• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
the-one-you-feed-podcast-eric-zimmer-logo-dark-smk
  • About
    • The Podcast
    • The Parable
    • Eric Zimmer
    • Ginny Gay
  • The Podcast
    • Episodes Shownotes
    • Episodes List
    • Anxiety & Depression
    • Addiction & Recovery
    • Habits & Behavior Change
    • Meditation & Mindfulness
  • Programs
    • Wise Habits
    • Free Masterclass: Habits That Stick
    • Coaching Consultation
  • Membership
  • Resources
    • 6 Sabotuers FREE eBook
    • Sign Up for Wise Habits Text Reminders
    • Free Masterclass: Habits that Stick
    • Free ebook: How to Stick to Meditation Practice
    • Free Training: How to Quiet Your Inner Critic
    • Anti-Racism Resources
    • Blog
  • Contact
    • General Inquiries
    • Guest Requests
  • Search
Wise Habits Reminders

Featured

The Midlife Makeover: Redefining Success and Happiness After 40 with Chip Conley

April 18, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Chip Conley defines a midlife makeover and how to redefine success and happiness after 40. He shares how the most difficult stretches of his life ended up being the start of something completely new. Chip also explains the pull of the ego, the search for identity and how letting go of traditional success can open the door for something more meaningful. If you’re in a season of life where things feel uncertain, or if you’re wondering what this phase of life is really for, this episode will help you feel a little more hopeful.

Key Takeaways:

  • Personal experiences and challenges faced during midlife, including burnout and loss.
  • The importance of perspective on aging and reframing societal perceptions of midlife.
  • The concept of a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset in personal development.
  • The relationship between time management and personal autonomy in midlife.
  • The physical and emotional changes associated with aging, particularly for men.
  • The role of purpose in maintaining energy and engagement in life.
  • The significance of gratitude and specificity in practicing gratitude.
  • The idea of positive commitments versus commandments in guiding life choices.
  • Navigating disappointment and expectations during midlife transitions.


Chip Conley is on a mission. After disrupting the hospitality industry twice, first as the founder of Joie de Vivre Hospitality, the second-largest operator of boutique hotels in the U.S., and then as Airbnb’s Head of Global Hospitality and Strategy, leading a worldwide revolution in travel, Conley co-founded MEA (Modern Elder Academy) in January 2018. Inspired by his experience of intergenerational mentoring as a ‘modern elder’ at Airbnb, where his guidance was instrumental to the company’s extraordinary transformation from fast-growing start-up to the world’s most valuable hospitality brand, MEA is the world’s first ‘midlife wisdom school.’ Dedicated to reframing the concept of aging, MEA supports students to navigate midlife with a renewed sense of purpose and possibility. A New York Times bestselling author, Conley’s 7th book Learning to Love Midlife: 12 Reasons Why Life Gets Better with Age is about rebranding midlife to help people understand the upside of this often-misunderstood life stage and he was asked to give a 2023 TED talk on the “midlife chrysalis.”

Connect with Chip Conley:  Website | Instagram | LinkedIn

If you enjoyed this conversation with Chip Conley, check out these other episodes:

Life Transitions with Bruce Feiler

Successful Aging with Alan Castel

The Happiness Curve with Jonathan Rauch

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Eric Zimmer 00:02:18  Midlife has a way of sneaking up on you. I know because I’m in it, and it’s not without its challenges. But talking with Chip Conley shifted something in me. In this conversation, he shares how the hardest stretch of his life. Burnout, personal loss, and near-death experience ended up being the start of something completely new. We talk about the pull of ego, the search for identity, and how letting go of traditional success opened the door to something more meaningful. His idea of moving from return on investment to ripples of impact especially struck me. If you’re in a season where things feel uncertain, or if you’re wondering what this phase of life is really for. I think you’ll hear something in this episode that helps you feel a little more hopeful. I’m Eric Zimmer and this is the one you feed. Hi, Chip, welcome to the show.

Chip Conley 00:03:14  It’s great to be here, Eric.

Eric Zimmer 00:03:15  I’m really excited to talk with you. Your book is called Learning to Love Midlife 12 Reasons Why Life Gets Better With Age.

Eric Zimmer 00:03:24  And what a great topic. And is somebody who’s squarely in the middle of midlife. I’m your target audience. We’ll get to the book, though, in a minute after we start in the way that we always do, which is with the parable. And in the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with their grandchild, and they say, in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops and they think about it for a second, and they look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Chip Conley 00:04:09  As is true for so many things in life. I’m not sure it’s binary. There’s nothing that says we can’t feed both, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you want to feed both, but it does mean that we do possibly feed both.

Chip Conley 00:04:21  And there’s certain parts of our life. In my life, I’ll just speak for myself. Certain parts of my life are that have a voracious appetite. So there’s certain times in your life where your ego wants to be fed incessantly and frankly, as is true with the hedonic treadmill, the psychology theory that just when you thought the thing you wanted was good enough. Once you get it, you want something more. Yeah, I think that that is very true of the ego, as is true for many things. The ego in moderation is wonderful. Feeding your sense of accomplishment, feeding your sense of having an identity in the world that differentiates you is very important. But it’s when it gets out of balance and you realize that there’s never enough. That’s when you got to be very careful with, with with feeding that wolf. The other wolf, you know, often isn’t asking for anything. It can get along on a steady, small diet. It’s quieter. It’s not demanding. And that, wolf, though in the long run, is what nourishes you the most.

Chip Conley 00:05:32  And so for me, in my life, just to sum up, I was very, very focused on ROI, the return on investment as an entrepreneur for much of my life. But I have come to see that the ROI that I really appreciate these days is ripples of impact and the return on investment mindset I had sometimes meant that I was feeding the ego and feeding the greed. Greed. I’ve never been very greedy, but. But certainly feeding the desire for accomplishment. And today, what I want to feed is that part of me that really is giving back and having a profound impact on other humans as my primary way of feeling success in life.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:17  Wonderful. Let’s start with maybe setting up how you got to the place where you wrote a book about midlife. You have the Modern Elders Academy. Let’s talk about how you got there, and you describe it in the book as the tale of two midwives, one very bad, followed by one very good. Talk to me about that.

Chip Conley 00:06:38  Yeah, I went to college and graduate school at Stanford a couple of years out of Stanford Business School.

Chip Conley 00:06:44  I started a boutique hotel company at age 26 called joie de vivre Vive joy of life! And French ran that company for 24 years, based in San Francisco. We had 52 boutique hotels around California, became the second largest boutique hotelier in the US. But I really was struggling in my late 40s. At the time, I had never heard of the You Curve of Happiness, which shows that the low point on the U curve is around 45 to 50. And yes, that was the era I was in, but I didn’t know anything about that. What I thought was, oh man, I’ve hit my midlife and I’m having my crisis. But it was not just the internal feeling like something wasn’t right, but it was also externally I had I had friends committing suicide. I had an adult foster son going to prison wrongfully. I had a long term relationship ending. I was running out of cash during the Great Recession with my boutique hotel company, so it was both internal and external. And then I had an NDE near-death experience due to an allergic reaction to an antibiotic.

Chip Conley 00:07:40  And that was the hotelier wake up call. That was when I finally said, like, I’ve got to make a transition in my life, but I just don’t know how to do it. You know, I felt now a deep sense of a catalyst from that NDE over the next two years, with some help from one of my best friends who was a coach, I, between age 47 and 50, pretty much changed everything in my life. Some of it was not at all easy. It was in fact very difficult. But by age 50, I sort of hit the reset button and I was ready for something new. And then my 50s were spectacular. So the tale of two midlife were late 40s was rough. My 50s were spectacular. And, you know, I spent from age 52 to 59 helping the founders of Airbnb take their little tech startup and turn it into the world’s most valuable hospitality company, which is where I earned the title Modern Elder. I didn’t like it at first, but then they said, Chip, you’re as curious as you are wise, and that’s a modern elder.

Chip Conley 00:08:40  And I was like, okay, I like that. And next thing I knew, I was ready to create the Modern Elder Academy, the world’s first midlife wisdom school. So I would just say midlife is a complex time. It’s a time that hasn’t been given a lot of attention. Part of what I’ve been doing as a midlife activist now is to help to demystify and elevate and and maybe operationalize. How do you go through midlife differently? And what are the tools that are available to you. And the key themes that are often going on in people’s lives during this time? And that’s why we have 7000 graduates from 60 countries who are part of the MBA alumni crew.

Eric Zimmer 00:09:16  So let’s define midlife real quick. Like, what are we talking about here? What years, what characteristics? How do you think about determining yep, somebody’s in midlife or they’re not in midlife.

Chip Conley 00:09:28  Well, technically, midlife is the life stage. That is a bridge. So think of it as a bridge between early adulthood and later adulthood.

Chip Conley 00:09:36  Make sense? Right? I mean, the middle age is between early and late. So early adulthood was originally conceived as 18 to 30 and now 18 to 35 by some sociologists. So you could say that maybe midlife early midlife starts around mid 30s. Let me be clear that my definition of midlife, which is defined by a lot of sociologists, is at odds with the historical definition, which has been 40 to 60 or 45 to 65. But I’m saying maybe mid 30s, it starts to creep up on you, and then you have this very long bridge, because later adulthood, if you’re going to live till 90 or 100 later, it might start around 75. It’s when at that point probably retired. Although a lot of people are still working in their late 70s still. So it’s possible that the bridge of midlife lasts 40 years, from 35 to 75, with three stages in it early midlife, 35 to 50, the core of midlife 50 to 60, and then later midlife 60 to 75. And each of those three stages has a different flavor to it.

Chip Conley 00:10:39  But we didn’t have this worry in the year 1900 because the life expectancy in 1900 was 47. So midlife really didn’t exist.

Eric Zimmer 00:10:48  That’s amazing when we think about that. Let’s first talk about what our perspective on aging is and why it’s important. You know, you referenced just a second ago, 1900 age of 47, right. And I think many of us of my age, I’ve noticed recently we’re looking at pictures of our parents at our age or even more, our grandparents at our age. And we’re like, goodness gracious, I seem very different than that. And I think some of that is we’ve begun to have a different perspective on what it is to age. But talk to me about why our beliefs about aging are so important.

Chip Conley 00:11:31  Well, our beliefs about aging are in the US. Culture’s just pretty toxic. Let’s just be honest. If there was a bumper sticker that defined our belief of aging, it would be just don’t do it. And yet, if you don’t age, you’re probably dying or dead.

Chip Conley 00:11:45  So long story short, is because US culture has defined aging, often by the physical side of aging, which does over the course of your life, you show physical deterioration. People are scared of it. And yet our emotional aging process, we actually get better at emotional intelligence as we age. We get better at social relationships as we age. So the social side of aging can be better culturally. Not everybody, but a lot of people actually get more interested in culture as they age. They get more interested in spirituality in certain pursuits. Intellectually, they are more adept as they age because of crystallized intelligence as opposed to fluid intelligence. So, long story short, is the society perspective on aging is pretty negative. And yet the U curve of happiness research shows that, you know, after age 50, people get happier with time. And Becca Levys work from Yale has shown that when you shift your mindset on aging from a negative to a positive. Around midlife, you you add seven and a half years of extended longevity.

Chip Conley 00:12:49  So part of my role, part and part of MEAs mission is to help people own their age, feel good about the upside of aging and what gets better with age. And then look at how you can not just be youthful, but useful as you get older.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:06  Well, being useful is one of my favorite ideas and core values. Have you ever read The Cider House Rules by John? Oh yeah. Of course. Yeah. Doctor Wilbur Larch and, you know, always be useful. Very influential on me when I was a teenager. So as we look at people aging, I think many of us will see people who have become what you’re describing as wiser, kinder, better people as they’ve gotten old. And then there’s the stereotype of the grumpy old man who doesn’t want a kid on his lawn. And hardens and ossifies in some way. What to you shapes the trajectory from one of those outcomes to the other?

Chip Conley 00:13:51  It’s really the difference between a fixed and a growth mindset. So Carol Dweck at Stanford popularized this idea of mindset.

Chip Conley 00:13:59  So mindset is the way you see yourself and the world. And if you have a fixed mindset, you tend to think you have a fixed amount of luck or money or time, and you optimize that and you define success as winning and you’re trying to prove yourself. But if you have a growth mindset, you’re open to something growing with time. But that’s time or money or luck or knowledge or skill. And so your job is to actually not win and optimize, but it’s to actually learn and get better at something. And therefore it’s not about proving yourself, it’s about improving yourself. Often when someone only wants to play games that they can win, their sandbox gets smaller and smaller and they get more bored. And when you get bored, you can get cranky. And the reason you get cranky is because the world is passing you by and you don’t understand things anymore because you haven’t really been open to learning something new. There are a lot of people who fit this profile. I mean, let’s be just honest.

Chip Conley 00:14:58  It’s a profile that defines a lot of people who are older. So the growth mindset is really important because it helps you to realize you’re open to learning something new. When I joined Airbnb at 52 years old, average age in the company was 26. I had never been in a tech company before, and I was supposed to be the modern elder. I was supposed to be the one who’s, like, helping the founders figure out what to do with this business, this little growing tech startup. And yet at times, it felt like I was the dumbest person in the room. So I had to be open to not just being the oldest, but being the most clueless. And that wasn’t easy. But that required me to have a growth mindset, say, you know what? I’m going to get better. I’m going to learn about tech. I’m going to learn about, you know, DSCC, digital intelligence. I had a lot of EQ to offer, but I had to learn some DCPS. So long story short, is the people who tend to get ossified and calcified and get cranky are often people who have gotten very fixed in their perspective of the world and themselves.

Eric Zimmer 00:15:55  Yeah, it’s so interesting because I observe this in myself, the desire to become more certain that I know the way things are, you know, a certain skepticism of the way things are being done today versus when they were done before, a certain amount of less openness to new experiences. Like, I feel some of that happen and I’m very committed to actively countering those things. Yeah. You know, actively making myself take on new things, new challenges. I found myself really trying to anytime my brain is like, well, it was better back when. Is to really take that as like a chance to stop and pause and go hang on a second. Like that’s a reactionary way of thinking. Yeah. Not that it may not be true in certain cases, but it’s also true that some other things are better. Like you said, it’s this openness.

Chip Conley 00:16:55  Well, I think there’s a couple things. Number one is in our 40s in particular, we are so busy that it’s really hard sometimes to have the time and space to be curious. Curiosity is the opposite side of judgment. And so in many ways, learning how to judge things quickly. It’s a super skill because when you’re really busy, being able to make a quick judgment on something allows you to sort of say no to something or to edit your life accordingly. You know, that’s a coping skill during a busy time. So let’s know that there’s an upside to that. The other thing is you could say, well, gosh, you know, as I get older, I’m more discerning, I have more wisdom. And that’s probably true as well. Yeah, but wisdom is not about just what you can say no to. It’s also what you can say yes to. It’s also what you can learn. Wisdom is not about knowing everything. It’s about learning everything. Back to Socrates times. He laughed when people said, you know everything. It’s like, no, I’m still learning. And it’s that learning perspective that really makes the most difference. Being willing to become a beginner at something in your life at every time of your life.

Eric Zimmer 00:18:08  Yeah. Like you, I have taken up surfing later in life. Unlike you, I don’t live anywhere near where that’s a reasonable hobby. It’s a stupid hobby for me.

Chip Conley 00:18:18  Where do you live, Eric?

Eric Zimmer 00:18:19  Ohio.

Chip Conley 00:18:20  Oh.

Eric Zimmer 00:18:21  It’s a dumb place to take up surfing. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense, but, you know, I do it as often as I’m able. But I’ve also taken up, like, rock climbing and just different things that keep me a little bit more limber. You say in the book, you’ve got a line that I really like. You say time can be a dictator, but it can also be a liberator. Say more about that.

Chip Conley 00:18:41  How we look at our calendar has a lot to do with how we live our life. I mean, it makes sense. How we spend our days is how we spend our life. That’s a wonderful quote. And so for me, it’s a really interesting part of my life. I am very focused on my calendar.

Chip Conley 00:18:59  And so in some ways it dictates my life. It dictates, you know, how I’m spending my time with you today. You know, I got ten minutes extra time at the start of what was supposed to be our meeting, which was nice because I needed it. And I appreciated the fact that you needed to start ten minutes later. And that was. But when I say that, it’s like, oh my God, time defines and dictates my life. Similarly, during Covid, when my life got really spacious because, you know, I spent most of my time running MBA, teaching classes, etc. and all of a sudden we were closed for a period of time because of the pandemic. I put on my calendar three hours a day on Monday and Wednesday and Friday afternoons spying on the divine, and that was my opportunity to go into nature with my dog, Jamie, and to just be offline, not listening to a podcast, which is what I usually do when I hike, and just noticing things, being curious.

Chip Conley 00:19:54  I was doing what’s called an hour walk or what sometimes people call forest bathing and it was just really beautiful. So in that way, my calendar could be a liberation. Yesterday I thought I was going to go spend three hours with somebody who’s who’s a healer here in Santa Fe just for fun, not necessarily even healing session, but it didn’t turn out that I did, but I blocked four hours of my afternoon yesterday for that. And the reality was I wasn’t feeling very well yesterday. So that was fine ultimately. And I got to spend that time just relaxing, taking a bath and taking a nap and that’s what I needed. So we have more control and volition over our calendar than we think we do. But the language we use around time and counter is like, it’s almost as if we’re in prison.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:59  I think it’s some version of what you just said, which is like, I’m just so busy. I’m overwhelmed. I have no free time. I, you know, there’s there’s different ways of talking about it.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:09  I think it’s an interesting concept of time being potentially a liberator. You mentioned like being really busy in your 40s and then maybe in your 50s, a little bit less busy. And as time goes on, and I think time can be a liberator if we learn to use little bits of it better. I can say I don’t have time to do x, Y, or Z, but if I examine my life, then I’m like, but I spent an hour doing that and 35 minutes doing that, and there are little chunks there. Even in a very busy, dynamic life for me, there are places that without making radical changes, I can begin to claim some more autonomy.

Chip Conley 00:21:52  No doubt about it. Just being able to sit for a moment, maybe even five minutes and close your eyes and meditate and lose track of time is really valuable. I mean, there’s lots of social science research that shows that. I think, you know, one of the things that I find interesting is when you can get into a flow state.

Chip Conley 00:22:10  I was lucky enough to spend some good quality time with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who popularized the idea of flow. And what’s interesting about being in a flow state when you’re doing something that has timeless awareness, meaning you’re so engaged in it that you lose track of time. There’s starting to be some research that shows that when you lose track of time in a state of flow, it is possible that you’re not aging during that time. So finding time in your life where you can lose track of time is not just joyful and make you feel nourished, but it also may extend your longevity.

Eric Zimmer 00:22:48  I want to change directions here for a second, and talk about one of the things that we all know about aging is that your body changes in often ways that are less than desirable. And you say men are not spared the bodily indignities of aging and that women talk a lot more about it. We talk about menopause, we talk about perimenopause, and we could argue whether we talk about it enough, I don’t know. I’m not I’m not a woman. I’m not going to weigh in on that. But I certainly hear people talk about that way. More than I ever hear people talking about men and aging. Outside the context of, you know, an ED commercial, right? Like outside of that, it never gets mentioned.

Chip Conley 00:23:33  Bob Dole selling Viagra.

Eric Zimmer 00:23:36  Talk to me about this. And how might we as men better support each other in this?

Chip Conley 00:23:42  Yes. You know, it’s beauty or brawn when it comes to women. It’s beauty and the fear that you lose your beauty with time. Just as you get comfortable in your own skin, it starts to sag with men can be brawn. You know, the physical virality, the feeling virile. There’s a word to describe the men’s version of menopause, and it’s called andropause. What’s different versus menopause is menopause obviously has a huge fertility element to it. In terms of you no longer having menstruation and therefore no longer able to have children. and it’s huge. I mean, it’s a very important part of a woman’s life.

Chip Conley 00:24:23  For men that you don’t have that kind of sort of functional change, but you have a lot of things that are happening. One of them is the gut. You are actually gaining a fat in your gut. That can be actually very dangerous and remarkably stubborn. It is. It’s really hard to do. It’s very hard to get rid of. I gained a bunch of pounds when I was doing some cancer treatments the last two years, and, cannot get rid of that gut. You know, my gut is not huge, but it’s it’s something. So there’s that there’s the reduction in testosterone that really starts in your 30s, and it actually declines over time. And it can really accelerate for many men in their 50s and be more noticeable in terms of the lack of both appetite for being sexual or even capacity. So that’s happening. Obviously, you’re losing your hair, maybe losing your energy. There’s a lot of elements to this. Many of them sort of relate to men feeling a little bit less masculine.

Chip Conley 00:25:25  And that can be interesting. That’s a some of the crankiness that some men get into in their 50s and beyond is just trying to mask the lack of masculinity that they’re feeling internally. My father’s an interesting example of this. My father is 87 years old. Both my parents are 87, and my dad was a marine captain and a real hardcore, you know, masculine dude. And when he got into his 50s, 60s and 70s, he all of a sudden started to soften a little bit. And I don’t know how much of it was really the physical or hormonal side, but emotionally he started to, you know, read poetry occasionally or just be open to having an emotional conversation. And so I do think, you know, there’s a real beauty in seeing men start to become a little bit more soft, seeing women become a little bit more vocal and strong willed in their opinions, as opposed to just a people pleaser. This is one of the reasons why I say that as we’re growing old, we’re also growing whole.

Chip Conley 00:26:25  And what that means is we’re learning the alchemy, the polarities inside of ourselves, you know, whether it’s wisdom and curiosity. Introvert. Extrovert. Masculine. Feminine. Gravitas. Depth and levity. Humor. I think that one of the things that I really admire about an 85 year old person is when I spend time with them. They are so present. They’re not compartmentalized in any way. They have alchemised their polarities into this sort of integrated whole. And I think that’s really what we maybe should aspire to.

Eric Zimmer 00:26:59  I’m going to take a moment and ask a more personal type question here of my own interest, which is you mention energy dropping in people as they age. And one of the things I’ve talked to a number of men in their 40s and 50s about this, and it is a drop in energy and trying to figure out what is it? Is it, you know, lack of engagement with something that you’re doing? Is it diet or is it this? And one of the questions I sort of ask myself is like, what is a reasonable amount of energy for a 55 year old person? How have you thought about that question? You know, have you noticed an energy decrease and how have you thought about it and contextualized it?

Chip Conley 00:27:43  Well, I mean, just on a personal level, for two years I had to take hormone depletion therapy because I was dealing with prostate cancer.

Chip Conley 00:27:52  Okay. That went from stage one to stage two to stage three. And so to actually, in essence, inhibit my testosterone so that it was running around 8 or 10 instead of 500 meant that I was struggling with not a lot of energy at a time. When I had a book tour and I was launching our second MBA campus and all kinds of stuff. So dark chocolate. I was feeding on that. I think that you can feel the lack of energy inside you, and you need to respect that. And look at what are some of the root causes. Are you getting enough sleep? Are you eating well? Are you drinking too much alcohol? for a lot of people. A lot of men, they’re drinking more in their 50s and 60s than they did when they were younger. And the truth is that, you know, alcohol is problematic. And actually, it’s even more problematic for older women in terms of how you metabolize it. It can mess with your sleep as well. So some of the reason that there’s a lack of energy could be just physical issues, but sometimes it’s also not feeling the sense of purpose.

Chip Conley 00:28:56  And when you have a sense of purpose, it’s like a North Star that you are aspiring to get to. And, you know, you keep walking in the desert to see that North Star. You’re never going to catch the North Star because it’s just like a rainbow. You’re never going to catch the rainbow. But it is what drives you forward. So I think for some men there’s that. I actually think the physical side also of when you start getting some weight and you’re not exercising as much, there’s that going on as well. You’re carrying around a little bit more of a load. You don’t have the cardiovascular program that you used to have. I mean, I think it’s multifaceted. I will also say that as someone who is running on a treadmill in my career, that actually getting off the treadmill allowed me to slow down a little bit and realize how completely fatigued I was. And sometimes you just need that, that space to get some sleep and to just and slow down a little bit. And that’s okay.

Chip Conley 00:29:55  As long as in the long run you feel like you’re regenerating yourself. There’ll be a renewal as a result of that. Yesterday I was not feeling well. Last night I went to bed early. I had no alcohol, and the night before I had had small alcohol. I fasted last night, I didn’t have dinner, and I took a bath last night and I just felt so good when I got up this morning. I felt very different than I did yesterday and I have a lot more energy. So I just on a personal level, I can say like that is just two days for me of very different feelings.

Eric Zimmer 00:30:30  Yeah. Let’s talk for a moment about gratitude or being grateful for our lives. And you have a line in the book that I think is really interesting, and I don’t remember who you were talking to or who said this to you, but here’s the line that you wrote. It was the particular ness of his gratitude that shielded him from either envy or pride. Talk to me about gratitude and particular ness of it.

Eric Zimmer 00:30:55  What does that mean?

Chip Conley 00:30:56  I mean, there’s a lot of social science evidence showing that gratitude and happiness have a lot. They’re like kissing cousins. If you’re struggling, the best thing you can do is to find gratitude. If you want to feel happy, go write a gratitude list. But what’s been found is that just a generic gratitude list is not necessarily as helpful as being quite specific about what you’re feeling gratitude toward. And so the specificity, if someone wants to do a gratitude journal or a daily gratitude list. The specificity is what’s important, you know. And because what it does is from a neurological perspective, it’s like there’s a precision that you’re sort of saying, honing in on. That’s what I want to feed, you know, is back to, you know, the one you feed. I want to feed that. If you said, you know, like, I’m feeling gratitude because I feel, you know, love for my family. Well that’s great. Okay. what’s specific about that today? Yeah.

Chip Conley 00:31:51  Could you say I feel love for my family? Because my daughter today just told me how much she loved me, and I could see a twinkle in her eye. That’s much better than just saying I feel love for my family. Because the love for your family could be generic across any day, But actually when you say, because my daughter said she loved me and I could see that twinkle in her eye, it’s almost you can visualize it and your brain is sort of saying like, oh, more of that, please. And when something’s generic, it has less visceral impact on you. And I think when it comes to gratitude, feeling the gratitude and visualizing it is really important.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:31  That makes a lot of sense. I know for me, if you’re just listing the things that you intellectually know, you should be grateful for my family, my health. Those things tend to. If you’re doing gratitude as a regular practice becomes the the gratitude version of the hedonic treadmill, right? It no longer does anything but the specificity that you’re talking about does.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:58  I also think it tunes us into the granularity of our experience more, which is a really positive thing. For a while I used to do a gratitude list and have a couple pictures with it, and my dogs were always on it. Like when I looked back, I was like, well, I appear to be ten times more grateful for my dogs than any other person in the world, which seems funny in retrospect, but taking a picture of what they were doing that I found so adorable was a way of getting that specificity.

Chip Conley 00:33:30  Yeah, I think that makes a ton of sense. And you don’t want to get bored with a gratitude list. Yeah, let’s just be really blunt. Yeah, it will be boring if it’s generic.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:39  So a lot of people talk about here are the things I’m not going to do and is a recovering alcoholic and drug addict. I think that there have been some very clear things for me that it’s like, I’m not doing that, I’m not doing that. But you talk about creating something you called the Ten Commitments, which is a play on the Ten Commandments.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:57  Tell me about that.

