’m going to say an experiential learner, which is likely mostly connected to kinesthetic. But my moments around me dictate the best way for me to absorb new information. Sometimes it’s visual, sometimes it’s auditory, and sometimes it’s kinesthetic. Okay, so you’re welcome. I didn’t answer your question. All of the above. AW: I’ve heard from many There we go. Guest experts as well. BC: You know what I heard it too. AW: Question number three, introvert or extrovert? BC: extrovert. It explains my trucker mouth. AW: Question number four communication preference for personal conversations, what medium or channel do you use? BC: Face to face is my absolute preference and understanding that that can always happen. I try to keep short and sweet with anything that is a text-based communication. Phone calls are the next best thing to face-to-face when you have to talk about something that’s important. Number five podcast or blog or email newsletter that you find yourself recommending the most? Foothills Famous out of Calgary, by Jonathan Stoddart. It’s a local Calgary entertainment scene includes many of the best influencers in Calgary. AW: Huh. hadn’t heard of it. We’ll put a link to it in the show notes. BC: All right, Andy. It’s your turn. For the first time drumroll. Please answer the five rapid fire questions. What are your pet peeves? AW: I have many pet peeves, actually. But the three that come to mind clutter, people who stand on sidewalks instead of walking on sidewalks, blocking other pedestrians. And the third one is drivers that do 180s or U-turns in the middle of a street. I have no problem with a car doing a U turn legally at an intersection. But I don’t know if it’s a Toronto thing. But recently, it started with just taxis. And now everyone’s doing it. They’re pulling 180s in the middle of road and cars in both directions have to stop for them while they’re doing this, and it drives me crazy. I just think it’s selfish and it’s unsafe. BC: I have no problem envisioning you walking down the street and pushing past someone and saying “this is a side WALK, not a side STAND” AW: something like that may have happened. BC: I imagine it did. What type of learner are you? AW: So it’s an easy one. For me. I am definitely a visual learner. visual stimulus has a huge impact on me. And I think of things visually in my mind and I draw things. So definitely visual. BC: introvert or extrovert. AW: I am definitely an extrovert. I love being around people. I love conversing with people. I love one on one dialogues, and I love big dinner parties. I love cocktail banter. I love being around people and I feel energized around people know that said sitting in front of my computer and doing research for half a day or even a day can also be energizing if I feel like I’ve accomplished something, but I really feel more energized, following interaction with other people. BC: I feel like the length of your answer supports you being an extrovert. AW: Yeah, it will be cut, I kept thinking of better ways to say that. (YES, I KNOW HE DIDN’T CUT THE AUDIO. BUT I CUT THE SHOWNOTES TRANSCRIPT. HMM. HE WINS THAT ONE!) BC: it’s okay. Awesome. What is your communication preference for personal conversations? AW: For me, text is the communication medium that I go to, most often. And in my mind, I’m thinking, I don’t know if the person has time right now to respond. I don’t know if they’re going to answer the phone. So I’m just going to text them and then they can respond to me at their convenience. And there’s a lot wrong with that, because you’re missing the visual and the auditory cues that come with the telephone or face to face communication. So I think I need to step it up. And depending on what the communication is what the other person, I think I should be trying to pick up the phone or get in front of their face more often. BC: Last question, what’s the podcast or blog or email newsletter that you’d recommend the most? AW: Well, it depends on the context, I find myself recommending the various TED Talks, I found myself recommending the Portfolio Career Podcast, which is a podcast from one of my fellow podcasters name, David Nebinski. And he has this insight about how so many of us have portfolio careers where we’re doing different things. And then I have a friend, Vanessa Bond, who has a brilliant blog about nutrition that I end up referencing and recommending to a lot of people. So I’ll put the links to each of those in the show notes as well as the one that you mentioned, Brian. BC: Well, is that it Andy? AW: I think I think we’re done. I’m so happy that we had this chance. It’s going to be really interesting to edit this because I know you and I are going to have different views. But remember, we have the same goal at the end of the day, right? BC: We do. And I really appreciate the opportunity to step around from the other side of the speakers and actually speak with our listeners. AW: Yeah, hopefully we’ll be able to do it again soon. Thank you so much. BC: Thanks Andy. Happy siblings day. AW: Oh, happy siblings day.   THANK YOU for listening! And READING! That’s it. THANK YOU so much for listening. As I have said many times before, I know your time is valuable and I am honoured that you spent this time listening to TalkAboutTalk. I hope you will also sign up for the TalkAboutTalk weekly email blog. This is your opportunity to receive one, concise, weekly email from me full of content and highlighting what I think is worth Talking about. If you sign up now, I will send you an exclusive document with the TalkAboutTalk Season1 episode summaries. My goal is to help us all become more effective communicators. https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup You can learn more about Story-telling and more in the weekly TalkAboutTalk email newsletter. I hope you will sign up for the TalkAboutTalk weekly newsletter!!! This is your opportunity to receive one concise email from me each week, highlighting what I think is worth Talking About. My goal is to help us all become more effective communicators. https://talkabouttalk.com/blog/#newsletter-signup Please connect with me. YES, I will personally respond! • Web: https://talkabouttalk.com/ • Twitter: https://twitter.com/talk_about_talk • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkingabouttalk/ • FB: https://www.facebook.com/TalkingAboutTalk/ • LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talkabouttalk/ • Email: Andrea@TalkAboutTalk.com One last thing, if you have a moment, please go to Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you use and rate this podcast. It helps us a lot to get some traction in this wonderful podcast universe. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/talkabouttalk/id1447267503?mt=2 TALK soon! ***When referencing resources and products, TalkAboutTalk sometimes uses affiliate links. These links don’t impose any extra cost on you, and they help support the free content provided by TalkAboutTalk. The post #14(S.2) SIBLING COMMUNICATION & BIRTH ORDER EFFECTS with TalkAboutTalk producer Brian Campbell appeared first on Talk About Talk.