Chip Conley 00:33:58  Yeah. You know, I grew up learning the Ten Commandments. And I remember saying to my parents, you know, like, it’s all about do not, do not, do not. I think eight of the ten are do nots. And so for me in my life today, and while I do have a spiritual practice and belief system, it’s not so much the Ten Commandments, which I do feel are helpful, but it’s really more about what are my proactive, positive commitments I can make in my life. And those are not going to be hard and fast and say like, okay, those are the only ten I’ll ever have. But you know, having ten that makes sense to me and are working for me, you know, today are important. And they become sort of the guardrails of my life. And so that’s, that’s a that’s a good thing.

Eric Zimmer 00:34:44  What are a couple of them. Can you share a couple of your commitments?

Speaker 4 00:34:47  I, I.

Chip Conley 00:34:48  I don’t have them in front of me right now.

Chip Conley 00:34:52  They changed. So I like in the book I had my ten. And I think one would be just being less focused on my resume and more focused on my eulogy. And how do I show up and create the conditions in my life such that I am, after age 50, more focused on my eulogy than on my resume? And I think that’s one that has lots of catalytic effect in terms of what? What does that mean? It means less egocentric. It means I’m less focused on my accomplishments. It means I’m more focused on the small things I do in life that are impacting other people. That’s an example of a commitment as opposed to a commandment.

Eric Zimmer 00:35:50  That’s back to the the ROI, the ripples of impact, which I absolutely love. I think that is such a a great phrase in a way of thinking of it. And I love the idea of ripple. Right. Because I think that’s the way our impact generally is. Sometimes we get to see it directly, but most of the time I don’t think we actually see the good that we put into the world.

Eric Zimmer 00:36:15  It ripples out in this very gentle way, and it takes a certain amount of faith and belief that indeed, that is happening.

Chip Conley 00:36:24  Yeah, there’s Kip Tindall, who I always thought of as a role model for me. He started the Container Store Company a long, long time ago, and he talked about your wake, you know, in the context of your life, sometimes you don’t know what the wake is that you’re like in a boat. There’s there’s a wake behind you as you’re focusing forward on the boat, especially if you’re driving it. You don’t necessarily know your wake behind you. Yeah. And the truth is, the bigger you are in an organization, the higher you are an organization. The more power you have, the larger your wake. And as a water skier who knows what it’s like to ski across the lake, I know that, you know, having a huge wake can be hard. It can be very disruptive. So the ripples are sort of a form of wake. There’s a wake also.

Chip Conley 00:37:12  What you really want to do in life is to have a really positive wake and recognize that the more senior you are, the more contagious your emotions, the more contagious your character, in essence, the bigger your wake. I think metaphors are often very helpful for people to sort of visualize how the world works.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:31  You have a question in the book that you say to ask, am I frustrated or disappointed? What’s the difference and why does it matter?

Chip Conley 00:37:40  So when you’re frustrated, there’s still the opportunity to change something. And so frustration can relate to anger. It can relate to a lot of sort of combustible emotions that can propel you forward, to take action, to make it different. Disappointment, which some people could say they’re the same, but they’re not. Disappointment is an energy that actually is a shrinking. Frustration is a growing. Disappointment is a shrinking. Partly because you’re beyond frustration. Disappointment is when you come to realize that there’s not much you can do to change something. Yeah, now. And regret is one step further, which is a sense of responsibility about that disappointment.

Chip Conley 00:38:23  So, you know, a regret is actually more painful than disappointment because you actually feel like you had some fault in leading to the disappointment. But disappointment could happen in all kinds of ways, and often it’s outside of your control. Therefore, there can be a sense of like, okay, oh, well, I’m gonna have to live with that. When someone has too much frustration in their life, it can lead to anxiety and high blood pressure and a deep sense of urgency and stress. When someone has a lot of disappointment in their life. It can lead to learned helplessness and depression and a sense that, you know, oh, woe is me, or there’s nothing I can do. So they’re very, very different in terms of emotional affect. And yet sometimes people talk about saying I’m frustrated and disappointed. It’s like, well, which one is it? 

Eric Zimmer 00:39:14  Yeah. Well, it’s another version of the Serenity Prayer, right? The things I can change, the things I can’t change, and the wisdom to know the difference and wisdom is a big word with you.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:27  And I think that’s a really important thing to know. Right. Because the response is very different. You talk about expectation in the book. So you say, you know, when you’re faced with disappointment, you can either improve your reality or lower your expectations. So improving my reality would sort of throw me back over on the maybe not frustrated side of the court, but that energy, right? The energy of change. If, on the other hand, I’m on the disappointment sighed. Then lowering my expectations. Talk about how we do that in a wise way.

Chip Conley 00:40:00  So one of the reasons that people often feel not great about age 45 to 50 is because of disappointment equals expectations minus reality. In your teens, your 20s or 30s, you build these expectations. They sort of propel you forward. And then by the time you’re getting starting to flirt with 50, you’re at an age where like, yeah, I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen. Yep. You could believe it’s going to happen in your 30s still.

Chip Conley 00:40:25  But by the time you get closer to 50, maybe not. And that’s really hard. And, Brené Brown calls it the midlife unraveling. And the midlife unraveling is unraveling your expectations in such a way that you are no longer feeling so wrapped up in something that there’s no space for anything else. So the key, the wise way to deal with that is to rejigger your expectations and get clear on what’s important to you. For a lot of people around 45 to 50, they are in a stage in their life where they they are running on a treadmill that was defined by their parents or their spouse or their community, but not themselves. And so it’s around that era of life that sometimes people wake up and say, like, I want to be a firefighter. I don’t I don’t want to be an accountant. We see those people come to me or, you know, a woman recently who was like, I don’t want to be a litigator. I want to be a pastry chef. It’s like, okay, you can do that.

Chip Conley 00:41:25  You know, at 20, it was hard for you to do that because your parents were sort of saying, you got to go to college, you got to make money, and then you end up getting on the treadmill and you say like, oh, I’m getting married. And now I have kids. It’s like, oh, and for some people, they wake up around 45 to 50 and say, like that David Byrne song Is This My Wonderful Life? And it’s not their wonderful life, it’s the life that you know. Somebody else wrote the script for. So finding the agency, and then the autonomy and the clarity of vision is part of what we help people with. At me.

Eric Zimmer 00:41:57  People coming to me, is there a guiding idea of what’s bringing them? There are people coming there largely because they are feeling unmoored in middle age, and they’re not quite sure what to do.

Chip Conley 00:42:12  For some people it’s something abstract like that. It’s like, okay, I feel sort of a little lost in middle age, and I’m feeling not good about aging and I want to improve on that.

Chip Conley 00:42:22  And sometimes it’s like, I feel like I’ve got to get clear on what my purpose is or what my wisdom is I’ve built, and that’s also important. But the number one reason people come to me is because they’re going through some kind of transition in their life. Maybe they’re in the sandwich generation, but they’re about to lose a parent, or they’re becoming an empty nester. The kids are leaving or they’re getting divorced. They’re selling their business. They’re changing their career. They have a cancer diagnosis. They’ve stopped drinking. They have decided that they’re going to move to a new place. They have a new spiritual curiosity that’s leading them back to Catholicism. There’s lots of things that are happening for people in midlife, and there’s menopause. There’s so much going on and so little in the way of social infrastructure to help support people during this time. So that’s the number one reason people come.

Eric Zimmer 00:43:14  That makes a lot of sense. I mean, we we tend to seek out extra support and help when we are facing something that feels acute.

Eric Zimmer 00:43:22  You mentioned in the book, Bruce Feiler, who’s been a guest for us, you know, a couple times and wonderful guy who talks all about that sort of life quake idea.

Chip Conley 00:43:31  Bruce has taught in our online programs, and I have a lot of respect for his work and his writing. In his book, life Is in the transitions, he talks about when you’re having multiple transitions at once. Yeah. He calls that a life quake. And I think the thing that’s really helpful to know about transitions is you can go through multiple of them at once, but each transition sort of has this anatomy or a framework, and it’s usually the ending of something is the first stage. The second stage is the messy middle, and then the third stage is the beginning of something new. And there’s coping mechanisms for each. And once you understand that three steps ending, messy, middle, beginning, you can realize that in one part of your life you’re having a transition, but you’re at the ending of something and another one. You’re in a transition where you’re at the beginning of something and another one, you’re at the messy middle. And so there’s a different coping mechanism for each. And once you have that sense, it really helps.

Eric Zimmer 00:44:24  Wonderful. Well, I think that is a great place for us to wrap up. Chip, I’ve really enjoyed this conversation. You and I are going to continue for a little bit longer in the post-show conversation, because I want to talk about something that you write about, which is this idea of basically wanting what we have, you know, how do we get to that because that’s a you know, what I have is all I need. So, listeners, if you’d like access to the post-show conversation to hear Chip and I continue, as well as ad free episodes, a special episode I do for you each week called Teaching Song and a poem and Other Benefits. We’d love to have you as part of the community. And that’s at one you feed. Join Chip. Thank you so much.

Eric Zimmer 00:45:07  Oh thank you Eric, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better. And that’s you just hit the share button on your podcast app, or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom. One episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the one You Feed community.

In this inspiring and deeply human conversation, Eric sits down with bestselling author and Modern Elder Academy founder Chip Conley to explore the wisdom, challenges, and surprising gifts of midlife. From redefining success and navigating transitions to embracing aging with purpose and curiosity, Chip shares raw personal stories—including a near-death experience—that reshaped his entire approach to life.

They dive into the “U Curve of Happiness,” the liberating power of a well-used calendar, and why “ripples of impact” might matter more than ROI. Whether you’re in the midst of a midlife reset or simply wondering what’s next, this episode offers profound insights and practical tools to help you feel more hopeful, useful, and whole.

Midlife has a way of sneaking up on you. I know because I’m in it, and it’s not without its challenges. But talking with Chip Conley shifted something in me. In this conversation, he shares how the hardest stretch of his life. Burnout, personal loss, and near-death experience ended up being the start of something completely new. We talk about the pull of ego, the search for identity, and how letting go of traditional success opened the door to something more meaningful. His idea of moving from return on investment to ripples of impact especially struck me.

In this episode, Chip Conley defines a midlife makeover to redefine success and happiness after 40.  He shares how the most difficult stretches of his life ended up being the start of something completely new.  Chip also explains the pull of the ego, the search for identity and how letting go of traditional success can open the door for something more meaningful.  If you’re in a season of life where things feel uncertain, or if you’re wondering what this phase of life is really for, this episode will help you feel a little more hopeful. 

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

How to Nurture Creativity in a Noisy World with Maggie Smith

April 15, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Maggie Smith explores how to nurture creativity in a noisy world. A lot of people think creativity is something you do with a paintbrush or a poem but Maggie challenges us to think differently about creativity. It isn’t about what you make, but how you live. She dives into what it really means to be creative, even when you’re overwhelmed, unsure, and not feeling particularly inspired. And we tackle a bigger question: How do we keep creating when the world is so loud and we’re so tired?

Key Takeaways:

  • Insights on creativity and the challenges of staying inspired in a chaotic world.
  • The role of intuition in the creative process and the significance of listening to one’s inner voice.
  • Balancing the need to stay informed with personal well-being and mental health.
  • The concept of hope in creativity and the idea of being a “possibilist.”
  • Practical advice for overcoming creative blocks and finding inspiration.
  • The value of feedback and community in the creative process.
  • The relationship between restlessness and creativity, and how it can drive artistic growth.
  • Embracing playfulness and curiosity in creative endeavors.


Maggie Smith is the award-winning, New York Times bestselling author of eight books of poetry and
prose, including YOU COULD MAKE THIS PLACE BEAUTIFUL, GOOD BONES, GOLDENROD, KEEP MOVING, and MY THOUGHTS HAVE WINGS. A 2011 recipient of a Creative Writing Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts, Smith has also received a Pushcart Prize, and numerous grants and awards from the Academy of American Poets, the Sustainable Arts Foundation, the Ohio Arts Council, the Greater Columbus Arts Council, and the Virginia Center for the Creative Arts. She has been widely published, appearing in The New Yorker, The Paris Review, The Nation, the New York Times, the Atlantic, The Best American Poetry, and more. Her new book is Dear Writer: Pep Talks & Practical Advice for the Creative Life

Connect with Maggie Smith:  Website | Instagram

If you enjoyed this conversation with Maggie Smith, check out these other episodes:

The Lost Art of Living Creatively with Austin Kleon

Creativity as a Cure with Jacob Nordby

Writing for Healing with Maggie Smith (2021)

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Eric Zimmer 00:02:17  A lot of people think creativity is something you do with a paintbrush, or a poem, or a perfectly arranged Instagram grid. But what if creativity isn’t about what you make, but how you live? In this episode, I talk with Maggie Smith, poet, author, and champion of the messy, meaningful, creative life. We dig into what it really means to be creative, even when you’re overwhelmed, unsure, and not feeling particularly inspired. And we ask a bigger question how do we keep creating when the world is so loud and we’re so tired? This is one of those conversations that doesn’t just give you advice, it gives you permission. I’m Eric Zimmer. And this is the one you feed. Hi, Maggie. Welcome to the show.

Maggie Smith 00:03:02  It’s good to be back.

Eric Zimmer 00:03:04  It sure is. It’s nice to see you again. We’re here to discuss your latest book, which is called Dear Writer Pep Talks and Practical Advice for the Creative Life. And we’re going to get into all of that in a moment.

Eric Zimmer 00:03:16  But we will start in the way that we always do, which is with the parable. And in the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with their grandchild, and they say, in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops, thinks about it for a second, looks up at their grandparent and says, what? Which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Maggie Smith 00:03:54  I love that I’ve gotten to answer this question more than once, and I have to keep coming up with a different response for what it means to me. Eric, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about intuition, which is maybe like sort of a woo woo concept, but I’ve been thinking a lot more about it. And like the way that we can listen to that sort of voice inside ourselves that tells us what is true and good that we should be perhaps pursuing. And then there’s probably another little voice inside of ourselves that says, yeah, but this might be more lucrative, or this might be an easier path, or this would be less of a hassle. And so I’ve been thinking about those two wolves and a kind of intuitive sense these days, which is how do I tune into that inner voice inside me and ask it like, what is true and good that I should be pursuing right now? And what can I let fall away? Because as we get busier and as the news cycle gets more insane. Yeah, right. I mean, there are just so many little hooks in the world that are grabbing at us and competing for our time and attention. And so being able to kind of, I don’t know, tune in to that kinder, clearer frequency and just know what to do with oneself on a daily basis seems essential right now. So that’s what it kind of brings up in me at this particular time.

Eric Zimmer 00:05:22  Yeah, I think about that question of intuition a lot, and about the inner voices and knowing which ones you want to listen to and trust and follow and which ones you want to let go. And I think that in many ways, this path of becoming more in touch with who we are and living a better and more meaningful life is just primarily about hearing those things and sorting them out. And for me, sort of say the beginning. Like when I got sober as a as a beginning. Right? I couldn’t trust any of those interior voices. They were all bad wolves. Now, there’s a lot of good wolves in there, too, and I can trust it a whole lot more. But I do need to be a little bit more quiet. And I’ve been thinking about what you’re talking about, like just the clamor. Like, I’m a big fan of Substack. I know you’re on Substack, I love Substack, and even Substack feels so noisy to me now.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:23  There’s so many great writers I’m feeling in a way I’ve never felt before, like a full retreat from online anything, because it just seems to be in some way, ratcheting up something that I felt like I had some sort of grip on. I feel like now I’m back in the midst of the real struggle. Yeah, and I don’t do any social media even.

Maggie Smith 00:06:48  Well, then don’t add that to your repertoire, because that’s a whole other wolf.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:53  Yes.

Maggie Smith 00:06:54  It’s a no. You’re right. It’s a whole pack. You’re right. I think we could talk for a long time about all of the sort of negative stuff that’s coming at us constantly that we’re having to weed through, because you have to pay attention to it and be informed in the world and not bury your head in the sand. But in order to sort of survive and thrive and make things and be useful to yourself and others, you can’t be completely consumed by the news cycle. But it’s not just that it’s even good stuff is overwhelming, right? Like if you wake up in the morning and you have 50 Substack notifications in your email of things that you really would like to read.

Maggie Smith 00:07:32  Yeah, and engage with, but you actually just don’t even have the bandwidth for the incoming. Good, worthwhile stuff. I’ve been thinking a lot about that lately. Like, how do we pare down? Because that seems really essential right now to just get to a place where, okay, here are the things that really matter to me? And how do I kind of like weed through the rest of that static, even if it’s good static?

Eric Zimmer 00:07:57  Yeah, yeah, I heard some writer, I don’t remember who it is who said, you know, it’s not a problem of like, trying to find the needle in the haystack anymore. It’s basically a haystack full of needles at this point. Right? And that is so true. Let’s jump to the book for a second, because in the book you have, I don’t know, you could tell me how many what do you call them? Capacities. You’ve got attention. Wonder what do you call those?

Maggie Smith 00:08:21  I don’t know, I think I call them elements of creativity.  Or if I were coming up with a recipe for creativity, I think of them as, like the ingredients in the secret sauce.

Eric Zimmer 00:08:31  Great. Okay. So in the ingredients, one of them, I believe the last one is hope. Yeah. And I thought we could go there because you just referenced the news cycle. You referenced this idea of needing to be informed. And I’m struggling with this right now. I don’t think I’m alone. Right. Because I’m having a desire to tune out in a way I never have, because I feel so thoroughly overwhelmed and that overwhelming this leads to nothing. Whereas when I withdraw myself to a certain degree, then I can at least do what I feel like I can do in the world. And I’ve been questioning that statement of like, it’s good to be informed, you need to know what’s happening. And I’ve been wrestling with the idea of, is that true? Is it moral to be informed, or is there actually virtue in that? Or is there only virtue in what you do as a result of being informed? I’m struggling with this question personally right now.

Maggie Smith 00:09:30  That’s a really interesting question, because what good is the information if it doesn’t impact your behavior or the way you move through the world? I mean, knowing bad things are happening is one thing, but if you just know that the bad thing is happening and then you just go make yourself a sandwich, how is that useful?

Eric Zimmer 00:09:48  Or you just read more and more and more and more bad things that are happening, right? And you never get to good. I’ve been wanting to go back and read Candide because I don’t really remember all of it, but I do remember this core idea of like ten year garden. Yeah. And I’ve been feeling a deeper need to, like, tend my garden, I guess. Anyway, you know what I’m trying to say.

Maggie Smith 00:10:09  I do, but I also think part of that is that our garden is in our control. Yeah, or at least it’s more in our control. It’s not fully in our control. Right. But when the world feels like it’s complete chaos, which at least to me, it does.

Maggie Smith 00:10:21  Right now, the thing that I can do is take care of my family, make decisions for myself, donate my time and money to causes that matter to me, write my poems or essays or novels or whatever those things are. And so bringing it back to self is a way of feeling like you’re in control, in a world that feels like it’s completely out of control. And yet I think it is a sort of moral imperative to be informed, because even voting comes from that, right? Even protesting comes from that. If we all bury our heads in the sand because we’re all so overwhelmed and we’re not aware of the sort of machinations, then they continue. But it’s a balance. If I spend too much time in that world, I’ll stop making things because my nervous system will be so overwhelmed I won’t be able to. Right. Yeah. So, like, what is that balance between tending my garden, which is important and necessary, and that’s my work, but also not tending my garden as a way to escape the world.

Eric Zimmer 00:11:26  Yep. Yeah. It’s an ongoing balance. You say, though, in the book, if hope is imaginative, then pessimism is a failure of imagination. You still feel that? Talk to me about where you are with that today.

Maggie Smith 00:11:40  I still feel that way, even with things happening now. And honestly, we could copy paste that sentence into any time in history.

Eric Zimmer 00:11:48  Exactly.

Maggie Smith 00:11:49  Or the future? Exactly right. I mean, that’s like one of the questions that people ask of poets forever is like, how is poetry important in these harrowing times? And I’m like, well, in these harrowing times, I could also be copy pasted into any time in history. Like if ten years ago wasn’t harrowing for me, it’s because of my like, location or privilege.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:15  Precisely because the world is always harrowing to some people. Somewhere, always.

Maggie Smith 00:12:20  100% of the time.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:21  There’s this Buddhist story that I love about a woman who’s chased by a tiger, and she comes to an end of the cliff and she sees a sturdy vine, and she climbs partway down and it describes, she says, there’s tigers above, there’s tigers below.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:34  Mice come out and start, you know, gnawing at the vine. And I’m like, that’s life in perpetuity. Always.

Maggie Smith 00:12:42  Yeah. Tigers above, Tigers below. Yeah. That is. That’s the shorthand for that. So it’s no different now, really. I mean, does it feel a little different? Sure. But we’ve always lived through difficult times. We are going to live through difficult times, and we keep making art. Yeah. And if that’s not a hopeful endeavor, I don’t know what is. And yes, I can’t make things, nor can I parent. As a pessimist, I don’t know. I mean, it’s actually like irresponsible, I think, for me to be doing either of those things. Like, someone would have to take the keys from me. Yeah. If I say I’m driving the car like this, that’s not okay. So that doesn’t mean saying, don’t worry, guys, everything’s going to be fine. I’m sure this is all going to, like, the pendulum’s going to swing back and everything’s going to be cool.

Maggie Smith 00:13:34  And this is all going to be erased. No. Like some of the things that are happening, particularly in the United States now, we’ll be feeling the repercussions of this for centuries. Like, none of this is small time stuff, but that doesn’t mean we give up. Like, what’s the alternative? Right. I don’t get it.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:52  There was a book that was written, I don’t know how long ago now by a guy named Hans Rosling. It’s called fact fulness. And basically what he’s trying to do in the book is show that the world is getting better on a lot of measures, right? We’ve all heard this by now, right? Like childhood literacy, rising, worldwide, poverty following, you know, all these sort of things, but life expectancy.

Maggie Smith 00:14:11  Yeah.

Eric Zimmer 00:14:12  The thing he says in that book, though, that I love, is he’s talking about optimism and pessimism, and he refuses to be considered either. He’s like, people call me an optimist because I show them all this progress.

Eric Zimmer 00:14:22  He said, I’m not an optimist. I’m a possibility. And I love that idea because that’s what you’re getting to with hope, being imaginative, being a possible list. You know, there’s a way that we can make things better. We don’t know how much better. We don’t know what the scope of that is, but we can’t. We do have that ability.

Maggie Smith 00:14:41  Yeah. And what is the point of the future if we think that it’s already written right? I mean, if we actually think we can do nothing to impact what happens in the next five minutes or in the next day or the next year. Yeah. I mean, we’re just playing with blocks. I mean, we have to believe that our actions and even our thoughts have an impact in the world. That feels hopeful to me. And I like the idea of being a possible list. Maybe I’ll I’ll use that from now on. I used to say I was a recovering pessimist. I don’t say that anymore because I actually feel like I’m.

Maggie Smith 00:15:16  I’m pretty optimistic. Yeah. But from like, a realistic standpoint. Right.

Eric Zimmer 00:15:22  So in the book you have these different ingredients. We talked about them, one of them being Hope. I want to talk for a minute about the role of creativity in the average person’s life. Right. This book is written. It’s got a lot about how to be a better writer in it. I was saying to you before we started, my book is due to the publisher in ten days. I wish I’d read this book like three months ago because I would have been like, oh, I can do that, and I should try this, and now you know. So now I’ve got all kinds of things because I’ve been a little bit like, well, the draft’s done. I’m not quite sure how to make it better. So as a book about writing, it’s outstanding in that. And I know that’s a big thing to you. Teaching writing, teaching craft. Some of our listeners are going to be writers.

Eric Zimmer 00:16:08  And so they’re hearing this, and I’m hoping they will go get the book because it’s great in that way. But I want to broaden creativity out from just people who would be considering themselves a writer or artist. Talk to me about the role of creativity in just life.

Maggie Smith 00:16:26  Yeah, it’s funny to me how many people think they’re not creative because they don’t make art, which I find sad. We’re all creative. Anyone who does a job doing anything, anytime you brainstorm something. Yeah. Anytime you try to solve a problem. Creative anytime. My son has soccer practice on one side of town and my daughter has work on the other side of town, it requires creativity. I’m not even being facetious. Like I think in our daily lives, every relationship we start or end, every time we change our minds about something, every conversation we have with someone that is unscripted, like this one, I don’t know what you’re going to offer me, and you don’t know what I’m going to offer you back. This is creative time that we’re spending together.

Maggie Smith 00:17:09  It’s something that I feel kind of evangelical about, frankly, that that like, we are all creative people. And even if you think you’re not, you’re just wrong, actually, and that it has something to offer all of us. And the other thing I would say is that even if you’re not making art, I hate this as a verb, but you’re consuming it, right? You’re engaging with it is perhaps warm or less capitalistic way to say it. Even if you’re not making art. You’re engaging with art. You’re listening to music. You are watching films or television. You have probably art in your home. And so what does it mean to you to be engaging with that piece of art on a daily basis? Perhaps? For me, I feel like we can’t engage with art, whether we’re making it or looking at it, listening to it without being different. On the other side of it. And so part of what we want as humans is to grow, which I think it is for me why I make art.

Maggie Smith 00:18:16  And part of why I listen to music as often as I do, and why I want to go see bands as often as I do, and why I want to see the movies that people say are making them cry or scream or whatever is because I know that on the other side of that record or concert experience or film, I will not be exactly the person I was before. Yep. And like, we can argue that that’s true of anything. Right. Like, you go on a hike. You’re not the same person after the hike. But I think there is something sort of built in to, like the DNA of art made by human beings. Which I have to say, because AI is making me crazy. But when a human being makes a piece of art and then we spend time with it, that’s the kind of creative connection that we’re making, and it transforms us and we exit that a little different on the other side. And I think we’re all kind of craving that, whether we’re consciously craving it or not.

Eric Zimmer 00:19:13  There is something you talk about in the book. It was under the element of vision that I wanted to talk about, because I found it kind of inspiring. And you talked about a way to get unstuck when it comes to a poem. And you say, when I pack my bag to go somewhere to do writing, I’m paraphrasing here. I always take a notebook with me and at least one book, and I begin my writing time by reading pen in hand, because I know what is likely to happen. A word or phrase, sentence or idea will open a door for me. And then you talk about just like making a list of words that you pull out of the text. How might you combine those words in unexpected ways? I just love this idea because it talks about how to actually go from reading something that feels inspiring in some way, but I don’t know how to engage with it differently, how to give it my own thing. And I just love this idea of just like writing out words or a sentence and then trying to follow a sentence.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:07  You talk about making something. I’d never heard of this before. A cento tell me what a cento is.

Maggie Smith 00:20:13  I joke that a cento is the laziest poem you can write. It’s actually not. But a cento requires no writing. That’s the secret of the cento. So it’s an Italian form. It’s a collage poem. So basically, a cento is a poem in which each line has been pulled from another writer. And so your job is basically assembling these lines to make a new hole. So if you find a line in a poem you love and it ends with a preposition, then you find a line and some other person’s poem that begins with a noun phrase and kind of makes a new weird, interesting sentence, and you build that way. And so it really is like cutting images and making a collage from someone else’s art.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:56  Yeah, I just think that’s such a approachable thing to do. Yeah. If I sit down to write a poem and I know I’m creative, I play guitar, I’m writing a book, even though it’s sort of a certain type of nonfiction book.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:07  But when I sit down to try and create, you know, with a capital C, I often just feel flummoxed. But the idea of this is a way in. Yeah, really. Like I was like, oh, that’s easy. I’ve tried to find other ways in, like my friend Chris and I, we did it religiously for a while, and now we don’t do it so often. But we would do a daily haiku together in the morning via text. I’d send the first line, he’d be responsible for the next.

Maggie Smith 00:21:31  I remember that you.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:32  Guys did that. Yeah. And then the next day he’d have to send the first line. And it was just like a way of creating that was easy in comparison to what it feels like for a lot of people when they stare at a blank page.

Maggie Smith 00:21:44  Eric, that’s what staring at a blank page feels like to me. If you told me, go write a poem right now, I couldn’t do it. And I’m a poet. Like, that’s not how it works.

Maggie Smith 00:21:55  I don’t create on demand. Like, it’s not something you can just order up. Like going through the drive thru at a fast food restaurant. I have to give myself starters to get myself going too. I mean, the other thing I do is go back to something I’ve already written that isn’t working, and I’ll just kind of like noodle around in an old draft. If I don’t have an idea for something new. Right. Like, that’s always a good way to get started, because you might end up in some direction you never expected. But if I have time to write, I have to give myself a way in. And often it’s with someone else’s work, right? Like pulling a line from a poem and using it as the epigraph at the top, and then maybe mimicking the sentence structure, or pulling a sentence from a novel or an essay and rewriting that sentence exactly syntactically, but using my own words. Yeah, but using the container of their sentence structure or. Yeah, I have done word banks before where I will read through, particularly a collection of poems, but like a science article would be really interesting for something like this to, you know, pulling vocabulary from something that you might not have in your repertoire and making a word bank list and then thinking, okay, how can I combine these words in unique ways to make images or metaphors or asunto like going to my bookshelf, pulling up a bunch of poems, and trying to cobble something together that way that I get to call mine, even though I’m using other people’s words.

Maggie Smith 00:23:25  I think one of the most pernicious myths about creating anything is that it? Just like the muse visits you and it just comes through you and comes out fully formed. And it’s fast and easy. Yeah, I hope we’re like, doing a good enough job of dispelling that over time, but it’s usually incremental. It’s more of a trickle than a rush and it takes a lot of work.

Eric Zimmer 00:23:50  Yeah, I think that we do have these two sort of extreme ideas sometimes of art. One is, like you said, the muse just descends and something just comes out. The other is this extraordinarily laborious. You sit down at the same place at the same time and you just grind. Right. Like that is what’s been used to counter that other myth. And I think what you’re doing is you’re striking sort of a middle ground between those. I love this line. You can’t force a poem, but I think you can prepare for one. I think that’s a great line for poems and just for a whole lot of life in general.

Eric Zimmer 00:24:25  Right? There’s a lot of things in life you cannot force, but you can prepare, you can set the stage for you can influence.

Maggie Smith 00:24:32  Absolutely. Yeah. I do not consider my writing life a grind, but I also don’t sit down at the same time every day and stare at a page until something happens. I try to live my life and move through the day, and as things come to me, I’m like a little magpie looking for the shiny bits. So I collect them as I can and then eventually they accrue into something, if I’m lucky. But that’s that kind of like setting the table, right? Like if I haven’t set the table, there’s a less likely chance that the thing’s going to show up ready to go. And so preparing the table for me can look like a lot of different things, but it certainly doesn’t look like it doesn’t look like work. Yeah. In the way that we think. And it also doesn’t look like being struck by lightning and having something come through me.

Maggie Smith 00:25:20  It looks like getting an idea, writing it down, and then maybe coming back to it in a week when some other idea wants to Velcro itself to the side of that idea?

Eric Zimmer 00:25:29  Yep. You’re very realistic, though, in the book because you mentioned, like as a working writer, sometimes you’re on deadline, right? And you do you sit down and you just kind of. That’s how I felt with this book, right? It’s like I got the book deal, and I had a year and I was like, okay, you know, if I don’t want to end up in a mad rush at the end, which apparently always happens no matter what you do. It’s true. Just kind of made myself sort of write and follow a schedule, but in another creative endeavor for me, like guitar, it follows no shape like that, right? It’s far more able to be what it is. But I also do give myself I set the stage often enough by sitting down with the guitar.

Maggie Smith 00:26:10  Yeah.

Maggie Smith 00:26:10  Well, this is why I was saying I like to go away and kind of give myself retreats when I really have to write. Yeah. Whether I’m on deadline or not. There’s something for me about getting out of my home office, out of the place where my laundry and dishes need to be done, right out of the place where my kids are asking for a ride someplace. If I can get out of my daily life, sometimes that even just means going to a coffee shop for a few hours where I’m not reachable and I can’t do chores, frankly. But if I can go to a cabin in the woods for four days, something happens and it almost feels like turning on a faucet and things just happen. And it’s like, I think I’ve been doing that long enough. That sort of intuitively, my mind knows that when I get into that environment, it’s writing time. Yeah, it’s like if you have good sleep hygiene and you go to bed, if you’re doing it right, your body is like, oh, this is it’s sleep time, right? Like, this is what we do before sleep.

Maggie Smith 00:27:10  And now I’m prepared for it. I actually don’t think that that writing or making things is is that different. You can kind of give yourself cues. And for me, being among trees happens to be one of my mental cues for time to get some stuff done.

Eric Zimmer 00:27:51  We’ve talked about this before, I believe, when you were on the show, but we talked about this idea of seeing the world as a poet, and I mentioned why I love to read good poetry because I feel like it teaches me how to look differently than I normally look. You call it poets eyes and say that, you know, we all have them, particularly as children. But you also talk about how there’s both a loss and a gift in being a writer. Share more about that, because I resonate with that a lot.

Maggie Smith 00:28:23  Yeah. I mean, I think When you’re mining your lived experience for art. And maybe it’s not that different from a photographer who, whether they’re walking through the world with a camera or not, is framing things with their eyes.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:40  Or a musician. When I go see a band play, I’m watching what they’re doing with the chords, and I’m thinking about like, there’s a part of me that’s processing it as a fan, as a lover of it. But there’s a part of me that’s processing it as a musician, and it causes a little bit of a split.

Maggie Smith 00:28:55  Yeah, I think that’s true. And I think as a writer it’s funny, like, can I take a walk and have it just be a walk? Or is it a walk in which I’m also mining that walk for imagery, sensory detail, metaphor? And it’s sort of I mean, I say in the book, it’s sort of a loss and a gift. There’s a part of me that is always standing a little bit outside of the present moment because I’m grasping for language, a framework, a container, a way in. Like I’m looking for the door into the piece of writing about the thing that I’m experiencing in the moment. So it’s like when you hear people say, oh, I have like present tense nostalgia, you know, like I’m kind of like missing this moment as it’s happening because it’s so good.

Maggie Smith 00:29:44  I’m already sad about this beautiful experience because I know it’s going to end. I feel like there’s a kind of a bit of that where if I’m kind of meta processing. Yeah, as a writer, I’m not able to just fully surrender. Yeah, to the lived experience in the moment. And it sounds like you have that happen to.

Eric Zimmer 00:30:06  I do certainly with music, but in general, I think I have to work on it within myself that I don’t constantly think, as you’re saying, that every moment is supposed to produce something out of it.

Maggie Smith 00:30:22  That’s so important.

Eric Zimmer 00:30:23  Because then all of a sudden life becomes all about instrumentality, right? Like versus life. I just think, like you said, it’s a loss and a gift. And so for me, anything that’s that sort of double edged sword and lots of things in life are I just have to kind of pay attention to how I’m holding the sword a lot in order to not, you know, slice myself into a thousand pieces.

Maggie Smith 00:30:44  I think that’s really smart.

Maggie Smith 00:30:45  I love the way you put that. I remember my mom asking me once. I told her about some great day I’d had with the kids, like just at Hocking Hills or at the zoo, or just, you know, some just really joyful day and just spending the day together. And she said, oh, you should write about that. Probably because she was thinking, all of your poems are so melancholy, right? Like, that’s so uncomplicated and accessible. You should write about that. And I remember being on the phone with her and saying, I don’t need to write about it. I just enjoyed living it. So I know, I know the difference. Yeah, I can go to like, an amusement park with my kids, and I’m not like, what’s the roller coaster a metaphor for like, I know I’m able to pull myself out of that. It’s like a trap I can fall into, and I’m very susceptible. Like, my kid says something interesting and I’m like, ooh.

Maggie Smith 00:31:33  And I think they can see it happening. Like when I kind of leave the present moment and they can kind of see this like, oh, she’s an art mode right now. Mom just left the chat and the writer has entered the chat.

Eric Zimmer 00:31:46  Yeah, they probably also really like it too, though, because they feel like they’ve helped create something or they’ve said something interesting.

Maggie Smith 00:31:54  I hope so, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don’t know, I guess we’ll we’ll see. Like, who knows what one’s legacy will be with their children. But yeah, we’ll see.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:02  One of the other things that happens when it comes to creativity for people on any level is that you are able to see how you may not be, quote unquote, very good at it, right? And again, I don’t think this ever actually goes away for anyone. No, but you talk about being an amateur and I did not know this until I read it, that the root of amateur in Latin means to love. And that is so beautiful.

Maggie Smith 00:32:29  I’m a total word nerd, so my kids get really annoyed when they say something and I’m like, do you know the Latin root of that is this? And it means this. They hate it. But I look up words and I want to know their origins all the time, because it actually changes the way I think about the concept. So to know that the root of amateur is to love, I think we use that word as we either use it as a self-deprecating term, or we use it as a criticism of others if we’re being unkind, that’s amateurish, right? But if we think of it about it as like an amateur is not somebody who’s not good at something, which is, I think, how we use it a lot. But an amateur is someone who is doing something out of the love for the thing, rather than trying to professionalize. Perhaps the thing it actually speaks to what we were just talking about, like experiencing versus mining. Everything is material. I would like to be more of an amateur in that way.

Maggie Smith 00:33:27  I mean, courage to the root of courage is core, which if you think of Spanish Corazon, its heart. So it makes me think of bravery differently to think about courage in that way. We should all be brave. Amateurs.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:42  Yes. Yes. Right.

Maggie Smith 00:33:44  Just like boldly trying things. Failing a lot of the time. Picking ourselves back up because it’s fun to try. Not because we are expecting to get some guaranteed result from it.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:58  Before we dive back into the conversation. Let me ask you something. What’s one thing that has been holding you back lately? You know that it’s there. You’ve tried to push past it, but somehow it keeps getting in the way. You’re not alone in this. And I’ve identified six major saboteurs of self control. Things like autopilot behavior, self-doubt, emotional escapism that quietly derail our best intentions. But here’s the good news you can outsmart them. And I’ve put together a free guide to help you spot these hidden obstacles and give you simple, actionable strategies that you can use to regain control.Download the free guide now at one Eufy Net e-book and take the first step towards getting back on track. 

Eric Zimmer 00:34:37  This is another one of those things that I have to wrestle with myself, which is not turning things I love into a job or or something that I have to get good at. Now I’ve gotten much better at this as I’ve aged, thankfully. Yeah, I just need to watch for that tendency. But it’s true. At the same time, that improving does feel good. Yeah, right. Like there’s something in it that feels good. So I’m trying to sort of do both those things. I’m like, all right, I don’t want to turn this into a chore. But yet I do know that I want to improve because that just feels good. And trying to hold all of that for me with the things that I do like with guitar, I firmly embrace amateur. I do because I love it. I don’t do it for any reason anymore except that I enjoy doing it. I have no, I have no expectation of anything coming out of it at all. You know, not getting the girl, not getting in a band, not getting paid, none of it.

Maggie Smith 00:35:53  Yeah.

Eric Zimmer 00:35:53  I feel like after years of that, I was given the instrument back. In a way.

Maggie Smith 00:35:58  I love that, honestly. It’s when people ask about my work, I’m like, oh, I’m a poet, and I’d be doing it for free. I’m not anymore. But I would be. Yes, because it’s the thing I love to do. And sometimes I’m like, don’t tell anyone I would be doing this for free. But this is the thing I love to do. And even if nobody else wanted to read anything I was writing, I would still be doing it for myself. And yes, improving and working on my craft. I feel like I’m competing against myself. That’s all I’m doing. I’m competing against the writer I was yesterday. Not other writers. It’s just me. Be me. And for some reason, I find that really invigorating. And it makes me wonder if some of these people who were like, oh, I’m not creative.

Maggie Smith 00:36:45  And they sort of like, shake that off. Maybe they feel that way because they’re not professionals at something. Maybe it’s this sort of like, well, I’m just an amateur, like, oh yeah, I like, I play guitar, but I’m not, I’m not that good or yeah, like I can paint, but it’s just for me and I don’t really show it to anybody. Like it doesn’t count. It absolutely counts.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:07  Yeah. And I think a big part of it is just being like, it doesn’t matter if I’m good or not. That’s not the point of the thing. right? That’s not the measure, but that’s what most of us do. And it kind of goes back to what you were saying in the beginning. We’ve got these multiple voices inside of us, and one of those voices is just naturally, you should be good at this if you’re not good at it. Don’t do it. There’s a lot of places that comes from we don’t need to deconstruct all the various places it comes from, but I think it’s pretty deeply embedded in a lot of people.

Maggie Smith 00:37:38  I agree.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:38  But that willingness to just say doesn’t matter.

Maggie Smith 00:37:41  No, it doesn’t matter. I think part of what aging is helping me do is crave experience instead of perfection or even mastery. Like, I’m just so excited at my age to get to do new things that it matters less what the output is or the outcome. It’s just like, oh, I get to do that. Great. Like, I feel a lot more playful now than I did even about what I consider my work in air quotes 20 years ago, because the stakes don’t need to be that high. We can actually do things because we enjoy them and that they don’t need to be side hustles. They don’t need to be things that we’re doing for recognition. Maybe no one else even knows that we do them. I won’t even mention it because I have sworn myself to secrecy. But I started learning how to do something new this year, and like, three people know about it and I don’t want my kids don’t even know I’m learning in complete privacy and secrecy because it’s just for me.

Maggie Smith 00:38:48  And I want no one to ask me, oh, what are you going to do with that? Or are you going to do this with that? Or what’s your goal? It’s like when I started like running that people are like, are you going to do a half marathon? I’m like, no, I’m not doing this for any reason. And the fact that you have expectations for this makes me want to not tell anybody when I want to learn how to do something new. Like, it can just be because I crave a new experience.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:14  First off, now I’m dying to know.

Maggie Smith 00:39:15  But I’m not going to tell. I’m not going to tell you.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:20  I get it, I’m just letting you know.

Maggie Smith 00:39:22  I like that you’re curious.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:23  You’re trying to pique my curiosity. You did okay. I, like you, have found myself really in the last five years craving new experience. And I’m going to use that to segue to one of the elements or ingredients that you have in the book. Most of them you look at and you’re like, okay, that makes sense.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:42  Yes, play. That’s important. And I can see why. Vision and wonder and attention and tenacity. But one of them was restlessness.

Maggie Smith 00:39:50  I knew that was the one you were going to say.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:52  Of course, it’s so strange because that is a word I have a negative connotation to. Yep. I think generally I had that and then in 12 step programs in the AA Big Book, there’s a line that actually says, you know, the alcoholic who’s not drinking but not in recovery will feel restless, irritable and discontent. And I was like, well, that pretty much sums up me when I just let myself kind of go, yeah. So I loved this idea of restlessness reframed in a positive way. Tell me about that.

Maggie Smith 00:40:25  I think I have this long list of words. And then as I was winnowing it down, I realized that of all of the ten ingredients, that was the one that was going to be the one that people would be like, wait, how is this? Yeah, an element of creativity, because that sounds incredibly problematic.

Maggie Smith 00:40:42  Like, why would anyone want that? But to me, it’s the opposite of first thought. Best thought is restlessness. It’s the feeling of when you’ve made something, you aren’t immediately satisfied with it. You have this sort of needling, slightly uncomfortable feeling. And that’s restlessness, right? Like that little bit of a sort of like itch you can’t scratch. Jittery feeling that, you know, there’s something else. The potential of that thing that you’ve just drafted or made or built or thought up, you have not realized it yet. I think of when you’re on the tube and they say, mind the gap. I think there’s the version of the thing that you’ve made, and then there’s the version of the thing you think it can eventually be in your mind. The shining example of where you think that thing could go. And there’s a gap between the thing you’ve built, right. The book you’re working on and the book you hope it will be when it’s done and published. The painting you’ve been toiling over and the painting you can see in your mind’s eye.

Maggie Smith 00:41:50  And you need to have a way to use your skills and techniques and imagination to narrow that gap as much as possible. I don’t think it ever closes, at least in my experience, it never closes. I have never made anything that I was like, well, that’s perfect. That’s the shining example that I thought it would be. But I have worked really hard to narrow the gap to a livable. Kind of step over a bowl. No one’s going to fall into that crevice down and just be like, lost forever. Space and restlessness. That kind of goading on of the self to do better. Try harder. Push yourself a little further. Take a bigger risk. Get weirder with something. That’s what helps you narrow that gap, I think, is not being complacent. It’s the opposite of complacency.

Eric Zimmer 00:42:49  And how do you work with that in a way that doesn’t turn into perfectionism, or constantly believing that what you do isn’t good? Again, we’ve been we’ve been talking about double edged swords, right? I feel like this could be another one.

Maggie Smith 00:43:06  Yeah, it can be. I think there’s less a risk of creating terrible things if you push yourself a little harder than if you think that your first draft is great. I mean, I think, yeah. You know, I tell my students all the time. Time never made anything worse. A lack of time definitely has. Like, I have rushed and done things that I know. If I had more time, it would have been a better. Fill in the blank, whatever that thing was, you know? And I think, can you overdo it? Can you over revise something? Yes, you absolutely can. Like it’s a balance. Yeah. I mean, I say all the time, if I had known my poem, Good Bones would go viral, I never would have finished it. Yeah, because it wouldn’t have ever, in my mind, been ready for millions of eyeballs. Yeah. And so, yes, part of this is like, it’s a very delicate dance. We have to know our potential, push ourselves as much as we can, have fun with it.

Maggie Smith 00:44:06  If it stops being fun, stop doing it. I mean, I believe that wholeheartedly. If I’m really pushing myself in a piece of writing and it stops being fun and interesting to me, I put it away. I don’t abandon it. I put it away. I like, give it a time out. Yeah. And I’ll come back to it later. But I think, you know, we have to be careful not to worry so much about making a thing perfect that we never actually get it out the door, because that’s that’s a problem, right? But also not just being so self-satisfied with our first attempt. Yeah. That we end up sending a bunch of half baked stuff into the world and then can’t figure out why it’s not doing the work and the world that we thought it might do. And I think there’s a lot of sort of growing in the art and maturing in the art. I don’t know that I knew this when I was 20. Right. But I think we find the balance between doing our best and also understanding that we’re just human beings.

Maggie Smith 00:45:08  Yep. And that if I gave the same materials to a different writer, they would come up with a totally different poem than the one that I had written, and maybe one I would even enjoy more than the one I had written, or that readers might enjoy more than the one I had written. But that’s not my poem. So it’s like a little bit like, well, I got to stay in my lane and and again, like, tend my own. Yeah. Garden. That’s my territory.

Eric Zimmer 00:46:02  I am right in the thorns of this because I’m in revising the book. Now. When listeners hear this, I’ll probably already have turned the book into the publisher, which again, is not the end, but it’s a big milestone. I’m ten days away from that, so I’m fully in revision, restlessness, and I already made one part of the book worse by my insistence that I’m going to improve it.

Maggie Smith 00:46:27  But how do you know that? I’m so curious.

Eric Zimmer 00:46:30  Well, because the two people that I let read it said I was trying to infuse a little more emotionality, and I think I infused a certain degree of melodrama instead.

Eric Zimmer 00:46:41  Got it. And so a couple people said, I’m not sure. And when I went back and looked at it, I was like, I think you’re probably right. However, what I will say is that I shouldn’t say I made it worse because I actually made it better. It was better than where it started. Yeah. So I was here, and then I shot way over here.

Maggie Smith 00:46:57  Past the target.

Eric Zimmer 00:46:58  Past the target.

Maggie Smith 00:46:59  We do this all.

Eric Zimmer 00:47:00  The time, and then I cut a few of those things out. And then. Then I had a better target. So I guess that statement was inaccurate because I did improve it well.

Maggie Smith 00:47:08  And you brought up something important to which is having outside counsel. Yeah. And I think, you know, the sort of myth of the artist who works alone is another thing. Right. I mean, I still send my poems to the same person I’ve been sending my poems to since I was 22 years old. And she sends her poems to me, and I don’t take every bit of advice she gives, and she doesn’t take every bit of advice that I give.

Maggie Smith 00:47:32  But I think it’s another sort of important thing is that we don’t live in a vacuum, we don’t create in a vacuum. And so inviting other people in as we’re comfortable to our process, like those trusted people, we can just like, hey, would you take a look at this and tell me, like, am I way off base? Or do you understand? Or do you have questions? Or are you curious about things? Or are there other things you would like to know if you have people who you can do that with? I think that’s what a gift.

Eric Zimmer 00:47:59  Yeah. I always read the acknowledgements in books, and the reason I read them is because it does shatter that myth of the individual artist, for sure. You just read. I mean, sometimes I end up being like, how do people have this many great people in their life? And then I end up feeling bad about myself. Exactly. I couldn’t get anybody to read this damn thing. But seriously, you just realized, like, even a book, that at least parts of it are a solitary endeavor.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:29  You’re by yourself. Writing is ultimately a collaborative process. And I think that’s beautiful to see. And that’s why I do it, because it reminds me of that. And it reminds me that what I sit down and come up with, because I can look at it objectively and be like, this is not yet good. Yeah. I don’t think that’s being hard on myself. I think that’s just objective, and I don’t quite yet know how to make it better, but I can get other people involved who can help me with that. And one of yours is about connection. And so this is one way of thinking about connection. The other people in our communities that can support us. But you talk about connecting in some other ways, some other aspects of connection. You want to talk about that for a second?

Maggie Smith 00:49:14  Well, I mean, speaking of the solitary artists, I don’t think any of us create alone, do we? I mean, everything that you have written in your book is because of experiences you have had, conversations you have had with other people, other books you’ve read, teachers and mentors who have guided you.

Maggie Smith 00:49:33  And the same for me. It’s like when I sit down to write, even if I’m writing about my own experience, literally by myself, I’m not. Yes, because I’m having a conversation with me five years ago. I’m having a conversation with me as a child. I’m having a conversation with the books that I read that kind of paved the way, or gave me permission to structure my book in this way, or to tell this kind of vulnerable story. I have my mentors and my teachers sitting on my shoulders whispering like, no, don’t say it like that. Say it like this in my ear. And if I’m lucky, I have other people to bounce things off of. So I think whenever we’re making things, even if those things aren’t art, even if those things are relationships or opportunities or whatever it is in our lives, none of that is happening in a disconnected way. I know you enough to know you absolutely agree with that.

Eric Zimmer 00:50:30  Yeah, yeah, I think it’s great to remember it though.

Eric Zimmer 00:50:34  Yeah. And consciously call it to mind because even as you were just describing that, it made sitting down in front of the page and working on it feel less lonely. Yes, it’s absolutely true. You know, none of us in anything we do are not infinitely woven into the fabric of everything that is right. That’s just the way things are. And it’s comforting to remember that. I also love how you talk about a different type of connection, which is that in creation you are connecting things. Yeah, you’re building bridges, you’re creating metaphors, but it’s a connective process.

Maggie Smith 00:51:11  Yeah. Especially for people who are like, oh gosh, metaphor. Like I think other than line breaks, that’s the part of poetry that makes people uncomfortable. They’re like, oh, how am I supposed to know how to build a metaphor? That seems like such an odd thing to do. First of all, it’s so baked into our language. We’re doing it all the time. If you’re giving a talk in front of an office full of people, and you think of a sea of faces, that’s a metaphor.

Maggie Smith 00:51:35  So we’re doing it constantly. But I’m always telling students, like, pretty much writing anything that has to do with building bridges or making connections. It’s a two step process, and it’s incredibly basic. And breaking it down like this, I think, takes some of the fear out of it. It’s a sensory experience. Be comparison. That’s all it is. Like if you could boil down, like, the magic of metaphor in a poem to that. That’s what it is. You go outside and you look at a sycamore, and you notice that the bark of the side of a sycamore tree looks like little blobs of different colors. You know, it’s kind of mottled a little green and a little white and a little gray. So you’re making a visual connection and you describe it for yourself, and then you make the leap to a simple question, which is, what does that remind me of? That’s it. What does that remind me of? For me, it reminds me of a paint by number painting where every one is green and every two is gray, and every three is ivory, and every four is yellow.

Maggie Smith 00:52:32  And so I have a poem that describes sycamore bark as paint by number bark. It’s not rocket science. It’s looking at something, describing it, and then taking it. The extra step to ask yourself, what does that remind me of? Like what does that look like sound like? Oh, that bird’s making a weird noise. What does that remind me of? Oh, it sounds like someone striking the key of a manual typewriter. Oh. There’s that. So it’s not the muse coming down in a lightning strike. It’s noticing things which we all have the capacity to do. Noticing things, having a sensory experience in the world. And then just asking yourself the question, how can I connect this to a prior experience or another image or another sound? And then just tying those little two things together. And maybe that makes it seem a little less. I don’t know. Tricky or academic?

Eric Zimmer 00:53:28  I want to explore that, but my brain just got stuck on something, so let’s just clear it out.

Eric Zimmer 00:53:32  And this is a total only for me question. You and I both love sycamore trees. We’ve discussed this in the past, and you told me one time on a walk that it’s not only sycamore trees I’m seeing, it’s something else that is like a sycamore. And every time I see a sycamore, this question comes in my mind, like, what was that other tree? So I have to know now can just please solve my problem.

Maggie Smith 00:53:57  It’s called a London plane.

Eric Zimmer 00:53:59  A London plane? I knew it had something to do with Europe.

Maggie Smith 00:54:02  They’re cousins. I think they have slightly different seed pods, but their bark looks the same. One is typically found in parks and forest. One is typically found along city streets. If you call it a sycamore, it’s a London plane. Probably no one’s going to call you out.

Eric Zimmer 00:54:18  I get it, it’s just been eating at me for like a year and a half now.

Speaker 4 00:54:23  I love that, I love that that I’ve been doing. I’ve been living rent free.

Eric Zimmer 00:54:28  Yeah, exactly. Exactly. All right, so we were talking about connection, metaphor. You also another connection that you talk about making in the book. And I thought this was another beautiful one and you sort of said it, but you’re having a conversation with your own mind. That’s a type of connection to write a connection to ourselves. And that’s one of the great things, I think, that art can help us do both other people’s art and our own is make that internal connection to ourselves.

Maggie Smith 00:54:56  Oh, totally. I mean, again, when I’m writing, I’m usually technically alone, but I don’t feel alone. I feel like I’m kind of catching up with an old friend. And that old friend is me. And if I haven’t had quality time with myself in a while, I can find my way to that person by picking up a pen and sitting down with a piece of paper, because I know she’s there, kind of waiting for me to have my hangout session with her. So, yeah, I mean, I, I don’t feel alone when I’m writing.

Maggie Smith 00:55:30  I feel like I’m having a conversation with my mind on paper. I feel like I’m having a conversation that is contextualized by all of the other art that I have engaged with. That is like kind of informing what I’m making. I feel the other people who have informed the way that I do things With me. I mean, the way that I describe it is writing for me is like coming home to myself. That’s the best way that I can describe it in like the quickest shorthand. If I’m feeling stressed, if I feel just like a little self estranged. Yeah, that’s like a weird way to say it, but you know what I mean?

Eric Zimmer 00:56:09  It’s a beautiful turn of phrase, I get it.

Maggie Smith 00:56:12  Yeah. When I’m feeling a little self estranged, or maybe the circumstances of my life feel very busy and hectic and there’s a lot of clamor, and I can’t kind of find that person I know is there. Writing brings me home to the sort of core me of me. Yeah. And even if I’m working really hard and I’m frustrated and it’s not coming out the way that I want, it’s still a really pleasurable experience for me because it is that kind of homecoming.

Eric Zimmer 00:56:47  That’s beautiful, and a wise person might end on that really high note.

Maggie Smith 00:56:51  But but I am not.

Eric Zimmer 00:56:52  But I am not. because, well, I think this is going to take it to a higher note, but I could be wrong because.

Maggie Smith 00:56:59  No, pressure.

Eric Zimmer 00:57:00  You share. Not on you. you share a word. Apparently, we both love Sycamores and London Plains and several musical acts, but we both also love the word shenanigans. Oh, I’ve never met another shenanigan lover. Well, Chris is. We both love that word. Why is that a great word? And what about shenanigans do you love?

Maggie Smith 00:57:22  Okay, I love that you and Chris both love shenanigans. And knowing you both, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, just, frankly, that makes a lot of sense. I have no idea. Like why I love that word so much. That’s probably why I like the word bamboozled. Like, there are some words that are just like they feel good in the mouth, they’re texturally interesting.

Maggie Smith 00:57:44  And there’s a kind of playfulness to the word itself. Like it’s almost like onomatopoeia. Like shenanigan. Sounds like what it is. Yes. Doesn’t it sound like a little mischievous trouble? But like. But fun. Mischievous trouble?

Eric Zimmer 00:57:59  Yes.

Maggie Smith 00:58:00  Like it sounds like what it is like. Like buzz for a bee. Shenanigans. I don’t know, maybe it’s like growing up in a family that was, you know, mostly Irish and and full of shenanigans. But, yeah, I just love that word. But, I mean, Eric, I love words.

Eric Zimmer 00:58:17  So before we wrap up, I want you to think about this. Have you ever ended the day feeling like your choices didn’t quite match the person you wanted to be? Maybe it was autopilot mode or self-doubt that made it harder to stick to your goals. And that’s exactly why I created the Six Saboteurs of Self Control. It’s a free guide to help you recognize the hidden patterns that hold you back and give you simple, effective strategies to break through them if you’re ready to take back control and start making lasting changes. Download your copy now at  oneyoufeed/ebook. Let’s make those shifts happen. Starting today, oneyoufeed.net/ebook. 

Eric Zimmer 00:58:51  Yes, it’s a great word, but talk to me about why this is important. In what we’ve been discussing, both the creative life and life in general.

Maggie Smith 00:59:13  Yeah. Play. Right? I mean, just loosening your white knuckled grip on what you’re doing. I know a lot of people who love to read, and I know a lot of people who love to write. And even some of those people are scared of poems. And I think it’s because they seem like, oh, I don’t know if I’m like, I don’t understand what’s going on in there. It feels like a riddle. It feels like something I have to solve. I don’t know what the author quote unquote really means. Like there’s like a trapdoor under the poem and the meaning is hidden, but I don’t have the code. And I think approaching Writing and particularly poetry, with more of a sense of fun and play and sort of creative mischief.

Maggie Smith 00:59:54  It helps make the act more fun, but I think from the outside, I think it helps readers engage with the work in a different way. Like, if you come to a poem, the way you come to a song. Wouldn’t that be better? Yeah. Like when we’re listening to the records we love or seeing a band that we love. You’re not thinking, oh, what is that deep sea diver song? I mean, what does that song mean? What you’re thinking is like, oh my gosh, I love that. Or those I love the words or I love the melody, or that reminds me of writing in the car with the windows down when I was 16 and x, Y, and Z. I mean, we’re able to kind of let it wash over us, and we have an experience that is emotional and intuitive and like visceral, bodily, and has nothing to do with being tested on what it means or having to explicate it. Right? Like, yeah, we can have all kinds of shenanigans with songs, but I would advocate that we should be engaging with particularly poetry, because I think that’s the genre that has the image problem.

Maggie Smith 01:01:07  I think we should be engaging with poetry at the same level that we’re engaging with music, which is letting it wash over us, having a sensory experience, asking ourselves what it makes us remember. Think about what to do, who you might want to share it with, and know that you don’t have to get it. Yeah, you don’t have to know what it means. I don’t even know what some of my poems quote unquote, mean. I wrote them. I know what they’re grappling with. I know what their concerns are. No, I could not summarize them for you in CliffsNotes style. And nor is that required. So why can’t we just, you know, have some shenanigans when it comes to poetry? That’s my infomercial, Eric.

Eric Zimmer 01:01:53  It’s a good infomercial. You talk about coming to the page, to the canvas, to the stage, to the studio. I would say to life with trickster energy and a sense of daring. And again, back to where I started. I wish I had read this book a while ago, because that is a great frame to come to. Something that I’m working on like this. Right. It’s a it’s a there’s a mindset to it. It’s why I love the word shenanigans, because it does give me just that sort of trickster energy and a sense of daring.

Maggie Smith 01:02:22  You’re wrestling with something alive, but it’s not your adversary. Yeah, it’s not an adversarial relationship. You and the thing that you’re making, you are co-creating this thing with this idea. And so it’s like a beautiful wrestling with this other thing. Yeah. And it should feel good. And if it doesn’t feel good, something’s wrong. Yeah, I think that. And and hard work can feel good. I don’t mean it should feel easy. That’s not at all what I mean. Yes, it doesn’t necessarily have to feel easy, but it should feel invigorating.

Eric Zimmer 01:02:55  Yeah, well, that is a beautiful place to wrap up. Thank you. Maggie, I love talking with you on the show, and I’m happy that you were able to come back and much success with the new book.

Maggie Smith 01:03:03  Thank you so much.

Eric Zimmer 01:03:05  Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better. And that’s you just hit the share button on your podcast app, or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the one You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

From Loneliness to Belonging: Small Steps That Change Everything with Jillian Richardson

April 11, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Jillian Richardson discusses the journey from loneliness to belonging and shares the small steps that can change everything. She delves into why friendship takes more effort than we expect and how we can actually get better at it. Jillian also explores what gets in the way of connection, why it’s not just about putting yourself out there, and how real community is less about finding perfect people, and more about staying when things feel a little uncomfortable.

Key Takeaways:

  • Challenges of forming friendships as adults
  • The impact of loneliness on social interactions
  • Importance of intention in building connections
  • Strategies for fostering deeper relationships
  • Role of vulnerability in authentic friendships
  • The significance of consistency in maintaining friendships
  • Practical advice for initiating and nurturing friendships
  • The influence of societal factors on feelings of isolation
  • Encouragement to engage in uncomfortable conversations


Jillian Richardson is one of LinkedIn’s top ghostwriters and the Amazon best-selling author of Unlonely Planet: How Healthy Congregations Can Change the World.   She has written more than 400 articles on everything from the future of AI to the neuroscience of changing your mind and how female executives can find pleasure in their day-to-day life. Jillian has been published in outlets like NBC, Quartz, AdWeek, and The Content Strategist. She’s also been the voice of brands like MOO, Ellevest, Convene, Percolate, Trello, and ExecOnline. Outside of being a writer, Jillian has grown her own personal brand as a community builder and coach. Her thought leadership has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and NPR. Her work has also been shared by luminaries like Esther Perel, Priya Parker, the founder of Meetup, and— somehow— Chris Voss, the famous FBI investigator.

Connect with Jillian Richardson:  Website | Instagram

If you enjoyed this conversation with Jillian Richardson, check out these other episodes:

How to Find Joy and Community with Radha Agrawal

Belonging and Connection with Sebene Selassie

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Jillian Richardson 00:00:00  So many people share the struggle and just don’t necessarily realize that they don’t have a tolerance for having any sort of uncomfortable conversation.

Chris Forbes 00:00:17  Welcome to the one you feed. Throughout time, great thinkers have recognized the importance of the thoughts we have. Quotes like garbage in, garbage out or you are what you think ring true. And yet, for many of us, our thoughts don’t strengthen or empower us. We tend toward negativity, self-pity, jealousy, or fear. We see what we don’t have instead of what we do. We think things that hold us back and dampen our spirit. But it’s not just about thinking our actions matter. It takes conscious, consistent, and creative effort to make a life worth living. This podcast is about how other people keep themselves moving in the right direction, how they feed their good wolf.

Eric Zimmer 00:01:02  Have you ever noticed how making friends is an adult? Feels weirdly complicated. We say we want more connection, but then we don’t go to the thing. Don’t follow up and decide that Netflix just sounds easier.  In this episode, I talk with Jillian Richardson, author, coach and creator of the Joy list, about why friendship takes more effort than we expect and how we can actually get better at it. We explore what gets in the way of connection, why it’s not just about putting yourself out there, and how real community is less about finding perfect people, and more about staying when things feel a little uncomfortable. I’ve seen this in my own life. I say I want community, but then I wait for it just to happen. It doesn’t. Connection takes practice. You build it, you show up, you go to the event, you send the text. And in Jillian’s case, you even start a monthly dinner party. I’m Eric Zimmer. And this is the one you feed. Hi, Jillian. Welcome to the show.

Jillian Richardson 00:02:03  Thank you so much for having me.

Eric Zimmer 00:02:05  I am really happy to have you on. We are going to be discussing your book, which is called UN Lonely Planet, and you do a lot of work around connection and building friendships and lots of things that I think are really important. We’ll get to all that in a minute, but we’ll start like we always do with the parable. In the parable, there is a grandmother who’s talking with her grandson, and she says, in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandson stops and he thinks about it for a second. He looks up at his grandmother. He says, well, grandmother, which one wins? And the grandmother says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Jillian Richardson 00:02:54  For me, what that parable means is who you choose to focus your attention on. I find it really interesting that there are the sorts of people who genuinely believe that people are good, and then there are other people who genuinely believe that most people are bad. And I often think about what the difference is between those two types of people. And I’m really fascinated by the moments when I kind of can get stuck in that headspace of just like, dating is terrible or people are bad, these kind of black and white statements. And I find that the more caring energy and attention I give myself, the more caring and attentive people I magnetize in my own life, and also the media that I consume, kind of what I choose to put my attention on will then also reflect in my experience of the world.

Eric Zimmer 00:03:54  I love that and it makes me think of something that you talk about in your book. You were quoting a study I don’t remember who it’s from, but basically says protracted loneliness makes it difficult for us to evaluate other people’s intentions. Lonely people often feel attacked in situations that are actually neutral. I thought that was a really interesting insight. Like the more often you’re alone by yourself, the more you almost start to do what you said, which is we start to look at other people’s intentions more suspiciously.

Jillian Richardson 00:04:26  Yeah, like you’re at a party and someone just glances at you from across the room and your brain might think, oh my God, that person was giving me the side eye because I look bad or because they’re judging what I said, when in reality they might just be looking at you. But you’re so alert and looking out for signs to confirm you’re already biased, that people don’t like you or people are judgmental, whatever that inclination might be.

Eric Zimmer 00:04:52  Yeah, I just thought it was interesting that the more lonely you are, the more that exacerbates itself. You know, we talk a lot about upward and downward spirals on this show. And that’s a definite downward spiral. Right. So I’m somewhat lonely, but I’m like, all right, I’ll push myself to get out there. And I get out there and I interpret everybody as negative. So I want to do it less. So now all of a sudden I take another downward cycle towards like, all right, I don’t want to go back out. Nobody likes me.

Eric Zimmer 00:05:19  Then I push myself. Finally I get up the moxie to do it another time in similar experience. And so all of a sudden you go, all right, that’s it, I quit.

Jillian Richardson 00:05:27  Yeah. And that leads to so many people saying, oh, it’s impossible to make friends as an adult. For example, how many times I’ve heard people say that when in reality I know so many adults who are yearning for deep friendships, but they’re just not matching each other.

Eric Zimmer 00:05:46  Let’s go right into that, because I think that’s the heart of what, when you and I met and we started talking, I was most interested in because I’m really interested in this idea of loneliness. I’m really interested in the idea of adult friendship, and I think it is harder to form friendships as an adult than say it was when you were at college or as a fourth grader. But to your point, it’s certainly possible. So let’s talk a little bit about what are some of the barriers that get in the way of making adult friendships.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:15  And then maybe we could go into some of the strategies for how to do it. And I know this is something you, in addition to writing about, you actually coach people on. So I’d love to hear some of you know what you find first getting in the way and then secondly, some strategies we could use.

Jillian Richardson 00:06:30  Yeah, well, I think the biggest thing is having the intention and sticking to it. Yeah. I think in one of your earlier podcasts, you mentioned how no one gets fit by accident, or maybe it was one of your guests that you didn’t just wake up one day and you’re super fit, like you’re putting conscious intention and energy into it every day. And I think the same thing goes with making friends as an adult to actually set that as a goal. And it’s so interesting to me how many people find that really strange that someone would set that as a goal, because a lot of people can tell themselves, it’s just something I should know how to do. I should just have friends.

Jillian Richardson 00:07:14  I shouldn’t have to put this much thought into it. There’s something wrong with me because I’m trying to make friends. It feels embarrassing, almost like cringing. And it’s the same as anything else to say. You know, I’m going to go to a new event two times this month, and I’m gonna have my awareness open for people. I might want to be my friend.

Eric Zimmer 00:07:39  Yeah, I think you’re right. You hit on something really important there when we’re young. It’s I mean, not for everybody, but for a lot of people. It’s easier to make friends because everybody is in a similar circumstance. We’re all arriving at college together. Okay. We’re. By and large, we’re all looking for friends. Yeah. So it seems to happen somewhat more naturally when we get older. And it doesn’t happen. Like you said, I often think we think there’s something wrong with me or that it shouldn’t take this much work. So I think that’s a big barrier. I think the second thing I was thinking about this recently, I was like, it seems like there’s a lot of mismatch among adults.

Eric Zimmer 00:08:14  And what I mean by that is, again, when we go to college, we are all roughly 18 years old. And I didn’t go to college, but I’m I know people who did.

Jillian Richardson 00:08:23  I hear you’re I.

Eric Zimmer 00:08:24  Heard about it. I watched my son do it. I’m just using it as an example. But we could say the same thing for fourth grade, right? You show up, you’re all roughly the same age. Your lives all look roughly the same as in, like, your primary responsibility is going to school, hanging out, you know, not everybody, but but most people. But when you’re an adult, you can run into real mismatches. Like, I go to an event and I meet somebody and that person is 15 years older than me and our life circumstances might look very different. They’ve got three kids and a full time job, and I am underemployed and no kids. It’s not that those circumstances are unbridgeable, it just means that sometimes there isn’t room in the same way for friendship, for both those people.

Eric Zimmer 00:09:12  Right. Like, I’ve seen this happen a lot. People are like, I can’t make friends. People don’t like me. And I’m like, well, it might be just that some of the people you’re talking to just don’t have open social calendars. So I think as we get as we get older, it gets harder to find people who social needs meet ours, as well as the basic things that go into making what a friendship would be. So I do think it’s harder as an adult, but it’s certainly not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

Jillian Richardson 00:09:38  It’s not impossible. And I think also all those factors you just said of how many things need to be in alignment for you to become deeper friends with someone, to hold that in mind. And then when you find someone who actually has the space to deepen friendships, get excited about that person. I think people really hold themselves back from being earnest in friendship, and if it’s okay, I would love to give an example of some friends that I recently made.

Jillian Richardson 00:10:07  Yeah, because I talk to people about this stuff all the time, and I know how magic it is when the things actually line up. So what happened was I had someone he reached out to me on Instagram and said he was doing a storytelling show. I went to the storytelling show and we talked a little bit, and he invited me to a party that him and two friends host every month. I go to the party, I love it, I love the energy of the people there. It’s just this really warm, sweet group of people. I decide I’m going to go to this party every month. After the party message both of the hosts and explicitly say, I had so much fun at your party. I think the energy of the people at parties matches the hosts. So I didn’t really get to talk to you about that much, but I really enjoyed being in your space, which is vulnerable to say that. It’s like kind of putting myself out there a little bit. That’s right. And it’s just a whole long process of I keep going to this party every month.

Jillian Richardson 00:11:08  Start to become friends with the hosts. Say just explicitly say, I would like to hang out with you. Start hanging out with them at their house and start to kind of meet their friends. And we’re all having dinner this Sunday, and I’m so earnest, like, we just started a group chat and I literally said, oh my God, I’m so excited we’re in a group chat. Yeah, this is so sweet because most people don’t want to seem too excited, like it’s lame to want friends. But I think it’s really brave to say to someone that you’re excited about getting to know them more.

Eric Zimmer 00:11:45  I think so too. And you mentioned three sort of relationship strengthening tactics. The second one is we really have to practice positivity, the reward and enjoyment of each other. You know, we did a episode recently where Jenny interviewed Chris and I, and Chris is the editor of the show, and him and I have been friends for, I don’t know, a long time. 25, 2830. I don’t know, a lot of years.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:11  No. Yeah.

Jillian Richardson 00:12:12  Wow.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:12  32, 33 years. Something like that. Best friend.

Jillian Richardson 00:12:15  Longer than I have been on this earth.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:17  Oh my goodness. Yes. But we talked a little bit about how, for whatever reason, when we first became friends, like we were so excited about being friends and we talked about how excited we were to be friends. And we share. I mean, we’ve just always shared this positivity, which I think is part of what has contributed to making it such a close friendship for so long.

Jillian Richardson 00:12:40  It’s so nice to know. And it’s really a skill I think, to be able to do that with people. For me, when I when I meet someone who’s able to also offer that vulnerability and say, you know, I had a lot of fun hanging out with you tonight, I would love to do that again. I know, like this is a person I really want to spend time with, because I’ve looked at friendships long enough to realize that’s a really special quality in somebody.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:06  You talk a lot about vulnerability. That was kind of the first in these relationship strengthening tactics. You know, in order to feel seen, we have to practice vulnerability, the sharing of who we are. Is there a line for you where vulnerability crosses into neediness? We’ve all had an experience of somebody who is so desperate to be liked that they’re hard to like. Yeah, and there’s a difference between that and being vulnerable. And I’m just curious if you have any thoughts on what that difference is or how you navigate that.

Jillian Richardson 00:13:37  I can’t give a one size fits all answer, but what I would invite people to do is check in with themselves about their intention behind sharing something and to say like, okay, am I sharing about some really traumatic childhood experience super early on with this person so they feel bad for me? Or just to be honest with yourself about what? Why are you sharing this thing? Because that’s something I’ve definitely done before of kind of oversharing and then afterwards feeling embarrassed. I’m like, why did I say that? Why? Why did I say that to this person? And I think underneath it is just a really strong desire to connect.

Jillian Richardson 00:14:22  Yeah. And but at the same time, by sharing too much too soon, I’m kind of creating a power imbalance and I’m putting too much on the other person in a way that isn’t fair.

Eric Zimmer 00:14:36  Yeah. And it seems to me that if we think about this, it’s probably good to know your tendency and to be aware of it and correct for it. So yes, in the Spiritual Habits program we talk about the middle way. It’s one of the core ideas and principles. And it basically says, look, any virtue so to speak, is a middle point between two vices. Right. Courage is a middle point between being, you know, rash and idiotic and a coward. Right. So knowing which of those sides do I have a tendency to just sit back and be way too stoic when I meet new people and not share and not be vulnerable and not express that I’m excited to be friends with them. If that’s my tendency, maybe I want to work on course correcting a little bit more towards the vulnerable side.

Eric Zimmer 00:15:20  If, on the other hand, I have a tendency of, you know, ten minutes after meeting somebody, telling them about, you know, my deep, dark abuse secrets and saying, I love you. I hope we spend every day the rest of our lives together. Right. I might want to dial that tendency down a bit. And so it’s useful to know, like what is my tendency and to correct for it. But my experience with most adults is that our tendency is to be much less vulnerable. To not take a chance of deepening a conversation, of deepening a relationship. That’s been my experience of, you know, being an adult for 30 years now, almost as long as you’ve been on the planet. I suppose you’re about to tell me again. I know from your writings you believe in cultivating the voices of elders, so I’m glad I can. Glad I can fill that role. But my experience with most adults is we’re more on the whole back side than we are on the be vulnerable side.

Jillian Richardson 00:16:14  Totally. I find there’s a specific type of person who is craving this more open, vulnerable friendship and who also has the capacity to foster that. And I find that when we meet each other we’re so stoked. Yes. I heard someone recently say it’s like we’re in the same graduating class. Like we understand each other’s kind of just way of being in the world. And I loved that way of phrasing it so much.

Eric Zimmer 00:16:41  Yeah. And while I don’t specifically coach people on creating friendship in the way that you do, that has been something that a number of my clients over the years have said, you know, they would they would like more of and and we talk a lot about that basic idea of like, at some juncture somebody has to take quote unquote, the next step. In the same way in a dating situation, somebody’s got to sort of say, all right, I’m going to I’m going to take a chance of seeing where does this go if I take the next step. I think the same thing happens in friendship for sure, where even if that next step is just to drop one level deeper in intimacy of conversation, to say, all right, we’ve been hanging out here on the surface.

Eric Zimmer 00:17:24  I’m going to take the chance to go one level deeper. And I’ve shared this on the show before. I used to do that at work all the time. Like, I mean, I just in the beginning, after I got sober at 24, I would just walk into a room and be like, hey, I’m a, I’m a heroin addict. You know, I got sober six months ago and I, you know, over time I was like, all right, we need to dial that down a little bit. But I always had that tendency of I would just go a little bit deeper than most people would. And I just found that over and over that paid dividends for me in that it made me much better at my work. A because people trusted me more. And b, I just made more friends that way, more authentic friendships that way, by simply just being willing to be a little bit more open about what mattered.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:07  Yeah, because I imagine the people who are really uncomfortable with you sharing those parts of yourself weren’t comfortable with the parts of themselves that were struggling.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:16  And those aren’t people that you want to be friends with.

Eric Zimmer 00:18:18  That’s right. Yeah. You’re just like, well, I mean, I never really found it to be that damaging. I mean, maybe I had good enough self-esteem that I was just sort of like, well, not everybody has to like me.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:27  Yeah.

Eric Zimmer 00:18:28  But yeah, I just I think that is such an important piece is to sort of just recognize, like, if I want this relationship, I’ve met somebody that seems like I like them. How do we take it to the next level? And I think your suggestions in the book of being more vulnerable, practicing positivity. And then the third one you talk about is consistency. Share a little bit more about that.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:48  Yeah, I think especially if people live in a big city, it can be difficult to find the time to see someone consistently. This is a problem I will still run up against of having so many people I really, genuinely love and want to spend time with, but then we just don’t have the time and energy to coordinate our schedules and figure out the spot and do the whole thing.

Jillian Richardson 00:19:08  And so to have these kind of central meeting places, for example, it could be a dance party or a house party or a meditation class that you go to or a yoga class say, okay, I’m doing this thing every week or every month, and I know if you want to find me, I will be there. Or if I want to find you, you’ll probably be there. And it’s a great way to just consistently see people be around the types of people who value the same things that you do, and also to start to deepen those relationships a little bit.

Eric Zimmer 00:19:39  One of the things that I’ve noticed we may be working with slightly different demographics, potentially, as we’ve already sort of laid out, the the age difference between us, right, is that a lot of people that I work with say they want more community, but their lives are very, very full and they just tend to not make time for it. That’s something that I found very interesting. And somebody who’s trying to build a community is that people say, yes, I want that, yes, I want that.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:07  But then they don’t show up that often for it. Totally. A lot of the people that are sort of in our communities are going to be people who are deep in career and deep in family, so that’s part of it. But do you see that also where people say, I want friendships, I want community, but then they just simply don’t put the effort or the time in. They just default to Netflix and hanging out.

Jillian Richardson 00:20:31  Totally. And I think it’s especially that people don’t want the uncomfortable parts that come with community, which is there’s going to be conflicts and there’s going to be maybe some people you don’t like, or you’re going to be jealous of someone, or someone’s going to mirror something in you that feels awkward or uncomfortable. And it’s so easy to just be like, well, I guess I’m never going to hang out with these people again. Or I guess I just won’t communicate what’s going on. And then I feel disconnected from these people, and then I kind of just drift away and I tell myself, oh, we just drifted apart.

Jillian Richardson 00:21:08  But really, I haven’t been communicating the truth of my heart and I’ve been creating this distance myself. That was a lot. I had a lot of energy behind that, but it really feels very annoying to me because I think so many people share this struggle and just don’t necessarily realize that they don’t have a tolerance for having any sort of uncomfortable conversation.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:57  I am not a good group joiner. I think I’m decent at fostering individual relationships, but I’ve never been a group joiner, particularly over the last five years. I’ve gotten clear that a lot of it is what you were just saying. I’m looking for the perfect community. I’m looking for the community where I like everyone. So if I’m thinking of a Buddhist community or a spiritual community, I’m like, yeah, those couple people seem all right, but I don’t like those three people, so this isn’t the place for me.

Jillian Richardson 00:22:24  Yeah. So I’m never coming here again.

Eric Zimmer 00:22:26  Yeah. Which is what I would do over and over and over. And so I heard somebody say once and use words a little bit.

Eric Zimmer 00:22:32  I don’t remember exactly which ones, but you alluded to it a little bit, which was that part of the point of community, is to rub off our rough edges, that by interacting with these other people, it smooths us out and allows us to integrate more harmoniously into a group. And I thought once I heard that, I went, oh, that makes a lot of sense. The point here isn’t that I like everybody and they’re all my best friends. The point is, I’m interacting with a variety of different people and that there’s benefit and beauty in that.

Jillian Richardson 00:23:01  Totally. There’s benefit in me being around people who I wouldn’t choose to be my friend, but the sheer nature of our differences is actually good for us just to be able to be in that.

Eric Zimmer 00:23:11  Yeah. How do you work with people who are saying, yeah, I want community, but aren’t putting the effort in to get it? It’s very similar to somebody who says they want to be in shape, but they’re not putting the effort to get into it.

Eric Zimmer 00:23:24  What sort of things have you found helps unblock?

Jillian Richardson 00:23:27  I think the biggest thing is to start by asking questions around their fears, say, well, okay, there’s clearly something that’s preventing you from doing this, because if you are 100% in, you wouldn’t need anyone to help you. You would just be doing it. So a lot of times I’ll ask people, what’s been your experience with communities in the past? And oftentimes something really awful will come up like, oh, I was part of this group and a girl in the group, like cheated on my boyfriend. You know, I’m trying to say that. Yeah, my boyfriend cheated on me with this person in the group. There was a terrible experience, or I got bullied or I didn’t feel like I fit in there. Anything along those lines were unconsciously there thinking, well, I had a really bad experience in a community before, so why would I want to put myself through that again? But just don’t take the time to reflect on it, because I think even in the world of personal development, where we reflect so much on all these elements of ourselves constantly, rarely think about our relationship to group and kind of in-group outgroup.

Jillian Richardson 00:24:28  What’s my experience with community? Because culturally we don’t care about it very much. So why would we think about it consciously?

Eric Zimmer 00:24:35  Yeah, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So if I am a person and I say, okay, I’m lonely, I want to change that. Where do I start? You know, what are some things I can start doing? Let’s just say I’m like, well, I’ll give you a little bit more than that to go on. I work from home. I have 3 or 4 other people that, you know, I interact with in my company, and I’ve known them for a while, and they’re fine. But we’re not going to be great friends. I don’t have a church that I want to go to. I’m lonely and I’m not sure where to start. What are some initial steps I can take? And you can tailor this answer to ways you can tailor it towards New York City, which is, or a big city, which is where you are.

Eric Zimmer 00:25:13  And you’ve created something called the Joy list, and lots of great things. But we could also talk about people who are in a place that’s not quite so vibrant.

Jillian Richardson 00:25:19  Yeah, I’ll go a little more general. Okay. And I feel very excited about this question. The first question I always ask people is, what kind of person do you want to be? Who do you want to be just in life. And also, how do you want to exist within the place where you live? Could be New York City, could be somewhere else. Because you might not want to be a group person. You might say, you know, my ideal vision for my friendships and my community is maybe I’m kind of the hub for parties in my neighborhood. I have dinner parties, people come to me, I have an awesome backyard. I’ve got a core group of ten friends, and we host stuff once a month. That might be your vision for yourself, and that’s awesome. Like already having just a vision for what you want, and especially the qualities you say, I want to be around people who care about spirituality.

Jillian Richardson 00:26:14  I want to be the kind of person who’s a generous host. I want to care for my body, even say, okay, what types of people care about those things? Where can you meet those types of people? Because if you want to meet spiritual nerds who love working out. Just go into the bar every Friday night. You’re probably not going to meet those people. Or if you do meet those people, you don’t know that you’re meeting those people because you’re not in that context.

Eric Zimmer 00:26:42  Yep. Let’s run with this example. So let’s say I live in a mid-sized community somewhere in the US, and I’m like, yeah, that is what I want. I just moved to this new town. I’d like to have a small group of friends. I do have a wonderful backyard and I’ve got a great patio. I love to cook dinner. I just love to have a group of friends that gets together once or twice a month in my backyard, and we hang out and we have dinner and we just have some nice conversation.

Eric Zimmer 00:27:06  Like, that would be amazing for me compared to where I’m at now. What do I do if someone came to you with that’s what I want.

Jillian Richardson 00:27:12  So I have some friends. They are nomads and they’re constantly traveling, but they’re somehow also always hosting things themselves, even in countries where they don’t really know people. And it’s wild. And I ask them, how do you manage to pull this off? And they’ll say, okay, well, I know three people in this town, and I tell them I want to host a dinner party. Can each of you invite three people? And you could even say, can you invite three people you know who might love spirituality? If you want to get a little more specific, suddenly you have a ten person dinner party, and then at the end of that say, you know, I’m going to do this again next month, same day next month. Would love it if you guys could invite some people. I want to make this a monthly thing, and even having the next day and saying to people, I’d love for you to come again.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:00  I have two friends who do this every month, and they have an incredibly vibrant community that comes to them. It’s a pretty sweet deal.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:07  Yeah. So you take whoever you know and you use those people to sort of network out from there.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:14  Totally. And even if you wanted to be as vulnerable as saying, I want to create a deeper community for myself here, it’d be so helpful if you guys can invite some folks that’d feel really good for me, because I find when people know why you’re asking them something, they’re more likely to do it instead of you just being like, oh yeah. Invite some friends if you want. Like there’s a reason why you’re asking them to do.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:35  That, right? You’re taking that step of being a little bit vulnerable and asking for what you want.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:41  Because it’s like, oh my God, who doesn’t want to say like, oh yeah, let me invite my three coolest friends so you can meet them. Yeah, this is great.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:46  So what if I’m not even in that place where I know much of anybody in that town? So, yeah, I moved here for my job.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:54  I’m a shy person. I just don’t really know anyone. Where do I start? There.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:59  So something that I recommend that is very simple but definitely not easy is posting on social media if you have it, or sending an email and saying, hey, I just moved to wherever you live. I’m looking to meet people who are interested in blah blah blah. Who do you know? And this is something that is so simple, but folks love this kind of post on the internet because all they have to do is tag somebody and they get to feel great about themselves. And it takes two seconds and you might have three, five, ten people who all of a sudden you can reach out to. And all you had to do was just let people know that you’re looking for that.

Eric Zimmer 00:29:37  That’s a great idea. What about starting to attend gatherings or volunteer events? All right. I’m willing to put myself out there a little bit. Yeah. In order to meet some new people. What does that look like? How do I go about finding things? What do I do when I get there? When I attend them? Again, if you’re in New York City, you get on Jillian’s joy list.

Jillian Richardson 00:29:58  Yeah you do.

Eric Zimmer 00:29:59  I see that joy list every time I’m like, I am jealous. That is so cool. So much great stuff there.

Jillian Richardson 00:30:05  Lots of weird stuff going on in New York City.

Eric Zimmer 00:30:07  Totally. But what do I do if I don’t have that? Where are some places I can turn to that are more broadly accessible ways to find gatherings, things that I’m interested in, etc.?

Jillian Richardson 00:30:18  Yeah. So first of all, I would start on Meetup and Eventbrite. On Eventbrite, there’s a filter that you can look for. There’s there’s different event categories, and there’s one called community. There’s literally an event category called community. So you can say, okay, what are the community events happening in my neighborhood this week? Or you could filter for fitness events. You could filter for religious events. You can even filter by a keyword. You could look for a women’s circle, for example, or the word sober and just see what pops up. And to then commit to yourself to say, okay, I’m going to go to this group at least twice.

Jillian Richardson 00:30:56  Like, even if the first time I don’t like it very much, or even if the first time I feel so nervous and I don’t talk to anyone and I feel really weird to go twice. And also, you said the magic word before, which is volunteer. I think, honestly, this is the biggest hack for making friends in a new place is to go to an event that has the kinds of people that you think you’d like. Like, for example, in New York City there’s this big meditation event called medi club, and I would volunteer at this event every month because the people who volunteer are more likely to want to make new friends. That’s a big reason why people volunteer. But also, it gives you direct access to the organizers of the event, and the organizers of events are usually community hubs who are more than happy to introduce you to whoever you want.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:09  So find events and if you can volunteer at them. And I think the other thing you said there’s really important is to go at least twice, you know, if not more.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:19  Right. I’ve started recently doing this thing in Columbus. I love doing so. Volunteer is called Food Rescue and it’s basically there’s an organization there all around the country, but they basically find food that’s going to be thrown away somewhere, whether it’s from a restaurant, a grocery store or whatever. And then they match that up with a place that needs it, and you basically go get it from one place, take it to another. But they’ve had this thing where they distribute these like thousands of boxes of produce every Friday. And so I was like, all right, I’m going to start going. And I am not actually very good at plot. Me in a new environment with a bunch of people I don’t know. I don’t do well in that environment. I am sort of shy. I’m sort of quiet. I’m sort of withdrawn. And it’s interesting. It’s not even that I notice that I’m shy and withdrawn. That’s part of it. But but what’s interesting is my defense mechanisms kick in enough that I don’t even feel like I want to get to know anybody in that environment.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:12  It’s so interesting. It’s like, if you ask me on Wednesday night when I’m going to this thing on Friday, would you like to meet some new people there? I’m like, of course I would. That would be great. Put me there Friday. And all of a sudden I’m like, my phone is really interesting to me right now.

Jillian Richardson 00:33:25  Right. You’re like, look at my shoes. I’ve got really cool shoes.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:28  Oh, man. Maybe I should just sit in the car and listen to this book on tape. It’s so interesting to me the way that happens. My defense mechanisms rise up so quickly, I don’t even see them. And then they’re like, you don’t really? Who cares? You don’t need to make anything so interesting anyway. I’ve been going to this thing on Fridays, and, I mean, I think it took like five times before I started actually getting into conversation with people like I was there. We were friendly. Hey, how are you doing? Good. Let’s load these boxes.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:55  Like. But after about the fifth time, something in me just shifted and I naturally started to just sort of emerge from my shell a little bit. And so I just know that about me, that it takes me a little while. And so I know if I’m going to embed myself in something like that, I’m going to have to go multiple times. But I imagine there are things that I could do if I wanted to accelerate that process. What might be some ways of getting into the conversational flow or meeting somebody or again, just going from sort of standing there to engaging a little bit more.

Jillian Richardson 00:34:28  Well, I think you are definitely not alone, or I know you’re not alone in your experience of going to an event that’s not facilitated and not being sure how to go deeper with people because you don’t know the norms of the space, you don’t know what’s acceptable there. You don’t really know who these people are. It’s like going to a giant happy hour. That’s a networking event where no one tells you what to do, and you’re just like, yeah, we’re supposed to connect with each other.

Jillian Richardson 00:34:53  What the hell is this? Like, this is awful. Which is why and I’m such an extroverted person, but I hate things like that with a passion, because it’s such a draining environment for me to be in, where there is no understanding of what you’re supposed to do in the space. You’re kind of just thrown into this giant room of people talking over each other. So the biggest thing I would say is that if you can find an event that has facilitation, try that. So for example, in New York City, And this is a very New York City thing. But there’s this thing called vulnerable AF that this woman named Veronica runs. It’s like a great name. And now she she goes on tour and she does it, and it’s so great, but it’s essentially just facilitated conversations where she’s giving you prompts to say to strangers, and there’s some group exercises, and there’s no way you’re not going to leave that event without having had a deeper conversation with someone. And the people who show up at that event are obviously looking to have deeper conversations with new people.

Jillian Richardson 00:35:53  So you’re kind of already all in the same space.

Eric Zimmer 00:35:55  That’s a great event, and I think that’s really good advice. Go to something that is sort of facilitated. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve always been grateful to have been a member of AA. Yeah, I’m not real involved now, but I’m like, if I move to a new city, like, how easy is it? I just start going to meeting the meetings, have conversations that are already structured. You get to hear a bunch of people talk and be like, I like what that guy had to say. I like what she had to say, okay, those are the kind of people I got my eye on. It makes it happen so much easier than what you described, which is like this food rescue situation where I show up and again now, this organization is not designed to help people meet each other. It’s designed to get food to the places it needs to go. So if my food rescue friends are listening, none of this is criticism.

Jillian Richardson 00:36:40  It’s like no shade, you guys, right?

Eric Zimmer 00:36:41  Like, yeah, it’s not what it’s about. But you describe this sort of event that a lot of us show up to. We go, all right, I’m going to volunteer somewhere. And I think you make a really good point that where we’re volunteering puts us in proximity to the people, but there are no real rules for interaction, and there’s no guided interaction. It kind of falls all on your own moxie. And again, what I’ve learned about me is that my moxie will grow over time. You know, there’s just something that naturally thaws in me if I’m around the same people enough times. But I love that idea of going to things that are facilitated as a way of that naturally happening in our Spiritual Habits group program. I think we break the big group up into small groups that meet every week, and there’s been a lot of really great deep relationships formed there. And I think to a large extent it’s where we train the facilitators. But secondly, there is a facilitated conversation about things that matter to you right away.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:37  So immediately there is a way to engage and make deeper connection because it is, as you said, a sort of facilitated event. Questions are asked. There’s conversation. It happens.

Jillian Richardson 00:37:49  Yeah. I think this is why these question card games have suddenly blown up in popularity. Like, everyone under the sun has a set of question cards that they’re selling.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:58  I don’t.

Jillian Richardson 00:37:59  Because.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:59  I think I need some question.

Jillian Richardson 00:38:00  You should make some question cards. Esther Perel just came out with a game based off of her podcast. That’s entirely questions that increase in vulnerability, and they’re all questions about storytelling so that you tell a story. You should have her on your podcast. She she’s promoting this new game right now, but I’ve had a few friends say that at their dinner parties. They’ve actually played her game. Interesting. And it’s so great because I find that when we’re around the same people a lot, we lose curiosity about them. Like they kind of just become something that they’re just they’re like, oh yeah, this is my friend I’ve known since I was five.

Jillian Richardson 00:38:38  What else is there for me to know about this person? And then you ask them a question like, oh, what’s one of your favorite memories of being with your grandma? Like, when have you ever talked about that with them before? Probably never. Never. And so you’re gonna get this whole new thing.

Eric Zimmer 00:38:50  I’ve been friends with Chris, as I said, for a really long time. I couldn’t tell you the first thing about his grandparents.

Jillian Richardson 00:38:55  Yeah, I find grandparents is a really interesting thing, because most adults that would never come up in conversation. But there’s so much you can learn about someone’s family and their culture from talking about that.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:08  With Chris, it’s probably going to end up being a conversation about like, drunk uncles or something if I if I know anything about that family. But yeah, same thing. My family too. No, not not.

Jillian Richardson 00:39:19  I mean, that’s a family culture for sure.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:21  Total family culture. I have a uncle who who died from alcoholism, so I am just in it myself.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:26  Before we maybe change directions a little bit for for the last few minutes. What else about making friendship, creating community? What else should people know? Or what are some really important things from your coaching practice that you would share with people?

Jillian Richardson 00:39:39  I think the biggest thing is to really be kind to yourself in this process. Folks can be so brutal to themselves and so judgmental just being like, man, it’s pathetic that I don’t have friends. Like, what kind of loser doesn’t know how to make friends? Like, these mean vicious things people will say to themselves when in reality, the average American hasn’t made a new friend in five years. Wow. And 75% of Americans are not satisfied with their friendships. So more likely than not, any person you meet is looking for new friends and is looking for deeper connection. And the people who have really rich friend groups are in the vast minority, and that’s so important for people to keep in mind.

Eric Zimmer 00:40:27  Yeah, that’s a really good point. And you say early on in your book that loneliness is systematic.

Eric Zimmer 00:40:33  It’s not an individual problem. It’s systematic. Right. So to your point, if we don’t have as rich a friendship or community life as we want, we are like you said, we are far from alone. Matter of fact, we are in the majority and the way our society is set up makes it harder and harder to do that and have that. And so it’s not an individual failing.

Jillian Richardson 00:40:53  Totally not an individual failing at all.

Eric Zimmer 00:40:55  I think the second thing there is kind of what I just did a little bit not to be like, oh, look how great I am. But if you know it, hey, you’re great. I’m great. No, but but when I talked about going to this food rescue thing, right, like 15 years ago, I’d have been really hard on myself. Like, why are you not talking to people? You’re not meeting people. What’s wrong with you? And now I’m just a lot more kind with myself. And I go. I know my process.

Eric Zimmer 00:41:19  Yeah, it takes me a few times, so. Okay. Yeah, that’s the way I am. So I know I just need to go a few more times. I’ll get there instead of being like walking in the first time and being like, if I don’t walk out of here with three friends, I failed. Yeah. And I think that’s how a lot of us orient towards this. I want more friends. I’m going to go to this event. I walk out, I don’t have any friends. I failed, and so I’m not going to do it again because who wants to keep failing?

Jillian Richardson 00:41:42  Totally. And how many people have that mindset in all sorts of things, like a job interview or going on dates be like, well, this one was bad, confirms what I already thought. So I’m just not going to do this again.

Eric Zimmer 00:41:55  Yeah, that’s a really good point. You had some funny things I saw on social recently. You know, I think you’re dating and you and your friends were riffing on reasons that somebody might not be getting back to you.

Eric Zimmer 00:42:06  the different reasons. And I was laughing because because the interpretation is they’re not getting back to me because they don’t like me. And you’re like, well, they might be tripping on LSD. They might be high AF, you know. They might. I thought it was funny, like just riffing. Like, here’s all the different reasons.

Jillian Richardson 00:42:20  Yeah, I was talking to a female friend because we’re both dating. And how funny it is that if, like, we’re at a party and someone’s being kind of weird with us or they’re not responding to our text, our assumption is, well, they think I’m gross and bad and I’m just awful. And that’s why they’re not asking me out or whatever. And then we started talking about actual reasons when we’ve misinterpreted what was going on. And she told the funniest story of how this guy was sending her text that didn’t make sense, and she thought that he was trying to avoid going on a date with her, when in reality he was just tripping super hard.

Jillian Richardson 00:42:58  You know, it was like the best story. That’s so great. Like, keep your phone off. That’s right. Your phone on airplanes might not be making. Maybe they’re drunk or maybe they’re high or I don’t know. I also thank you for supporting my internet life. It feels good.

Eric Zimmer 00:43:14  You know, you’re in the middle of the psychedelic renaissance when you have to be like, well, we’re no longer talking about drunk dialing. We’re talking about tripping, texting. Don’t do it. I want to shift directions for a second and talk about something that you have done. One program you did was called Allied, although you’ve done several others. Allied was a seven week training for white leaders to skillfully engage in conversations about race, and we’ve had a bunch of conversations around race on this show. We’re primarily a white audience. I’d love to know some of what you’ve learned through those various trainings you’ve done. I know I’m asking you a huge topic with, you know, like four minutes left in the conversation.

Eric Zimmer 00:43:54  So but yeah, but any any things that really stood out to you that gave you like, okay, as a, as a white person, if I want to be a better ally, here are some of the things I’m going to do.

Jillian Richardson 00:44:05  Yeah I can quickly say so. Allied was led by this teacher named Harry Pickens, who is a black man who wanted to work with white leaders, and the biggest thing I got from that was, how can we train our nervous systems to be okay in conversations where we are not comfortable, especially with people who do not agree with us? And a case study we were looking at a lot is Darryl Davis, who is a black man who famously befriended members of the Klu Klux Klan and then actually got them to leave because he was in relationship with them. And the process took a very long time. And, of course, that’s not an approach that a lot of people agree with, but it’s one that is really interesting in that that’s the ultimate example of being comfortable across lines of difference and being with people who might not like you at all.

Jillian Richardson 00:44:59  And so I have really tried. And of course, as I’m saying this, I’m judging myself for not doing better, but to be with folks like who are white conservatives, for example, to talk about their beliefs or to be comfortable, because I can really fall into people pleasing, to be comfortable enough to challenge people. And just to say, just having these sentence stems in my back pocket like, oh, why do you think that? Or oh, has that been your experience? And to just give people the space to kind of talk out this thing they might think of without without questioning it? So that was one thing. And the second thing I’ll quickly say is that I did this training called Bridges and Boundaries, which was three days. primarily white folks, but there are also some black folks in the room. And it was a very intense, super in-your-face training about looking at your own racism. And really, the main point that I got from that was that white people are racist. And we do think that we’re better than other races, and we have to acknowledge that in ourselves in order to move forwards and to just.

Jillian Richardson 00:46:11  And I feel hot even saying that out loud. But to be like I think I’m better. I have to tell myself that I’ve been so programmed my entire life, and our country’s been programmed to think that I’m better. And people of color know that. We think that. And if we can’t say that to ourselves, we can’t do any work. I mean, that weekend kicked me in the face. It was not fun.

Eric Zimmer 00:46:36  I bet. You know, it makes me think my initial like instantly that uncomfortableness raises a defense in me where I want to go, but people of other races think they’re better than that. There’s an in-group outgroup thing, right? But the difference, of course, is that our race is controlling everything and is in in charge of everything. Yeah, we interviewed Ibram X. Kendi on the show, and one of the things that he talked about that I found so valuable was to move away from saying, I am or I am not a racist, or you are or you are not a racist.

Eric Zimmer 00:47:11  And instead to say I have some racist thoughts. I have some racist beliefs. I did a racist thing, and I found that a really interesting switch, because it’s a little bit like the difference between shame. I am bad. I am a racist too. I do think racist things, oh, I have behaviors, actions, etc. that are that way and thusly I can work on changing them. For me, that was a way of sort of being able to walk into the ground you’re talking about and go, yes, I do. I have racist thoughts. I think things that are racist, I have done things that are racist, thoughts that run through my head was really helpful, because then I was able to sort of, again, step out of the shame of, I’m this awful person to I have these behaviors, right? Which is sort of the difference between, I think healthy guilt and shame. Shame is I’m bad. Healthy guilt is I’m doing things that don’t match my values. I want to change.

Jillian Richardson 00:48:10  And I think a part of this training that was so impactful of having it be a mixed race group, was to realize, okay, it’s so uncomfortable for me to look at these racist parts of myself, and if I don’t, I’m going to keep unintentionally hurting these other people in the room. Yeah. So which which one am I going to choose? Because we’re we’re being forced to choose, like look at ourselves and say, okay, if I don’t examine this stuff, which I have the full power to never examine and never look at and never think about because it’s deeply uncomfortable, I will, for the rest of my life, hurt people more. And of course, I’m still going to do racist stuff for the rest of my life because it’s just I’m a human, but I’ll probably do it a little bit more. Or at least I’ll be able to apologize more skillfully in the future. If I look at this stuff.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:59  That’s really powerful and and really difficult work. We’re at the end of our time.

Eric Zimmer 00:49:04  You and I are going to go into the post-show conversation, and I actually want to explore something you said a few minutes ago in more detail. You talked about challenging people or having open conversation with people who think different things than us, particularly maybe around a topic like race. As we head into the holidays, many people are going to about to get some great opportunities for this. Yes. And so let’s talk about some skills, because I do think there’s there’s a difference between term, my Thanksgiving dinner table into a nuclear war versus actually engage in dialogue with people who think differently than me in a hope of increasing understanding. So we’ll talk about that in the post-show conversation. Listeners, if you’d like access to the post-show conversation, you can go to one you feed join. You’ll get this post-show conversation. You’ll get ad free episodes. You’ll get a special episode I do every week called Teaching Song, and a poem where I share a song I love, a poem I love, as well as a teaching and lots of other great benefits of being a member.

Eric Zimmer 00:50:04  When you feed, Net join. Gillian, thank you so much for coming on. I have really, really enjoyed this and and it’s been a pleasure to get to talk with you for everyone.

Jillian Richardson 00:50:13  Thank you for having me. I feel super energized.

Eric Zimmer 00:50:31  Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better. And that’s you just hit the share button on your podcast app, or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the one You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

What If You’re Wrong? How Uncertainty Makes Us More Human with William Egginton

April 8, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, William Egginton invites you to ask the question, “What if you’re wrong?” as he explains how being uncertain makes us more human. William explores the surprising overlap between a physicist, a philosopher, and a poet—each of whom came to the same unsettling truth: that we mistake our model of reality for reality itself. But this isn’t just about subatomic particles or dusty old philosophy books. It’s about how certainty—especially in our relationships—can blind us. What if embracing uncertainty is actually the doorway to wisdom, compassion, and a more connected life?

Key Takeaways:

  • Exploration of the intersections between philosophy, literature, and quantum physics.
  • Discussion of the nature of reality and the limitations of human knowledge.
  • Examination of biases and their impact on perception and understanding.
  • Importance of interpretation in both science and philosophy.
  • Relational understanding of identity and its formation through interactions.
  • Analysis of free will versus determinism and its philosophical implications.
  • Concept of “degrees of freedom” in understanding human agency.
  • Implications of quantum mechanics on our understanding of reality.


William Egginton is the Decker Professor in the Humanities, chair of the Department of Modern
Languages and Literatures, and Director of the Alexander Grass Humanities Institute at Johns Hopkins
University. He is the author of multiple books, including How the World Became a Stage (2003),
Perversity and Ethics (2006), A Wrinkle in History (2007), The Philosopher’s Desire (2007), The Theater of Truth (2010), In Defense of Religious Moderation (2011), The Man Who Invented Fiction: How Cervantes Ushered in the Modern World (2016), The Splintering of the American Mind (2018), and The Rigor of Angels (2023), which was named to several best of 2023 lists, including The New York Times and The New Yorker. He is co-author with David Castillo of Medialogies: Reading Reality in the Age of Inflationary Media (2017) and What Would Cervantes Do? Navigating Post-Truth with Spanish Baroque Literature (2022). His latest book, on the philosophical, psychoanalytic, and surrealist dimensions of the work of Chilean director Alejandro Jodorowsky, was published in January 2024.

Connect with William Egginton:  Website | X

If you enjoyed this conversation with William Egginton, check out these other episodes:

How to Find Zest in Life with Dr. John Kaag

Unsafe Thinking with Jonah Sachs

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Eric Zimmer 00:01:02  You know those moments when you’re absolutely certain you know why your partner did something that is driving you crazy? What if quantum physics proves you can’t be that certain about anything? Today, philosopher William Eggington joins me to discuss his book, The Rigor of Angels, where a physicist, a philosopher, and a storyteller all stumbled upon the same unsettling truth.

Eric Zimmer 00:01:25  We mistake our model of reality for reality itself. What really stuck with me in this conversation is how quantum mechanics doesn’t just challenge what we know about particles. It challenges what we think we know about ourselves and each other. And as it turns out, learning to live with that uncertainty might just be the key to feeding the good wolf within us. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is the one you feed. Hi, Bill. Welcome to the show.

William Egginton 00:01:55  Hey, Eric. It’s good to be here.

Eric Zimmer 00:01:56  I’m excited to have you on because we’re going to be discussing your book, which is called The Rigor of Angels Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality, which is pretty heady stuff for the one you feed, but I’m pretty certain we’re still going to make a great conversation out of it. But before we start, I’d like to start by asking you about the parable that we use. And the parable goes like this. There’s a grandfather who’s talking with his grandson. He says, in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle.  One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops. They think about it for a second. They look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandfather says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

William Egginton 00:02:53  The beautiful parable and honestly tell you I had not heard it before, but I find it very meaningful. It resonates with some of the biggest philosophical influences for me, in particular psychoanalysis, Freud, this idea that we have that the self is not unitary, but the self is divided. And some of the ideas that I work through in the rigor of angels is not only is it not unitary, but that we are down at the deepest core of ourselves, relational, and without those relations we wouldn’t even be a self in the first place.

So often we have, in what we call Western metaphysics, this idea of, at the core of ourselves, some kind of a unified identity that then fights its way out into the world. And you can think about Descartes, this idea of a thinking substance that works its way out and influences the world of things, of extended substances in the world. And what your parable and my reference to psychoanalysis tries to remind us all the time is that that thinking substance isn’t a substance. It’s not one thing. It’s a set of relations at all times and that it can never really be closed and become one. I also like the side of the parable where the child is asking which side wins, because really we are always struggling. The great French philosopher Jacques Derrida and the last interview, or one of the last interviews he gave with the Le Monde, actually gave its titles. I’m at war with myself, and I do find who we are often at, at our heart and some sort of an expression of a struggle, struggle between impulses, struggle of which of ourselves is going to win out in the end. And I love the fact that that’s where your title, your podcast comes from.

Eric Zimmer 00:04:31  That’s a great and beautiful response, and I’m tempted to dive right into the deep end of the pool there. Around what the nature of the self. But I’m going to resist. But we’re going to get there. I want to start, though, by talking a little bit about your book, and in your book you are bringing together three different thinkers. Tell us about who the three different thinkers are.

William Egginton 00:04:52  Yeah. So the book really is sort of a braided, if you will, intellectual biography of three extremely important people to me. The Argentine poet and short story writer Jorge Luis Borges, whose life spanned the 20th century. He’s almost exact contemporary, the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who first was the main force behind the invention of quantum mechanics, and the 18th early 19th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who’s in some ways the most important figure of modern European philosophy just because of the number of areas that he touched. And, you know, the story behind this book was an idea, if you will, that all of these three great thinkers from three radically different fields philosophy, poetry and literature, and quantum physics of the hardest physics of the natural world, all converge upon this idea that when we are trying to understand the world, what we’re trying to truly understand is a model of the world that we make ourselves as humans, and that we can be led astray by the belief.

And yet it’s a core belief that returns over and over again that in fact, we’re not understanding some image we make of the world as humans. We’re understanding the world itself. And as as simple a mistake as that seems, it can have enormous consequences.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:14  You say in the book that this book is in many ways a cautionary tale about the danger of assuming that reality must conform to the image we construct of it, and the damage that our fidelity to such a seductive ideal can wreak. So I want to just make sure we put a fine point on what this danger is. And you say elsewhere that these three thinkers shared an uncommon immunity to the temptation to think they knew God’s secret plan. So talk to me about what you mean when you say our attempts to understand actual reality and the limits to our knowledge?

William Egginton 00:06:55  Absolutely. So I like the idea of cautionary tale. I think I got that ultimately from Borges, since he’s a tale teller and I, after years and years of reading, began to realize that there was a common theme to many of Borges stories, and that common theme was a searchers out trying to find some sort of an ultimate answer. And he’s tempted by this ultimate answer, drawn towards it, and then ultimately either falters in that quest or in fact, thinks he it’s often a he succeeds in that quest, but that success leads to the destruction of himself or the destruction of the world. And what Borges is trying to show us over and over again is that knowledge is inherently faulty. Knowledge of the world is inherently limited. The shortest parable since we started this show with a parable is a beautiful. He has also parables. He has a beautiful one called the parable of the Palace that I sometimes cite, but this one is just called a rigor in Science. I have a recording. In fact, it takes him 55 seconds in his old age and his faltering, slightly wheezy voice to read this story, and it just tells of an emperor who has control over an entire realm and sends out his cartographers to map the realm. And the first time they come back with an enormous map, say, the size of a small city. And he says, it’s a good map, but it’s just not accurate enough. So he sends them out again, and then they come back with a much bigger map. And this covers the size of a state in his, in his realm. And he says, this is really a much better map, but it’s still not as accurate as I want. And when they come back the third time, they come with a map. That point for point corresponds in actual size to the realm itself. And then Borges finishes the tale by saying the the map, and in fact the realm itself are nothing but the dusty remnants that blow across the desert of what was so the idea that knowledge, what we’re seeking of the world, can’t be perfect. Because if it’s perfect, it’s as useless as a map that corresponds. Point for point in actual size to the realm that it’s supposed to be mapping. You know, the old days, we used to go on road trips and carry paper maps. Well, imagine you’re doing a road trip to the United States, but your paper map is the size of the United States. Not very helpful. It’s completely debilitating in every possible way.

Eric Zimmer 00:09:07  Yeah. How does that tie to or does it tie at all to what we’re starting to see in the world today, which is that information has become, in many ways, almost infinite to us. You know, the number of things that we can. I’m going to use this word loosely, know is almost infinite. And it sounds a little bit like what you’re saying, because I think at a certain point, all this information that we keep absorbing and consuming is a useless map at a certain point.

William Egginton 00:09:37  I think that’s a really good way of thinking about it, because Borges is just such a great author to think through these issues with, and I’m far from the first one to make this this comparison. But he had the story. The Library of Babel, which is again, it’s a kind of a parable, but it’s a parable about about information. And the idea of the Library of Babel is sets up a scenario in which every possible book exists in the library, only one copy of every possible book exists, and every possible book is the result of a generative mechanism that involves the 22 and in the case of the Spanish language, letters of the Spanish language, and a certain number of constraints, how many shelves and the library, and in each room of the library, etcetera, et cetera, and so forth. But the idea there is, is you can imagine a scenario in which a very limited set of signs conspire with each other, mix with each other, intermingle with each other to create every possible word, every possible meaning, every possible story we’ve ever told. But of course, within all of that maze and it’s inconceivably large. And I talk about the size of this library in the book. Truly, inconceivably large. To give you a sense, our actual known universe would be about the size of a proton in comparison with the universe that Borges imagines. But it’s not infinite. So it’s this absurdly large maze of rooms upon rooms, upon rooms filled with books you can actually find, in theory, every meaningful sentence ever created by the history of humanity, conceivably in every possible language as well. But the chances of any one person finding a book that, from beginning to end, makes any sense whatsoever, are calculable at zero. Because the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the books will be jumbles of signs that don’t mean anything at all. And I think in some ways, you know, as I said, I’m not the first to say this, but the world of information, of just raw data that’s out there and and available and that we comb through on a, on a daily basis is in some ways like that library. It’s just jumbles upon jumbles of I don’t even want to call it information. That’s why we distinguish right between information which which has applicability and utility, and data which is this sort of empty mess. But we’re surrounded by prophets, by interpreters who take it upon themselves to point the way to us or point out what, in this jumble, it should be paid attention to what is meaningful. And of course, those prophets, more often than not now, are in fact algorithms that are programmed to be the prophets that guide us towards certain sets of data and identifies this as information and hence useful to us, but under which definition, and as determined by whom, usually by corporations who are intending to get profit out of our following that way.

And I think that’s exactly right, that we are being guided at all times. And the reigning ideology behind this is that we’re touching ground on something real when the vast, vast majority of the time we’re not touching reality at all. What we’re touching is someone’s take on reality, someone’s interpretation of reality. I think that goes back to this cautionary tale that I’m describing the book as. This is also a cautionary tale about that. It’s about our relationship to and our belief in our faith in all of the different stories that are coming our way across these screens on a minute by minute, second by second basis.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:01  The parable ties in perfectly. I love that you’ve given two sort of parable stories so far. Let’s go a little bit deeper here into what all three of them sort of intuited. And Heisenberg more or less sort of proved on a level right, is that there is a limit to our knowledge, limit to human perception. So talk to me a little bit about the limits to our knowledge. And how is quantum physics showing us that there are limits to that?

William Egginton 00:13:31  Absolutely.

William Egginton 00:13:32  So Heisenberg did a lot of great science in his life, but he was respectively 24, going on 25 and 27 when he made his two greatest discoveries. And those discoveries are intimately linked.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:44  That blows me away, by the way, that a 25 year old did that. It just doesn’t make sense.

William Egginton 00:13:49  No, I mean, it’s extraordinary. And as I make, you know, pains to point out in the in the book, he’s was not just a wunderkind in math and science, which he absolutely was, but he was well read, could have been a concert pianist, incredible abilities in music and in language. His father was a professor of Greek so he could read philosophical classics in the original Greek. Well, so he’s, you know, and and Einstein, which is who is another great character in the book. You know, these were what we would call as well, great humanists. Yeah. Right. And, you know, they play interesting, I think, roles in this book and in history as being at odds around this fundamental philosophical question.

William Egginton 00:14:24  And obviously I come down hard on the side of Heisenberg, but there’s no lack of just admiration and respect on my part for everything that Einstein did.

Eric Zimmer 00:14:32  And you make the point with Einstein that although he may have been perhaps on the wrong side of the debate, his insight into the questions to ask moved the whole field forward. He was still a genius in the way he thought through these questions and the challenges that he posed.

William Egginton 00:14:51  That’s exactly right. No one could formulate a thought experiment with more clarity than Einstein, and he would do so to poke holes in what was emerging as the consensus around the you know, what ultimately, then, is proven over the century of science since then to be the case, which is the weirdness of the quantum world. But his attempts to poke holes in it, use of these thought experiments, in fact, as you just said, very correctly, drove the whole enterprise forward in a way that perhaps it never could have gotten without his constant provocations. So he played an enormous role in this.

He was born at the beginning of the century. Heisenberg was and so, respectively, in 1925 and 1927. The papers that he published, what they respectively did, was, on the one hand, show that every attempt to extract knowledge from the world involved an active intrusion on the world, on the part of the knower, in a way that registered itself in the events that that were being measured, and that this could be mathematically shown. And in fact, what he had to come up with was, for him, a new kind of mathematics. It turned out that the mathematics actually existed, we call linear algebra. But he created matrix mechanics. And one of the mathematical curiosities is, unlike in the normal algebra or normal arithmetic, that we learn of addition, for example, and multiplication, which have a property that’s known in math, is computing. These are commutative operations. What that means is that whatever you do in one direction, you can reverse and do it in the other direction. In matrix mechanics, multiplication does not commute.

William Egginton 00:16:28  It means that A times b does not equal. B times A, which is mathematically weird. But to very quickly translate this into the philosophical point that’s at hand. What it also means is that if your first operation A and your second one B, has to do with a measurement of either, for example, position or momentum of a particle, what you choose to begin with actually affects the outcome that you’re going to have. And this is extremely important because it means that the choice of the observer affects the outcome of. This could be as simple a choice as which operation am I going to measure? First is going to have an indelible outcome, an irreversible outcome or effect on the outcome of the observation. So this is weird enough to begin with the 1927 paper, which then ended up introducing into physics this term. Right. So where quite so on blurriness, Indeterminacy and ultimately uncertainty, which is how it’s translated in the common parlance, becomes the uncertainty principle. And there he actually comes up with a number basically.

William Egginton 00:17:37  And that number is essentially the distance that we can drill down into reality, the closeness that we can get to measuring something before we lose all control on it. It’s an equation that actually Paul Dirac derived from all of this complex mechanics, but I like to put it up on a board when I’m giving talks about it and call it Heisenberg’s poem. And he does one of the 1925 theory. But the Heisenberg’s poem, The Uncertainty Principle, is written out in an equation, and I like to think about it as a kind of pivot. What it does is it takes two values, which is the difference in your measurement of momentum and the difference in your measurement of position. And it says if you reduce the differences down to zero, which would be in essence, knowing exactly where something is or knowing exactly how fast something is is going and you multiply them together, you’re not going to get zero. And that’s a very strange thing in mathematics again, because as we know from high school math or from junior high school math, anything multiplied by zero should be zero.

William Egginton 00:18:36  But you can. In fact, in this new mathematics that’s required by the universe, as discovered by Heisenberg, you can reduce the difference in positions, in theory, of where a particle is to zero and what you’re going to have on the other side of the equation when you multiply it by the difference in measurements of momentum, is a number that, as long as there’s a positive value on one side or the other, is always very, very small, which is why we don’t see it in normal measurements. But if you reduce your difference to zero on the part of the position, which means, you know, with exactitude, hyper exactitude, absolute reality where something is, you now know absolutely nothing about its momentum and vice versa. If you know exactly with absolute precision how fast something is going, you have no idea where it is. It could be literally anywhere in the universe. And what this means is that the vast majority of the time we know roughly where things are and how fast they’re going.

William Egginton 00:19:32  But it is actually physically impossible to know exactly how fast they’re going, and also know where they are, or know exactly where they are and how fast they’re going. And again, it’s something that we don’t usually run into because we live in this macroscopic world in which we don’t need to know reality exactly. But this gets back to the parable from Borges. What Heisenberg showed, as you pointed out, with scientific exactitude of its own, is where the limit is, how close we can get to reality no matter how precise our instruments are. We’re ultimately not going to get a picture that gets those deltas, those changes down to zero, because then we’ll ultimately know nothing. Or to go back to the parable of the map. The map that’s absolutely perfect will ultimately not be a map at all. It won’t show us anything.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:20  So if we at a fundamental level can’t understand, we can only get so accurate in our view of what reality actually is. Right. This is what Heisenberg is showing, right? Borges is telling us that through some parables, and then Kant is sort of bringing this together from a philosophical position and ultimately where I want to tie this back to the sort of work that we do here at the one you feed is this idea that, you know, you’re talking about the cautionary tale of when we assume we know what reality is and what that does to our science, right.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:02  In our day to day life. Though, I think the same principle applies, which is when we think we are seeing reality as it is, we are in trouble. Very often I think we’re likely to wander into some trouble, right? If I go home and I assume that I know exactly why my partner did a certain thing. Yes. Yes. I’m in danger of really messing things up. And so talk to me a little bit about this idea that we’re always seeing everything through some perspective.

William Egginton 00:21:36  That’s exactly right. That perspective or that filter that we carry around with us necessarily carries biases with it. We’re going to try to do our best to diminish those biases. But the absolute certain way of not diminishing biases, but rather buying into them completely, is to think that you don’t have any to assume that your your knowledge. Take the example that you are giving what another person is thinking or feeling your interpretation in a moment of conflict with them. Nails it. You got it right. There’s no more room for questioning.

William Egginton 00:22:06  I know exactly what this person’s intention was, or something like that. Yeah, right. And so Kant’s view of the world was we’re always going to be tempted to think of the world this way and that we need to have. In fact, this is why he called his philosophy on the great three volumes that formed the core of it, the Critical Philosophy. And they consist of three critique of Pure Reason, of practical reason, and of the Power of judgment. These critiques are all about trying to find, you know, 100 years ahead of the fact or a little bit more of 100 years ahead of the fact that version in moral philosophy, in scientific philosophy or philosophy, the real and aesthetics, that version of what Heisenberg will ultimately run into as this kind of limit of what human reason can do, the limit of our ability to know the world and concepts in a similar way to Borges is realizing, through kind of pure thought, thinking his way through these problems as opposed to wrestling with, you know, turning into equations, the result of observations of nature.

William Egginton 00:23:04  He’s going to realize that, yes, those limits are there, but also those limits are fundamentally necessary to being the kind of creature that we are. So the kind of creature that we are is a creature that is Dialogic that is in relationship with other creatures that’s trying to know the world, albeit imperfectly, and trying to make the best decisions possible in the world. And one of the surefire ways of mistaking the world, of getting it wrong, of falling into error, or even more dangerous than error for fanaticism, fundamentalism is precisely to make that category mistake where we think that our knowledge isn’t a picture, isn’t through a filter, isn’t through a mirror, darkly, but rather is the world itself. We’re always tempted by that, and at the same time most likely to be led astray. When we fall to temptation.

Eric Zimmer 00:24:20  What we know about cognitive biases is that just knowing about them doesn’t necessarily make them go away. And I hear that argument and I believe it. And yet I’m convinced it’s still better to know about them than not.

Eric Zimmer 00:24:35  I teach about perspective a lot, and one of the things I teach is you can’t not have a perspective. Don’t expect that you’re going to come from a completely unbiased perspective is not possible. So if we just start there, which is just then we can open ourselves up to maybe I don’t know the answer, you know. And a question that I love is, you know, kind of what am I making this mean? And what else could it mean? Like that question. And I think you can take that out of what’s happening with my partner. Or you could take that down to the core scientific level. Right. Like, even when you get to quantum mechanics, there are people who are interpreting what all this means, and I think that the math ends up being sort of undisputed. But the question of what it means has been disputed for a long time.

William Egginton 00:25:26  That’s so important to point out. Stephen Hawking very famously said at one point, we don’t really need philosophy anymore because we have, you know, fundamental physics and the answer to the world are all in physics. And as my friend and one of my influences, in terms of my understanding of the physical world, the great Italian cosmologist and physicist Carlo Rovelli once wrote about that is the problem with that point is that Hawking wasn’t making a scientific point. He was making a philosophical point. Right. So he’s entered into the world of interpretation already? Yeah. Philosophy is the world of interpretation. Literature is the world of interpretation. And yes, scientists interpret the world. Einstein was entering into the world of interpretation when he was Dialoguing and debating with Heisenberg and those of the school of interpretation of quantum mechanics about what their discoveries meant. How best to understand their discoveries. There’s something along the lines of seven sort of dominant interpretations of quantum mechanics that are out there today. You know, there’s no final decision, right? These are all pictures of the world that try to make sense of what is ultimately a very difficult picture of the world to make sense of. And one of the sort of points that I’m trying to make in this book is you can be a scientist, you can be a physicist and have these interpretations, or you can be a non-scientist who’s done his best to understand the mathematics and the physics behind it, and learn from my fellow intellectuals and physicists about how to understand it and then use, for example, philosophical perspectives or even literature and stories to come up with and to reason your way to one or another, interpretation. We shouldn’t be surprised that this is the case, considering that the greatest physicists, in particular Einstein, use stories to come to the truths that they discovered about the physical world in the first place, right? So I’m famously told himself stories in order to understand, to have the breakthrough that led to relativity, especially 1905 paper special relativity and then general relativity in 1915. His happiest thought was what became known as the equivalence between gravity and acceleration occurred to him when he thought about a story which he put into his mind an image of a person in an elevator like box or chest, being accelerated at a constant rate through space outside of a gravitational field, and realized that for their perception, there would be no distinction between that and being in a gravitational field. And he did some very similar work to lead to his breakthroughs with special relativity. So we shouldn’t be surprised that stories can help us interpret the mathematical explanations of the physical world that are at the basis of physics.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:24  Yeah. As I was reading, I couldn’t help but think about how all this ties to areas that I’ve probably done the most study, which is Zen Buddhism, and then also Daoism.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:36  And Zen Buddhism is basically what happened when Daoism met Buddhism, right? That Zen emerged out of that. And these same insights are all the way back in those traditions. And largely the way those conclusions were reached was by people trying to very much this is me paraphrasing, but slow down the processes of the mind enough through meditation to apprehend things in a slightly different way, and I would say. Daoism in particular, which then went on to influence Zen. Has this idea at the core of it that our field of experience is always construed from one perspective or another? As I’ve heard someone say about Daoism before, and I just love this line, there is no view from nowhere. Right? Right. And I just love the fact that we can sort of tie those things in as well. And I think that in Zen there’s also an idea of emptiness, right. And emptiness as we hear it in the West, we think it means nothingness, but it more means that everything exists in relation to something else, to everything else.

Eric Zimmer 00:29:51  And this is what you mentioned when you just mentioned Carlo Rovelli, who I believe his interpretation of quantum physics is called relational. And so let’s talk about this idea that everything only exists in relation to something else.

William Egginton 00:30:07  That’s right. And this idea. We can tie that back to the one that you just mentioned, that there is no such thing as a view from nowhere. I mean, one of the whole sections in the book, The Rigor of Angels, is divided into four sections, and each of those sections is based on one of the four fundamental ways that we can get things wrong by overstepping the bounds of reason, according to Kant. I give them different names. These are called antonyms in his work, but one of those, the way my interpretation of it for the sake of this book is called The Question or the Imperative Not Being God. So one way of thinking about this is that we have an idea that there is a way the world is in and of itself, and it exists kind of as if it were an object that could be seen by an all knowing, all seeing being.

William Egginton 00:30:52  But that implies an outside to everything, and there is no such thing as an outside to everything. The universe is everything, so there is no outside to it. Which means that any of us, at any time can only ever be positioned within the universe. And that also means in relationship to other beings in the universe. So the idea that somehow there is a self that is meaningful, that is consistent, that is self-contained, and then enters into relationships to other cells and then develops out of that. If you think about that very carefully, that implies that if you took all of those other things away and imagined just nothing, you could still have that self, that entity. But the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics that I fully buy into, and that is Rovelli actually denies that. It says if you accept the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, everything results from what is at core a relation. So a measurement is a relation, an observation is a relation. It always involves coming together of things, but the things that are coming together don’t precede in any logical or chronological sense the coming together, because that would imply that there is such a thing as a view from nowhere.

William Egginton 00:32:08  A view from outside. But since there isn’t, since all there is is this network of relations. That is why at core there are relations rather than things. And this in fact, despite Einstein’s resistance to accepting it, this is highly compatible with his theory of relativity, which says the same about velocity and time and simultaneity, that there is no such thing as God’s clock that’s ticking away in the background of Newton. That tells us that no matter when you see it, or how long the information took to get to you and someone else, that there was a time when this event took place. No, relativity says there’s only time, as measured by you, in a particular inertial framework in relation to whatever was happening. And the same thing with gravity and with, as I say, the biggest question of where the universe is. The great poet Dante’s words, it has no other where than here and his. Here was the eternal mind, the mind of God. But the here there is that the universe holds itself.

William Egginton 00:33:11  It contains itself. There is no outside from which to look at the universe, as if it were some object, and say, and measure it, and weigh it against something else. You are only ever in. It is an outside that you are only ever in itself. There is no outside to it. And this is exactly what general relativity allows, in fact demands, which is that there’s no framework from which to measure everything in the universe and say, and everything else exists or is measurable with regard to this. There’s no standard, perfect framework that’s itself immobile. Every measurement everywhere, including of acceleration, including of gravity, always is in relationship to other things. So again, it’s the same thing as with that one particle. If you took away everything else in the universe, we can’t even say that the particle exists. The same thing with this wonderful thought experiment, which is Newton’s bucket, where Newton imagined a bucket of water spinning. And if we spin a bucket, we know that the water is going to glide up the sides because of the centrifugal force.

William Egginton 00:34:09  And then Newton asked this really excellent question, which was, well, what happens if that bucket is just spinning in the middle of nothing? How does the bucket know that it’s spinning? And his answer was because it spins in relationship to absolute space. And so yes, it will feel it. And Einstein’s answer was exact opposite, which was Einstein said no, it spins in relationship to everything else in the universe. So if there is no everything else in the universe, it’s not going to feel it, it’s not going to know it. And there is no such thing as spinning if there’s no other object to spin against.

Eric Zimmer 00:34:40  Right. And I think that we can take this really small and then kind of back up to the everyday level on the really small level, you sort of just addressed it. But when you get down to a small enough, you know. Level. The quantum level. One of the implications of quantum mechanics is, as you said, until you measure the thing, in a sense, it’s not quite there, which makes no sense.

Eric Zimmer 00:35:08  But yet again seems to be the truth. And that measurement, as you said, is a relation. You know, we talk a lot in the quantum world about an observer, and again, an observer observing something creates a relationship between those things. And then we can sort of jump all the way, kind of back up to the day to day level with this and realize that we often think that we or let’s just go back to a discussion with me and my partner, I think that I bring who I am to those discussions, and I think she brings who she is to those discussions. But the reality is we are a certain way in relation to each other. I relate to you differently than I relate to her. It’s not saying I’m fake, that I have like multiple faces. It’s just a simple fact that the relationship between you and me is a different thing than my relationship between me and her. But we often don’t take that into account. We think that what we see from someone is who they are, without realizing that who they are in that moment is partially because of who we are.

William Egginton 00:36:18  Yeah, you said it very beautifully, and I think that it is very legitimate to make this comparison between the quantum level and the relational level at the, at the human level as well, despite the fact that one is is as macroscopic as you can get and the other is as microscopic as you can get. Heisenberg had a very famous sentence in a letter to Wolfgang Pauli as he was working out the uncertainty principle, and he said, basically the result of this is the following the path that a particle, in this case an electron takes doesn’t exist until we measure it. Right? And that’s a revolutionary statement. And that’s precisely the statement that for the rest of his life, Einstein couldn’t accept. Just think about it a little bit. What is a path? What is the path that something takes? It only exists over time, right? And it only exists from some kind of a perspective. So a path without a measurement, it’s an empty category. It’s a nonsensical thing. So anything that has a path, it’s a connection, if you will, of dots through space, time of moments or.

William Egginton 00:37:20  All right. That then retrospectively, necessarily retroactively connects certain dots. Heisenberg figured that out, right? Heisenberg figured out the mathematics of it, but he also figured out in some ways the philosophy of it. And he said, we’re always applying some kind of a theory, a bias of the world in order to decide in advance what kind of a path, what kind of an entity we’re producing after the fact. So your connection to who we are when we’re in a relationship with another person is exactly the same. What is a personality? Personality has potentially some consistency, but it’s only a consistency that, if you will, is constructed among the various relationships that we are in now. They’re very complex. They last over a long period of time. We have many different manifestations that go back from our youngest ages, our earliest memories, our earliest encounters with other human beings, with other places and things, but that infinitely intricate and complicated network over space time that we then ultimately call a personality. The hubris to then think that this is just some sort of a self-contained, pure essence that then expresses itself differently over time.  I think that’s, in a way, part of the problem. We have to recognize that, no, we actually are constantly constructing it and having it constructed for us by all of these infinitely complex web of relations that constitute us over time and in our lives.

Eric Zimmer 00:38:54  So let me ask you a question about that in relation to psychoanalysis, because on one hand, psychoanalysis is like you’re saying, it’s making the point that we are not unitary, right? There’s a lot of stuff going on, and yet it tends to sort of make a story out of something. You’re this way because of this thing, right? You know, Freud famously kicked us off, right, by telling us all these that we now know are kind of crazy theories that, like, we’re this way because we have penis envy, or we’re this way because we have whatever, right? And it’s often seemed to me that at a certain point in my life, I think recognizing and making stories out of how what happened in my childhood turned me into who I am could be useful.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:43  But I also, at a certain point, started really wrestling with this idea that you’re talking about, which is that I am made up of countless causes and conditions. And to say that I’m this way because my father was that way is in many ways, a vast oversimplification. 100% of a lot of variables that we don’t know. And so I’m just curious how you think about that and psychoanalysis, because I kind of go back and forth with my feelings about it as an approach.

William Egginton 00:40:14  100%. There’s no question that the idea that somehow our identities are set in stone at an early age, I think is highly problematic. I think also, it’s very likely that certain relationships early on have a kind of precedence that may set us in a certain way, but the idea that we overcome, that we can’t change, that we, in fact not in fact changing all the time is also ultimately wrong. I think that new relationships can overcome old relationships they can build on, or change or transform the imprint of early relationships at the same time.

William Egginton 00:40:48  Freud, I think, was a visionary. But also Freud had his own limitations. Like any human who invents a theory. And those theories are always subject to revision. I’m more influenced by a post Freudian psychoanalyst, a Frenchman by the name of Jacques Lacan. But then he himself, you know, when I read Lacan’s writings, which are famously difficult and themselves intentionally, I would say subject to, you know, necessary interpretation. You know, my version of it is going to be slightly or in some cases very different from interpretation of others. And there’s no question that my interpretation of this particular kind of psychoanalytic philosophy is itself going to be subject to the very variety of relationships that have created me as the interpreter and reader and and thinker that I am. So, yeah, I do believe there’s primordial relationships and experiences that are going to perhaps be more formative than others, I don’t sure. Absolute leveling of formative experiences and relationships. But I also believe that there’s a good deal of change and fungibility that happens over time.

William Egginton 00:41:47  We talk about plasticity in neuroscience as well, right? That the brain is an extraordinarily plastic and changing and evolving organ as all of our embodied attributes.

Eric Zimmer 00:42:12  Let’s pivot to what I believe is the last of Kant’s antonyms. He talks about free will versus determinism. We just touched on it a little bit here, right in what we were just talking about, which is, you know, to what extent am I the way I am because of things that came before? And to what extent am I making free choices? Talk to me about Kant’s view on this, though, and what view emerges from the work that you did in this book about free will and predetermination?

William Egginton 00:42:43  One of the best ways that I think, and often is challenging a way of thinking about and challenging our notions of what it means to be a free agent. An agent who decides in the world is to ask the question, could you have decided otherwise? That seems to be kind of the bellwether for understanding whether a being is a freebie. We say a rock that falls off a cliff could not have decided otherwise.

William Egginton 00:43:07  It rolls down with the force of gravity. Then perhaps we look at an antelope running from a cheetah and a cheetah following in certain ways and either getting or not getting the antelope. And we say, could the cheetah have decided otherwise? And perhaps we decide, no they didn’t. And in legal jurisdiction, when we say was someone acting, you know, under the influence of, for example, chemical or drug or perhaps a mental illness? Yeah, they couldn’t have decided otherwise. And as a result they were less responsible if they were legally inebriated while they were, you know. Who was the person who decided to take the drug that inebriated them led to the vehicular homicide, for example? Would that makes them then responsible? So we asked this question could you have decided otherwise? And if we say in a big philosophical sense, well, no one could have decided otherwise, because from the beginning of time until the end, we live in a physical universe, and every single one of our atoms is subject to the laws of physics.

William Egginton 00:44:07  Right? And so many of the arguments against free will take precisely that size, that, that, that form which say, well, free will is complete chimera. How could it possibly exist where physical world we’re inserted into the mechanistic chain of being in the universe. So we could not have decided otherwise. The Kantian perspective is to say, well, sure, in some kind of a vast metaphysical sense. That may be true, because Kant did not believe in the idea of a kind of deus ex machina deciding soul who sits behind our eyes. And makes these decisions, says, well, now you go left, now you go right. And how would that solve? As Daniel Dennett famously asked, how would that solve the the problem anyways? Because what’s deciding what that decider decides, right? Right. That’s not the point. Conscious point is how overwrought metaphysical can you get then to assume that there is an answer, or someone who knows who could have decided otherwise, right? Because that person or that perspective would precisely have to be standing outside of the chain of being, would have to be situated at the beginning of time, outside of time and space, and to say, oh well, in this universe, Eggington would have made a different decision or could have made a different decision.

William Egginton 00:45:19  But in this one he didn’t know. Kant’s point is, like all other beings, we are in time and space, and some beings, namely beings endowed with what we call reason, we hold responsible for their decisions. And the great story that you know, that I find as a way of explicating exactly how Kant goes about this comes from hundreds of years earlier than Kahn, and it’s the story of Boethius in his cell awaiting execution, who’s asking the exact same questions. And what Boethius asks is the question that the theologically minded, ever since him and before him Augustine was asking as well, if God knows everything from the beginning of time to the end of time, if God knows ahead of time every single decision that I’m going to make, how can it possibly be that I’m making free decisions? And the answer is the realization that when we imagine God having that kind of a perception that God who’s having that kind of perception isn’t inhabiting time the way that we do, he’s collapsing time. There’s no difference between before and after.

William Egginton 00:46:19  All of eternity is smashed down into one moment. But if all eternity is smashed down into one moment, then everything that I’ve decided has already been decided. But that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t deciding when I was doing the deciding. Right. I’m still in space and time making those decisions. Right? And this is really from a theological perspective, from a very old theological perspective. They already worked out the problem and said there actually is no incompatibility between something like your supposition or your imagination of what a perfectly knowledgeable, infinite being knowing everything that you have done or will have done and free will. And if that’s the case, if not even a perfect your imagination, your ideology of a perfectly omnipotent and omniscient God, if not even that contradicts free will, then certainly AI is not going to contradict free will. Certainly all the electrodes we put in your brain and tell us that our decisions big surprise, take time because we’re beings in space and time that doesn’t contradict free will, right? Predictability doesn’t contradict free will.  It just means that some decisions take time and occur in in bodied, wet brains. That’s all that that tells us.

Eric Zimmer 00:47:35  It’s a fascinating question because it sounds like if I understand what Kant is saying, I’m going to vastly oversimplify this. He’s basically saying, look, that perspective that could know everything and know the way things are going to unfold doesn’t really exist. So this question just doesn’t even make sense.

William Egginton 00:47:55  Exactly. Imposing one way of thinking about the universe on a different way of making talking about the universe. The language of freedom is the language that pertains to our beings as deciding ethical beings in the world, not the language of mechanistic determination. Right, right. It simply doesn’t apply. And it’s a dangerous way of thinking about the world, because then you start saying that you don’t have responsibility for your actions, when in fact you should have responsibility for your decisions.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:21  And we’ve talked about how everything is relational and that we are indeed the result of countless causes and conditions. And so I think about this question a lot, because I sort of would be a little bit more like Kant and say, you know what? Free will, whether we have absolute free will or no free will.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:43  Seems to me you can’t know the answer to either of those things. Really. And so let’s be more practical, right. And so the practical side is, you know, how much choice do we have. And I think about this. I’m a former heroin addict. Right. And I think about the amount of choice that I had once upon a time in picking up drugs and the amount of choice I have now, they feel radically different. And I think we all fall somewhere in this spectrum. And I think this is what gets to be sort of so hard, because on one hand, if you buy that there’s no free will, then, like you said, there should be no consequences for anything because you couldn’t have chosen differently. Right. And yet it seems like in our justice system, we have sort of tried to wrestle with this question by saying, well, if you’re insane, we’re not going to hold you responsible in the same way. Right. How do you think about this in a day to day sense? The degrees of freedom that we actually have.

William Egginton 00:49:41  Degrees of freedom. Eric, are a terrific way of thinking about it, because I think from this continent perspective, you’re absolutely right. What it does is it basically says these absolute extremes are irrelevant to the actual question at hand. The extreme of on the one hand, you are some sort of a disembodied ghost in the machine who has perfect ability to decide everything at all times is a fantasy that has no impact in the real world. And the idea that you’re simply a cog in the machine at any particular moment is a scientific view that assumes a God’s eye view. That, again, has no relevance for what am I going to do right now? Right. What is the right thing to do given the situation that I’m faced with right now? What is very Relevant is the question of how much duress am I under? What are the circumstances that are constraining my actions right now? Something like addiction is going to be one that has a great deal to tell us about the range of freedom, the degrees of freedom, of our actions.

William Egginton 00:50:38  Something like coercion would be one as well. Right. You’re perfectly free when given the choice of your money or your life. But really, it’s a forced choice, right? That right? If you choose your money, you’re not going to get your money. You’re going to lose your life as well. Right. So so under those situations, it’s a so-called false choice. And there’s many such situations in life where we’re presented with something as if it were a choice, when it’s not a choice, because in fact, we’re under duress, under coercion, under the influence of something. So then the question becomes when. And obviously standards change over time. Yeah, you’re absolutely right. Legal jurisprudence wrestles with this, as it should. It’s extremely important the standards change over time. What used to be called the reasonable battered woman standard has become the reasonable battered person standard because it carried a certain bias to it that was highly sexist, misogynist, for example, that only a woman would be battered, but that a man under similar circumstances in an abusive relationship would clearly have the agency and spine to be able to make decisions that would be different.

William Egginton 00:51:43  So the very language that we convey these standards in tells us some of the biases that come along with it. But you said the right thing. There are degrees of freedom. And I think if we take a Sam Harris view about human freedom, that’s simply a negation view that it’s a straw man, that there’s no such thing as free will, and let’s sort of get rid of it. What you’ve done is you’ve thrown out the baby of actual notions, meaningful, pragmatic notions of of responsibility and freedom with the bathwater that you wanted to get rid of, of some sort of metaphysical idea of an ultimately free agent, which I think anyone who’s thinking about these things in a rational, reasonable way. Never really bought to begin with.

Eric Zimmer 00:52:25  Is there anyone in the philosophical world or that you know of that is sort of talking about these degrees of freedom in a useful and coherent way?

William Egginton 00:52:35  Oh, totally. In fact, I quote her in my book. But my colleague here at Johns Hopkins, when I was actually writing the book, she wasn’t yet here, but we hired her, and I’m delighted for that.

William Egginton 00:52:43  Janine Ishmael, who’s a philosopher of science, whose book How Physics Makes Us Free. In her book, she makes a really, really good argument, a bunch of really good arguments that I find, you know, highly simpatico with my own view and I just couldn’t agree more with.

Eric Zimmer 00:52:57  All right. I’m going to ask you to end with something that is an example you give in the book about understanding the relation of space time to each other, which is the first time that I feel like I was able to sort of see in some way this relation of space time, which constantly I read about and I just feel like my mental picture is blank. I’m like, I don’t get this. Give me that example just because I found it so useful. Maybe our listeners will too.

William Egginton 00:53:26  Do you think about Relativity’s limit on how fast we can go in the following way that there’s this ultimate speed limit, and the speed limit is the speed of light, but that if something is in fact moving the speed of light like photons do, photons are the only thing that can well, massless particles like photons can move at the speed of light.

William Egginton 00:53:46  They’re not experiencing time, so time isn’t actually taking place if you’re, in theory, moving at the speed of light. And the way to think about this, and I believe that some version of this I borrowed from from Brian Greene. So giving credit where it’s due, I think he helped me understand this as well, is to think about my image. Was a cart like a golf cart that’s driving down. It has a maximum, obviously much slower velocity than than the speed of light, and it’s trying to get from one end of a football field to the other. And if you think about that one end of the football field to the other as being one of the axes of space time, and the other being sort of the width of the football field, and you have this maximum velocity. You soon realize that if you’re trying to veer off the straight line with a maximum velocity, you’re going to make less progress. You might get more. So if you called the width of the football field speed.

William Egginton 00:54:36  For example, if you wanted to maximize your speed, you can veer off in the direction of the other line, but you’re not going to make any progress in space. So I think about that or the other way around, right. So I think about the photon traveling at the speed of light is like the cart veering completely off in one direction and not making any progress anymore in time, but crossing vast distances of space. Right. And you can choose and do one or the other. And of course, most of us are making some progress through space and progress through time simultaneously. But if we keep on increasing our speed and we can’t, because relativity tells us that we become more and more massive the closer we get to the speed of light. But you can still accelerate massive objects. The more you accelerate them, the slower they’re going to perceive time from their perspective.

Eric Zimmer 00:55:24  I just found that a really helpful way of thinking about it can go either straight ahead or straight to the side. And those are sort of the maximum, you know, the speed of light.

Eric Zimmer 00:55:34  But once you want it to do both, those things start to. I’m using a word velocities.

William Egginton 00:55:40  They start to impact each other. Exactly. And like with quantum mechanics, we don’t really notice it because the vast majority of our time we’re not living at high velocities.

Eric Zimmer 00:55:48  All right. Last question. How do particles become entangled?

William Egginton 00:55:51  Anything that interacts with each other has the possibility of being entangled. Restate that this is more important to get particles to be entangled in the sense that they’re separated way apart from each other, and then you affect one infect the other. After their initial relationship to each other, they have to be kept in pristine isolation from anything else because anything else comes in contact, then that entanglement breaks and.

Eric Zimmer 00:56:16  Okay, perfect. I’ve always wondered quantum entanglement is one of the weirder quantum physics things. Listeners, you can look that up, but I’ve always been curious how they become entangled. All right, Bill, thank you so much. I had a great time reading the book and preparing for this and talking with you, so I appreciate you taking the time.

William Egginton 00:56:34  Thanks, Eric. It was great to talk to you as well.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode Tagged With: Borges stories, cognitive bias, Eric Zimmer, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, how to understand reality, Kant and free will, nature of perception, personal growth through philosophy, philosophy and science, quantum physics explained, relational self, The One You Feed podcast, The Rigor of Angels, uncertainty in life, William Egginton

The Beatles, Lennon and McCartney, and the Truth We All Share with Ian Leslie

April 4, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Ian Leslie discusses the history of the Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and the truth we all share in their story. Ian explores how two young men from Liverpool created something together than neither could have made alone, not just music, but a shared consciousness that changed culture forever. John and Paul’s story isn’t just about music. It’s about how we all navigate loss, love, and connection.

Key Takeaways:

  • [00:01:44] John and Paul’s connection
  • [00:06:12] Lennon and McCartney dynamics.
  • [00:08:17] Paul McCartney’s complex persona.
  • [00:12:16] Vocal parts and shared consciousness.
  • [00:16:10] John and Paul’s musical chemistry.
  • [00:20:26] Intense male friendships in music.
  • [00:22:27] Relationship dynamics between John and Paul.
  • [00:28:11] Communication and miscommunication in relationships.
  • [00:39:23] Lennon and McCartney’s complex relationship.
  • [00:45:37] McCartney’s reaction to Lennon’s death.
  • [00:51:19] McCartney’s emotional process after loss.

Ian Leslie is a writer and author of acclaimed books on human behaviour. Ian’s first career was in advertising, as a creative strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York. He now writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, the Economist, the Guardian and the Financial Times. He co-hosted the podcast series Polarised, on the way we do politics today, and created and and presented the BBC radio comedy series Before They Were Famous. He advises CEOs and CMOs on communication and workplace culture. Ian is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. His new book is John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs.

Connect with Ian Leslie:  Website | Instagram | X | LinkedIn

If you enjoyed this conversation with Ian Leslie, check out these other episodes:

A Journey of Music and Friendship with Colin Gawel & Joe Oestreich

Music as Medicine: How Rhythm and Melody Transform Wellness with Daniel Levitin

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Ian Leslie:
Right from that very young age, when they first start getting into it as teenagers, they pour their feelings into pop songs. And they were very intense young men. They were of a generation where you didn’t talk about your feelings that much. You didn’t go around kind of gushing, right? Let’s put it that way. And you certainly didn’t go to therapy. That wasn’t a thing.

Chirs Forbes: Welcome to The One You Feed. Throughout time, great thinkers have recognized the importance of the thoughts we have. Quotes like, garbage in, garbage out, or you are what you think, ring true. And yet, for many of us, our thoughts don’t strengthen or empower us. We tend toward negativity, self-pity, jealousy, or fear. We see what we don’t have instead of what we do. We think things that hold us back and dampen our spirit. But it’s not just about thinking. Our actions matter. It takes conscious, consistent, and creative effort to make a life worth living. This podcast is about how other people keep themselves moving in the right direction, how they feed their good wolf.

Eric Zimmer: At different points in my life, I’ve been anywhere from just loving the Beatles to being unhealthily obsessed with them. As a recovering heroin addict at 24, I bought into the whole John Lennon is troubled genius with Paul McCartney, sort of his shallow sidekick narrative. But what if those stories we tell ourselves about people are just that, stories? What if the truth is always more complex, more human, and ultimately more beautiful? Today I’m talking with Ian Leslie about his wonderful book, John and Paul, a love story in songs. We’ll explore how two young men from Liverpool created something together that neither could have made alone. Not just music, but a shared consciousness that changed culture forever. John and Paul’s story Ian’t just about music. It’s about how we all navigate loss, love, and connection. So join me as we have a conversation about the Beatles that’s really about all of us. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is The One You Feed. Hi, Ian. Welcome to the show. Hi, Eric. Very nice to be here. I am really excited to have you on. We’re discussing your latest book, which is called John and Paul, a love story and songs, and it’s about John Lennon and Paul McCartney. And I have been at different points in my life, anywhere from just loving the Beatles to unhealthily obsessed with the Beatles. And so this book I really wanted to read and I’ve really, really enjoyed it. It’s one of my favorites that I’ve read in a while. It’s a great subject matter. You’re a great writer. And I’m going to be tasked with making this an interview that appeals to people who don’t even love the Beatles. So we’ll see how we do with that. But before we start, we’ll do the parable like we always do. And in the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with his grandchildren. He says, in life, There are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love. And the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops, thinks about it for a second, and they look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Ian Leslie: Well, in the work that I do, it’s fascinating for a couple of reasons, or it makes me think about a couple of different strands of my work. My last couple of books have been about human behavior and human psychology. So I wrote a book about curiosity and how that works. And the book I wrote after that, my last book, is about conflict and disagreement. And I’m really interested in the dynamics of disagreement and how we have better more productive disagreements and more productive conflicts. So immediately these two wolves which are kind of opposed to each other and which kind of struggle for domination of a person’s soul at any one time rings bells with me. And then the other reason is of course because i’m writing this book i have been writing this book about two very strong personalities who are very very close but also often in conflict with each other it also makes me think about how sometimes we externalize our internal struggles so that conflict that we have within us between our drive to be kind and empathetic and our drive for jealousy and fear to pull people towards us and to push them away. You could see it playing out in the drama of these two guys. But I think you often see it dramatized in groups and externalized within people. And I think that’s a really interesting dynamic.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, the other thing I was thinking about as I thought about this question and about the book is in many ways the parable is exactly that. It’s a story that loosely maps on to reality and I would use the term loosely there. And I was thinking about how people like to divide things into this and that. And one of the points you make throughout the book is we’ve done that with Lennon and McCartney. We’ve made those guys very binary in a public consciousness kind of way. You know, John Lennon was the brilliant tortured artist and Paul McCartney was the cute commercial success who was very light. And while through one lens some of those things are true, the book does a really good job of pointing out that they are both. far more multifaceted than that easy character of each other. And it really struck me because I’m someone who had bought into that narrative at one point in my life about the Beatles.

Ian Leslie: Yes, you’re absolutely right. That was a sort of central concern of my book was to, if you like, get over this culture war that we’ve invented around John Lennon and Paul McCartney where you’re meant to be for one or for the other. One of them is either the great genius of the band and the other one is is a lesser being of some kind. As you say, more often than not, it’s been presented as John Lennon being the great creative genius and Paul being his accomplished but shallow sidekick. That’s clearly completely wrong. Well, I think so anyway. But I didn’t want to write a book which overturned that and just switched the binary around. And just said, look, you know, Paul McCartney was a real genius. John was just this angry, difficult guy who happened to be on Paul’s coattails. Of course, neither of the binary interpretations are true. And the most wonderful and most complex and interesting and fascinating and beautiful thing about this relationship was that they both supported and effectively created each other. Through their intimacy, through their friendship, you know, John is as much a product of Paul as Paul is as much a product of John. So actually trying to break it down into John versus Paul, it just doesn’t make any sense.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, you won’t know this about me, but listeners do. I was a heroin addict at 24, so I was very much drawn into John Lennon and that whole narrative and McCartney was sort of the, you know, shallow. So I had bought all that hook, line, and sinker at one point in my life. I’ve reversed a lot since then and your book really helped me also. I knew John Lennon really well, but I did not know Paul McCartney as well. And I think you do a great job of giving him more depth than at least the public narrative usually has.

Ian Leslie: The truth about people who are as talented and complicated as these two is always much more interesting than the myth. So the myth of Paul McCartney, that he’s just this, at best he’s this kind of like slightly idiot savant kind of figure, just like has these amazing melodic talents, but is otherwise rather kind of shallow and dull and twee and sentimental and all these other things that get attributed to him. The truth is much more interesting. He is both tougher, maybe a little meaner at times than that suggests, but he’s also more thoughtful, more generous, more loving. And he’s also just this kind of relentless torrent of creativity. Lennon, we know that he’s difficult and he’s often tortured and self-torturing. We know that he could be very mean and sort of amusingly sardonic and witty. Perhaps we are less familiar with how uncertain he was, how vulnerable he was, and how sentimental he could be at times, and how warm and loving and empathetic he could be. So I really kind of enjoyed painting these much more fine-drawn portraits of these guys in the book.

Eric Zimmer: And I think that the next thing that happens in the book, at least for me, that I really enjoyed was let’s first move away from seeing them or anyone as sort of these characters of a person. right? That’s, I think, good. We can apply that in lots of areas of our lives. The second was how clearly these two influenced each other. And as you said, they were the product of each other. And you even say at a certain point, they almost share the same consciousness. The two of them come together into this thing. And I think, again, sort of applying that to us in general, it shows how in all of our relationships, the thing that is created between us is different than each of the people individually. And that we’re actually different people to different people, meaning John and Paul were a certain way with John and Paul and a certain thing got created there. But John and Ringo might have created a different thing.

Ian Leslie: That’s absolutely right. And I think the extraordinary thing about the John, well, one of the many extraordinary things about John and Paul’s relationship is that, let me put the literal truth about them, which is that their voices blended beautifully. It’s an extraordinary fact that you get these two melodic geniuses living about a mile and a half from each other. Both turn out to be great songwriters, right, once they start working together. That’s one thing. But the fact that they also happen to be two of the greatest singers of all time, I mean, people kind of underrate that. That needn’t have happened, right? One or neither of them could have been a mediocre singer or a terrible singer. No, they’re both great songwriters, great musicians, and they’re great singers. And Their voices blend in a perfect manner. So they sound really good together. They sound just similar enough to blend and just different enough so that the blend is much richer than they’re just sort of singing double tracking themselves. And so you end up with just these incredible metaphors. I don’t know even if they’re metaphors, because it’s just really part of the same thing, which is when they’re singing harmonies, just the two of them, you get this third voice, which is the two of them together, which Ian’t something that exists with just one and couldn’t be. And this third voice, which is even bigger and more beautiful than either of them alone, is part of the reason that they take over the world, because they sound so good together. And of course, that was true of them as a whole, that the sum was much, much greater than the parts. This is true of all four, but just because those two were so close and because their talents were so immense, they’re kind of at the center of the group. That’s why I wanted to write about them.

Eric Zimmer: Right. And regards to that vocal, you tell a story how early on their producer George Martin had them switch vocal parts. I don’t remember who it was, but they found out that John sang better lower in the range, Paul sang higher in the range. And so they switched vocal parts. And you say the effect was two men who share the same eye, the same consciousness. It became an expression of the group’s camaraderie that also evoked how two people can slip in and out of each other’s subjectivity, the way we internalize the voices of those we know and love. I just love that.

Ian Leslie: I think it was a very unusual thing for the group, for anyone to do, really. The Beatles were very unusual to begin with because there were almost no other groups like them at the time for several different reasons, but one of them was that almost all groups had a leader. There weren’t many groups full stop, but when you did have groups, they tended to be Johnny and the Beatles. There would be Cliff Richard and the Shadows. There would be X and the Ys. So there was always a lead. People always thought there needed to be a focal point because you have pop stars like Elvis. If you’re going to have a group, it’s got to be the singer plus the guys around them. you And the Beatles, right from the beginning, always refused that model. John and Paul were always equals. Neither of them wanted to step out and say, no, actually, it’s me, because they saw themselves as a pair. And when they were first recording songs, they start to sing these love songs. And usually, in a love song, you sing, I love you, I’m this, love me do, right? You’re singing in the first person. I am this, you are there, I love you. And to have a song like Love Me Do, and then they do it with others as well, where two different singers are singing the song, not harmonizing, but they will take different lines in the song. George Marshall was the first to make them do this in Love Me Do, and then they kind of develop it from there. So you take different lines in the same song, and you’re both singing I. So that means you’re the same person inside the song. Do you see what I mean? So inside the song, the consciousness of these two individuals merge, and they’re different expressions of the same consciousness. I think that’s a really beautiful thing. Once they discover this trick, almost by accident, the reason they do it, just to quickly say, is that in Love Me Do, Just as they come to the end of the chorus, please love me do, there’s a mouth organ solo, right? And John had been singing the song. And when he says love me do, he’s got a straight into the mouth organ solo. And it just sounded really too abrupt. I mean, it didn’t work. So George Martin said to them when he first heard them play it, wouldn’t it make sense if Paul comes in and says love me do at that point? And they go, yeah, OK. And I think the reason they hadn’t done that until that point, because it makes sense, is that they maybe thought it was a bit odd to have one person singing Love Me Do earlier on in the song and then another person come in. And from that point on they realised that actually this is a really interesting trick. They could kind of swap the I, in inverted commas, between them in a song and actually it sounds even cooler and there’s something amazing about it. And you hear it in, say, A Hard Day’s Night, right? So John sings that hard-driving verse. So the verse is like, you know, it’s been a hard day’s night and I’ve been working like a dog. And then Paul comes in on that middle A and says, when I’m home. So it’s the same guy in the song. It’s the same narrator. But you’re hearing that same narrative consciousness expressed by these two similar but different voices. And that is kind of a thrilling effect for anybody that’s listening to it. Obviously, nobody’s going to express it like the way I did it, just intuitively. But you hear how special and strange that is, I think, when you hear A Hard Day’s Night. I really think it only works because John and Paul are so close in every way. And that’s what gives it its power.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, it is sort of thrilling. One of the best parts of the book, it’s in the title, you’re exploring John and Paul through songs. And so, you know, every chapter is a song. And I have to say, I think I said this to you in the email I sent you partway through the book where I was like, oh, I’m I’m loving this is listening to their music is joyful enough for me. But then reading some of the ways that you describe it as I’m listening to it was just overwhelming emotionally for me. There’s something about the way you’re describing certain parts of their songs. You talk about how in She Loves You, how it goes from the relative minor and then through two majors. And of course, everybody’s like, yeah, OK, if you don’t know what music that is. But you talk about how it’s sort of dizzying and disorienting, like tumbling down a hill without being sure when you’ve hit the bottom. I really enjoyed that part of the book a lot and unfortunately this is just me and you talking. We’re not really hearing their music but adding that into it makes all the difference in the world.

Ian Leslie: That’s great to hear and I want to say a couple of things about that. One is why I wrote it like that and the other is how I went about it. So, as you know, but in case you’re listening, I’d like a quick summary of how the book works. I basically tell the story of their friendship, chronologically, from when they meet as teenagers in 1957, through the Beatles, and then beyond, right? So we take it right until 1980, when John is killed. And so I wanted to kind of make it accessible both to Beatles fans who know this story well, but are looking for a fresh version of the story. There’s millions of people out there who know a little bit about the Beatles, but don’t know much, and are maybe kind of intrigued. And I wanted to write the book for them as well. So we’ve got these kind of two audiences in mind. I tell the story in a way that feels fresh for people who know the story well, but is also accessible to everyone else. And why do I do it through songs? So each chapter in the narrative is a song that’s meaningful to both of them. And I did it that way because these two guys lived their life, especially their emotional life, in music, in songs. Right from that very young age, when they first start getting into it as teenagers, they pour their feelings into pop songs. And they were very intense, emotionally intense young men. They were of a generation where you didn’t talk about your feelings that much. It wasn’t the done thing. They were English from the north of England. It was a bit, you know, you didn’t go around kind of gushing, right? Let’s put it that way. And you certainly didn’t go to therapy. That wasn’t a thing, right? So where do they put all these incredibly intense feelings, including their feelings for each other? They pour them into the lyrics of pop songs. Of course, pop songs are full of love and loss and yearning and desire and anger sometimes, right? They’re very emotional little vessels. Somebody described them to me as an emotional panic room. You can put all your emotions into that three-minute container and they kind of stay up there. These guys learned to do this intuitively and almost compulsively from when they were teenagers. So it struck me when I was thinking about telling the story of the relationship. You cannot tell this story except through the songs because the songs say so much about what’s going on in their heads and in their hearts. Equally, you can’t understand the music without understanding the relationship between these two guys and you can’t understand the relationship without the music. Then how did I do it? It’s interesting you mentioned the major and the minor. So there is some musical analysis of the songs, but again, I’m really writing it in a way where you don’t need to know any of that in order to understand what I’m saying about the song. So I do want to make people understand or help people understand why these songs are special, why they work so powerfully on you, and to highlight the creativity and the innovation of these guys and to show you amazing things they were doing really from very early on. So I’m glad you brought that up because weaving together the narrative and music was really the central challenge of the book.

Eric Zimmer: So the book is also very much oriented, as you said, around this incredible friendship between these two guys. And friendship is something that we’ve had, you know, whole episodes on this show dedicated to friendship. This show started because my best friend Chris and I started it as something together. And so like male friendship has been really, really important to me. over the years and it’s something I think a lot about. And you’re exploring how, you know, to talk about John and Paul as just a friendship is in some ways perhaps to misunderstand it or our term that we generally glom on to friendship is insufficient to talk about how intense and how big such a thing can be, particularly we don’t talk about it in regards to men in the same way.

Ian Leslie: I think that’s absolutely right. I think we find these relationships, and they’re quite unusual, these kinds of relationships, very intense. passionate, almost romantic relationships between two men that aren’t homosexual affairs, right? So, I mean, some people speculate, did Lennon and McCartney have a sexual? I don’t think so. And I certainly don’t argue that in the book. And I think people ask the question almost because they’re confused about what this is, because this relationship And there’s a few other examples. We can talk about one or two. Doesn’t fit any of the normal boxes, right? They weren’t just normal friends, you know, two blokes, you know, having a beer down the pub. I’m sorry, guys. Paul sometimes talks about it like that. No, Paul, it was not like that. Come on, it’s a lot more intense. And they weren’t brothers. They say, oh, they were like brothers. I mean, I don’t know. It’s nothing like the relationship I have with my brother. I don’t think there were many brothers who have this kind of relationship. And neither were they competitors and rivals, because that’s the other place people go to. They’re like, oh, they must have really hated each other and that’s been incredibly competitive with each other. Well, no, not really. Not in that sense. I don’t think they wanted to do each other down, put it that way. So we could talk about the competition between them, but it wasn’t like that. So because it didn’t fit any of those boxes, We’ve misunderstood it, and I think that’s a big part of the reason it’s turned into this silly kind of, oh, John is better than Paul, Paul’s better than John kind of culture war, because it kind of blurs the boundaries between love and romance and friendship and everything else. And of course, it’s also bound up with creativity. You know, they’re creating stuff together. It wasn’t just a thing they did at work, you know. It was absolutely central to every aspect of their relationship. It’s what they found so exciting about each other. It’s what really kind of turned them on about each other, if you like. And it was this very intense and very inherently volatile relationship. And the fact that they ended up falling out towards the end of the Beatles career should not be a surprise because they were very willful, headstrong, emotionally engaged young men. And, you know, when creativity is involved, you know, that adds another level of kind of volatility.

Eric Zimmer: And money and fame and, you know, all those things add levels of volatility. Yeah. You talk about a relationship between the essayist Montaigne. He’s talking about a friendship he had with someone And he says something along the lines of, we found ourselves so taken with each other, so well acquainted, so bound together, that from that moment on nothing could be as close as we were to one another. And when I talk about my friend Chris, that’s how that felt when we met. It was just this… intensity of friendship that was very different than most of what I had experienced. And there’s a line also that Montaigne goes on to say, and I love this, when he was trying to sort of talk about, like, why? What was it about it? And I just think this is beautiful. He says, because it was him, because it was me. And I think that speaks to John and Paul so much too, like why was it the way it was? It’s because it was John and it was Paul and what they were to each other.

Ian Leslie: It is beautiful and it’s beautiful because it acknowledges the essential mystery at the heart of a relationship like that. You know, Montaigne was a great 16th century writer and philosopher. He was good with words, right, and he tried to define what it was because his friend died. He was heartbroken by this. He wrote this essay to try and work out what it was that made their friendship so special and so intimate and so intense and he found that he couldn’t articulate it. He kept trying to write this piece and he couldn’t quite define the essence of the relationship and he had a few goes and he kind of crossed things out and at the end he just settled on that formulation. Why did we love each other? Because it was him, because it was me. And I think it’s something beautiful and sort of humble and accepting about that. So I wanted to kind of weave that into the book because, you know, I said we find these friendships hard to categorize as a society, right? We don’t quite know what to do with them. Now imagine being in that friendship. You sound like you’re part of one of yourself. It’s hard for the people in it to understand as well because society Ian’t helping them. So it’s kind of baffling and confusing. And so that’s what that is about, I think.

Eric Zimmer: I think today’s day and age is very different. Like, I think that that intensity of friendship between men is better understood. I’m not saying it’s well understood. I’m saying it’s better understood today than it was however long ago it was I met my friend 20, 30 years ago. And let alone go back to McCartney and Lennon, right? A generation before that.

Ian Leslie: Yeah, and you see the insecurity about it and the bafflement about it in Lennon in particular. I mean, McCartney was always less insecure generally as a person. Lennon, partly because he had a very difficult upbringing, was full of insecurities. And one of the things he was insecure about was whether or not his feelings for McCartney meant that he was gay. It wasn’t just the McCartney, he was slightly kind of baffled and confused by his sexuality throughout his life. I think the evidence suggests he was predominantly heterosexual, perhaps with some homosexual feelings. Now, I think today it’s much easier to accept that and even to say that it would not be a big deal, particularly for a musician, an artist. But for Lennon, I think he was kind of tortured by it and just didn’t know what to do with it and worried at it.

Eric Zimmer: At one point, you describe as the friendship between them becomes more strained. You make a point about communication in general between people. And the point is more or less and you put a finer point on it after I’m done here. is that we form impressions of other people early in relationships and we build sort of a model of that other person and of our relationship and then time passes and those models don’t get updated in the same way as people are changing. And so we end up with trying to apply an old model of who you are or how our relationship is to a different version of you, let alone a different version of me. And that’s where we end up in a lot of communication trouble. Say more about that.

Ian Leslie: You put it very well. I’m actually drawing on research I looked at for my last book, which was about disagreement and conflict. And as part of that, I looked at how couples argue and how they handle conflicts and why they argue. And when I was writing about John and Paul, of course, a lot of that became very relevant again. because in some ways it did resemble a very kind of torrid marriage. And there was this interesting research at the show that actually couples who’ve been together for a long time, they become more empathetic in the first couple of years. In other words, they can kind of read each other’s minds. better and better and really well. And then they become oddly, counter-intuitively perhaps, sort of less intuitive in the years after that. They start to misread each other. And the underlying theory is the one you just laid out very well, which is As you’re getting to know someone, and you’re getting to know them fast and intimately, you build this incredibly sophisticated model of their mind, of how they think. And you’re able to kind of predict what they’re going to feel and what they’re going to think about something. And that often means that you don’t need to communicate very much, because you just kind of get it. Or you’re talking code, you’re talking your kind of private language. Or they just say a couple of words and actually you know the rest of the sentence, right? Which is a wonderful and incredibly impressive feat of human communication. It’s a marvelous thing. But, over time, people change, right? And they change slowly, perhaps. but each member of the couple has different experiences and has their own thoughts and their minds kind of develop still somewhat in alignment but different directions but you don’t necessarily update the model because you have this sense that oh i know this person really well i don’t need to update the model so you’re still working with this kind of five ten years into the marriage with a model you developed in the first year and it’s really Bad. Or at least it’s developed lots of faults. And a lot of arguments and difficulties and conflicts stem from us misreading each other at that point. Because I’m saying things that you’re misinterpreting and you’re saying things that I’m misinterpreting because our models are outdated. It’s like we need to upgrade the software. We’re still working with some old version of Windows. You can see this happening with John and Paul, both stages at extremes. So in that first stage, they really are extremely close. They really do communicate extremely quickly and intuitively. They just kind of have to look at each other, glance at each other and know what’s going on. So the people around them would talk about this. They’d say John and Paul just finish each other’s sentences. They had this telepathic connection. That’s often how people described it. And then they, particularly in the mid to late 60s, as they grow up, you know, they move into their mid and late 20s, they meet their partners, you know, Linda and Yoko, they’re changing, right? Which is completely natural. But the two of them are still working with this model. And that’s where the real damaging rows and damaging conflict starts to creep in, because they’re just miscommunicating. And by the end, a lot of what they’re saying is just hitting the other person in the wrong way. And it becomes very difficult. And it takes them a long time to get over that.

Eric Zimmer: Before we dive back into the conversation, let me ask you something. What’s one thing that has been holding you back lately? You know that it’s there. You’ve tried to push past it, but somehow it keeps getting in the way. You’re not alone in this, and I’ve identified six major saboteurs of self-control, things like autopilot behavior, self-doubt, emotional escapism. that quietly derail our best intentions. But here’s the good news. You can outsmart them. And I’ve put together a free guide to help you spot these hidden obstacles and give you simple, actionable strategies that you can use to regain control. Download the free guide now at oneufeed.net slash ebook and take the first step towards getting back on track. You know, you talked earlier about how they didn’t know how to talk about emotion. Most people didn’t in that day and age. That it all kind of went into their songs and came through their songs. And we are all the beneficiaries of that.

Ian Leslie: Yeah, in a sense, we’re all the beneficiaries of emotional male repression. Thanks a lot for screwing us up, Second World War and everything else, and the Victorians, because these guys weren’t used to talk about their emotions. They put it into the music. Yeah.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah. But you read some of it now and I couldn’t help but thinking like if these guys could have just articulated a point or two of what they were feeling for each other, things might have gone very differently. Right. But that just wasn’t in either of their skill set. Right. And it didn’t work. But it doesn’t seem like it was, you know, by any stretch, irreconcilable differences. Right. It was an inability to talk about this strange thing they had between them.

Ian Leslie: Beautifully put. I think that’s exactly right. And, you know, particularly towards the end of the group and the kind of rupture in the friendship that accompanied it, they thought each other wanted different things. Paul thought that John was trying to reassert his control over the group and was kind of eager to give that to him. You see in some of the conversations that are recorded right towards the end, Paul is saying, you know, you should absolutely be the leader, you know, you should be driving things forward. Don’t let me kind of get in the way. And John, although he doesn’t say it, it’s pretty clear I think from the way he behaves and the way he acts, is not actually interested in leadership if he ever was very much. He wants Paul to acknowledge him and that he needs him emotionally, I think. And he doesn’t know how to say that. Paul doesn’t know how to give it either. And so you get this kind of fundamental miscommunication, this fundamental clash. I think, as I put it in the book, that Paul thought John wanted power, but what John wanted was love. And so, you know, they go their separate ways, effectively.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, you make another point in the book that I think is very interesting, is that Paul seemed to be, to everyone else, the really put-together one, the driven one. He was clearly the most sort of across the board in all different ways of musical genius. Like, he could play all the instruments better than most anybody could play them. Like, he was at a slightly different level. And that the thing that John never could really understand, and maybe even the other Beatles had a hard time, was how their behavior towards Paul could make Paul feel bad. They almost thought he was impervious to that. And that’s also heartbreaking.

Ian Leslie: Yes, so the worst part of the rupture of the friendship, this is after the group have split up. They start recording solo albums and solo songs and John records this really horrible song about Paul and it’s pretty clearly about, he doesn’t say Paul in the song, but there are strong hints that it’s about Paul and it becomes clear to everyone that it is. It’s called How Do You Sleep and it is a full-on pretty mean assault on his friend or his former friend at that time. And you could interpret it different ways. But one of the questions I had about it as I was thinking about it was, how could John have done that? Why would you want to do that to anyone in public? It’s such a horrible thing to do. Had he stopped liking or loving Paul? And the other thing about it was that George Harrison played on this track and was around there when John was writing it. Ringo was around too. And I just thought, how could any of them do this to their former bandmate and their former friend? What a thing to do. And I think the reason why is that what you just said, which is they thought Paul was invulnerable. So actually, when kids are mean about their parents, it’s because they can’t imagine their parents would ever care. They can’t imagine their parents would be hurt by something like that, because their parents are the authority figures. Parents are always going to be OK. and paul played a similar role in the beatles at least in the last couple of years he was that invulnerable figure who was always gonna be okay sprint everything pick up any musical instrument and make it saying it was the most organized the most thorough the most relentless and methodical the most energetic. He was good at everything. He could play cards really well. He used to beat them all with cards. He could make furniture, things like that. He was just that guy. He was just good at everything. And so for them, I just thought, we could throw anything we want at this guy. It’s going to roll off him anyway. So why not just have some fun? And of course, it’s not true. It was really hurtful to Paul. Very hurtful. And the other things that John said about him in the press and interviews, again, some of them quite mean. Paul was really, really hurt by that. You know, he wasn’t invulnerable at all. Yeah, I think there’s just a lesson there about how sometimes you think those people who are just always going to be fine, you should be careful of them too, because they’re not always fine.

Eric Zimmer: As the book went on, as I was reading it, I had a vision of how it ends. I mean obviously I know Lennon gets assassinated in 1980, obviously we all know that’s kind of the end of a story that’s got John in it. But I had another view of it and it was how hard they fell out and that they really hated each other. And so as I was reading the book I was getting sad as I went. in anticipation of what was coming. And one of the things that I really liked about the book was that it wasn’t exactly as clear that they hated each other. They had had some degree of reproach, maybe not a ton, but there was still warmth and love in that relationship. And they expressed it to each other. And this is going to be melodramatic, right? Because it just is going to sound that way. But it healed something in me. that was so saddened by the fact that, in my mind, the story was Lenin died before they ever got to have any sort of rapprochement. And it sounds like, based on what you’re saying, is there was some of that. It’s not as bad as I thought it was.

Ian Leslie: Oh, absolutely. And you don’t have to apologize for being emotionally engaged in it, because me too, you know, that’s why I wrote the book. Yeah. And so I know exactly how you feel and where you’re coming from. And I too felt that when I kind of found out about what happened in the 70s. So, yeah, they fall out pretty badly in the early 70s, but they never stop being interested in each other, even at the worst times, right? There are relationships that end because one or both of the partners are just tired of the other one, right? They’re just bored, exhausted. Just don’t want to see this person again. Life is going to be a lot simpler when I don’t have to deal with this person anymore. And it often happens in pop groups when they split up. That’s often the reason why. That was never the case with Lennon and McCartney. They were never bored of each other. They were never cold, really, in their hearts towards each other. They were really angry at each other and very confused by the other one. and there were always feelings and they had the foresight to kind of fix the relationship to patch it up to some degree. So they meet kind of quite early on 1972 or something like that and they have dinner with their wives and they basically say let’s just stop being mean about each other in public and let’s try and be friendly again. Now, you can’t restore the closeness and the intimacy and that special chemistry that they had quickly, if you could do it at all. And they spend the rest of the decade friendly, but it’s quite a fragile relationship and they’re sort of walking on eggshells a bit. The nice thing about it is that when they talked on the phone, They really did get on, well it was just the two of them. When they met in person it was always with their families and it was just a little bit different. But there’s a really great anecdote of somebody who worked on one of Lennon’s albums in the mid to late 70s and there’d be a phone call in the studio and it was, oh it’s Paul and John would just stop the session and he’d go and talk for like a couple of hours. It was kind of annoying for the other musicians. But he said, you know, we could hear laughter, we could hear this constant stream of chatter and John was telling stories. You know, when they talked on the phone, they were still getting on really well, right? And they were also writing songs about each other. John wrote some actually very, in contrast to How Do You Sleep, some songs that John wrote were pretty clearly veiled messages of affection towards Paul.

Eric Zimmer: Let’s talk about Yoko Ono because there’s a certainly popular narrative that Yoko broke up the Beatles. I’m not going to ask your opinion on whether that’s true. I just want to read something that you wrote and then let you elaborate. And you said, it’s not that John and Paul split up because they found the loves of their lives so much as they found the loves of their lives in order to split up. explain that?

Ian Leslie: Well, this is really kind of one of the surprises for me, anyway, of looking in more depth and detail at the timeline of what happened with regard to their respective spouses, right? You know, Paul gets together with Linda and that’s it, right, until unfortunately Linda dies of cancer at the end of the 20th century. John gets together with Yoko. They have a bit more of an up-down relationship, you know, and kind of split up for 18 months and so on and get back together. But certainly she is the love of his life, really. And they’re certainly still very much together when John is killed. In typical, like, weirdly symmetrical fashion, they both meet these women at the same time, get married within two weeks of each other. you know early 1969 and it’s always been presented as oh the reason they split up is that John fell in love with Yoko and then to a lesser extent Paul fell in love with Linda and therefore they couldn’t be in the band anymore they couldn’t be with each other anymore so they left each other for these women And actually when you look at it, it’s not quite like that because Yoko had been around and John and Yoko had been friendly for quite a while, since late 1966, you know, a couple of years. And so it wasn’t this kind of great coup de foudre, as they say in France, you know, it wasn’t this great instant love affair where John was like, oh, now I’ve got to be with this woman. It’s more like he got to a point in his relationship with the Beatles and with Paul where he was like, this Ian’t working, this is almost psychologically damaging for me. I think he felt it was just too intense in a way and he needed to kind of escape. And I think he then, to Yoko effectively, said, right, Let’s go. I want to be with you now. And she was around and she was up for it. And they do. And she becomes the love of his life. But it’s almost like he chose her to be the love of his life, rather than just sort of falling for her and then saying, well, I’ve got to go now. Do you see what I mean? And similarly with Linda, Paul, again, it wasn’t a complete break from what was going on. He’d been seeing – I mean, Paul saw a lot of women all the way through the Beatles’ career. He was an extremely promiscuous guy until he suddenly became very monogamous. But there was this period in between where he was seeing Linda, he was also seeing other women, like other girlfriends that he was seeing regularly. Linda was one of them. And when John gets together with Yoko in a big way, then Paul makes his move for Linda and says, right, OK, it’s you and me now. And this is going to be exclusive. You know, he doesn’t use those words, obviously, but that’s basically the gist of it. And so again, he was reacting, he was kind of finding a way to kind of push himself away from John and towards Linda, as John was pushing himself away from Paul and choosing Yoko. Yeah, I just thought that was a really kind of fascinating dynamic. I think they’d got to the stage where they were like, we’ve got to make quite a hard break from each other. At the moment, we’re just sort of too entangled in each other and it’s not sustainable.

Eric Zimmer: So I’d like to wrap us up with the place that you both begin and kind of end the book, which is McCartney and how he reacts after he finds out that Lennon has been shot. And I’ll let you tell that however you would like.

Ian Leslie: Sure, so there’s quite a famous interview that the press do with Paul the day after John’s murder. He comes out of a building, he’s been recording all day and there’s a group of journalists, they stick microphones in his faces and turn the lights on and they say, how do you feel about John being killed? And Paul is very weirdly, matter of fact, doesn’t show any emotion. He’s chewing gum. And he says, yeah, it’s pretty bad, Ian’t it? The phrase that made headlines was, it’s a drag. It’s a drag, Ian’t it? It’s a drag, says McCartney, about death of his best friend. And it was a terrible moment for him, just from a reputation point of view, because everyone said, oh, this is just what we thought about McCartney. He’s this weirdly kind of cold, ambitious individual. And he’s just not responding to his best friend’s death in a human way. I wanted to start the book with that because the question that people were raising was whatever happened to John and Paul? We saw these guys together, they seemed to be so happy together, they did these wonderful things together. Did they hate each other at the end? Because it certainly seems like that if you see Paul’s reaction to John’s death. I leave it there and then I go back to the beginning in 1957 when they meet. When they meet, Paul’s mum is dead. She died just eight months before he met John Lennon and started making music with him. The year after they meet, John’s mother is killed, of course. So this is one of the things that bonds them together is this terrible symmetry of bereavement. They both lose their mothers. They don’t talk about it much. Another thing they don’t talk about much But my God, they know each other, felt it. And it brings them closer together and makes the relationship even more intense. Now, I wanted to come back to that moment when McCartney learns about John’s death at the end. Once we know everything we know about John and Paul, as in the book. So we know by the time the book ends that Paul was not cold and that he never really hated John. He still loved him. And so I wanted to kind of look at it in a new light and say, well, what do we know about it now? How can we understand it differently? And one thing it really kind of chimed with was the reaction that Paul had as a kid to his mother’s death, which he’s told and his brother has told. His aunt and uncle pull him aside and his brother aside, and they say, your mom’s dead. It was a big surprise to them. She’d just gone into hospital, died very quickly, and they didn’t know what happened. So your mother’s dead and Paul says, well, what are we going to do about money? And again, the anecdote is told because it’s so oddly kind of like cold. Now, Paul loved his mother so much, you know, he wrote, let it be about her. You can hear the love in his songs about her. And there’s no question how much they loved each other. So do we really think that when Paul says, you know, what are we gonna do about money, he wasn’t feeling anything inside? No, of course, he was absolutely shocked to his core, and he was trying to deal with that shock, the best way a 14-year-old kid knew how to deal with it, right? So now let’s go back again and look at what happened with Paul when he finds out about John’s death, and he says, it’s a drag, Ian’t it? Do we think that’s because Paul had no feelings about his best friend being shot? No, of course, it’s completely the opposite. He’s terrified. He’s trying to avoid this shattering psychological blow. He’s got microphones stuck in his face by people he doesn’t know shouting at him. He is just trying to shut down emotionally, get out of there, get into his car. And sure enough, Linda says, when I saw him driving up the driveway and I could tell as soon as he got out of the car, he was absolutely broken. And he just falls into Linda’s arms and is sobbing. So I wanted to kind of bracket it that way, just because I think by the end of the book, we have a much deeper and richer understanding of Paul and John, of course, and the relationship. And that was just a way of illustrating that.

Eric Zimmer: Before we wrap up, I want you to think about this. Have you ever ended the day feeling like your choices didn’t quite match the person you wanted to be? Maybe it was autopilot mode or self-doubt that made it harder to stick to your goals. And that’s exactly why I created the 6 Saboteurs of Self-Control. It’s a free guide to help you recognize the hidden patterns that hold you back and give you simple, effective strategies to break through them. If you’re ready to take back control and start making lasting changes, download your copy now at oneufeed.net slash ebook. Let’s make those shifts happen starting today. oneufeed.net slash ebook. I love that as a, just a writing device in general is a good way. And also just to sort of show about how there still was a lot of love there. And you tell some other stories before that about McCartney at different points where you can see, or someone else will tell an anecdote about just how shattered he was by John’s loss and how long it stuck with him.

Ian Leslie: Yeah, I think it haunted him and he was sad about it. I think he just missed his partner and his friend. Yeah. Probably still does. I think he’s come to terms with it very slowly, but it was almost like his second self had just disappeared. Because even when they weren’t together, I think he was in dialogue with him, especially when he was making music and he said this himself. He said even now, I’ll go, well, what do you think about this, John? talking to his spirit. So, yeah, I think it’s been a long process of coming to terms with John not being there.

Eric Zimmer: Well, Ian, thank you so much. I loved the book. I think anybody who loves music will love the book and anybody who loves good writing and a lot of emotional depth in a story is going to love the book. And you and I are going to continue in the post show conversation where we’re going to change directions here. And we’re going to talk about does being left wing make you unhappy? And maybe some of your rules for life, your Occam’s razors. So listeners, if you’d like access to this post show conversation, to add free episodes, to a special episode that I record each week just for you, called Teaching Song and a Poem. You can go to oneufeed.net slash join, become part of our community, and support the show. Again, Ian, thank you so much. It’s been so fun reading your book and getting to talk with you.

Ian Leslie: Eric, thank you so much. This was a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate it.

Eric Zimmer: Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought-provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better, and that’s you. Just hit the share button on your podcast app or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the One You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

Why You Can’t Think Your Way Out of Overthinking with Adam Mastroianni

April 1, 2025 Leave a Comment

Why You Can’t Think Your Way Out of Overthinking
Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Adam Mastroianni explains why you can’t think your way out of overthinking. He unpacks why the thoughts that feel the most important are often the ones that keep us stuck. We also explore what it means to have a “skull full of poison,” how anxiety disguises itself as insight, and why real change isn’t about breakthroughs—it’s about repetition, action, and feeding the right wolf.

Key Takeaways:

  • [00:06:07] Anxiety and its misconceptions
  • [00:08:21] Overcoming obsessive thinking patterns
  • [00:16:25] State of psychology as science
  • [00:25:04] Building blocks of psychology
  • [00:27:06] Emotions as control system signals
  • [00:30:43] Basic vs. constructed emotions
  • [00:40:44] Context matters in psychology
  • [00:44:31] Mental heater and air conditioner.
  • [00:47:01] Happiness set points and variance
  • [00:50:42] Control systems and mental states
  • [00:54:11] Changing set points in life


Adam Mastroianni is an experimental psychologist and the author of the popular science blog Experimental History. He studies how people perceive and misperceive change over time, both in themselves and in the world around them, and his research has been featured everywhere from Nature to The New York Times to The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. He’s also the director of Science House, the world’s tiniest alternative research institution. He holds a PhD from Harvard, an MPhil from Oxford, a BA from Princeton, and a certificate of completion from over 160 escape rooms. He’s originally from Monroeville, Ohio (pop. 1,400).

Connect with Adam Mastroianni:  Website | X | Substack

If you enjoyed this conversation with Adam Mastroianni, check out these other episodes:

The Purpose of Emotions and Why We’re Not Wired for Happiness with Anders Hansen

How to Find Peace and Balance in Managing Anxiety with Sarah Wilson

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

# Swell AI Transcript: 2025-04-01 (T) Adam Mastriani FINAL.mp3

Adam Mastroianni:

I wasn’t worried about things I shouldn’t be worried about. I was thinking very hard about important things. And then I realized like, oh, maybe that’s why anxiety is anxiety. Like if you felt like you were worrying about something that you shouldn’t worry about, it would be much easier to stop doing it when instead it feels like you are spending your time wisely considering all the things that might be wrong or go wrong. That’s why it’s difficult to escape.

Chris Forbes:

Welcome to The One You Feed. Throughout time, great thinkers have recognized the importance of the thoughts we have. Quotes like, garbage in, garbage out, or you are what you think, ring true. And yet, for many of us, our thoughts don’t strengthen or empower us. We tend toward negativity, self-pity, jealousy, or fear. We see what we don’t have instead of what we do. We think things that hold us back and dampen our spirit. But it’s not just about thinking. Our actions matter. It takes conscious, consistent, and creative effort to make a life worth living. This podcast is about how other people keep themselves moving in the right direction, how they feed their good wolf.

Eric Zimmer:

Do you ever feel like your brain is running some kind of cruel experiment on you? Today’s guest, psychologist Adam Mastriani, calls it having a skull full of poison. And let’s be honest, we’ve all been there. The thoughts that won’t quit, the anxiety that doesn’t seem like anxiety because this time it’s really important. The endless loop of trying to think your way out of a problem caused by thinking too much in the first place? In this episode, we talk about why our minds trick us, how mental health is like a broken control system, and why real change isn’t about epiphanies, it’s about action. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is The One You Feed. Hi, Adam, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks for having me. I’m really excited to have you on. Your newsletter or your sub stack is called Experimental History. And it’s one of my favorite ones out there. And it’s really a lot about science and psychology. And we’re going to dive into a lot of those things here in a minute. But let’s start like we always do with the parable. In the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with their grandchild. And they say, in life, there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love. And the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops, thinking about it for a second, they look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s meant a lot of different things at different points. And I think what it has meant most recently is, how do you tell the wolves apart? It seems like it should be easy, right? One’s the good one, one’s the bad one. But it is easy to find yourself inside value systems and to create one for yourself where you get rewarded for doing things that aren’t good. And I feel like this has been the story of the past few years of my life of realizing that like, for me, academia was one of those value systems that I was getting rewarded for doing things that I didn’t actually think were good. And I could see that like, oh, everyone was cheering when I feed the bad wolf. And so maybe the bad wolf is actually the good wolf. And it took a long time to be like, no, the bad one’s actually the bad one. And I need to go somewhere where I get rewarded for feeding the good one.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, I think the other thing to continue your point about knowing which one is, you know, a lot of listeners are hearing this and they’re thinking about their internal world. And as your work points out, it’s really confusing in there. And the so-called experts sort of maybe know what they’re talking about some of the time. And our own intuitions sort of maybe sometimes know. It’s just very tricky to know how to respond, I think, to difficult internal circumstances. And I want to start by going to a post that you talked about where you talked about having a skull full of poison. So set up for us kind of what got you there and maybe also set up just very briefly an intro the type of psychologist that you are.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, so I’m trained as an experimental social psychologist, which means I’m not the kind that you go to for therapy. If I help people, it’s only through a few steps and I’m not licensed to talk to someone one on one unless it’s on a podcast. So the skull full of poison story is that in the high point of the pandemic, I just started to feel really bad. And at the time I was a resident advisor, a graduate student living in a dorm, and I had been in the discourse about mental health for a long time. And it didn’t feel like that to me. Like that felt like a very euphemistic way of talking about the way I felt, which is just like undifferentiated bad for no reason all the time. The whole post is about like all the things that are really weird about feeling bad, like things will seem extremely important that aren’t important. things will happen for no reason. It was about like navigating that, which I’m happy to report that I feel like I’m out of now. But I feel like it was this whole story that it’s not the way I thought it would have unfolded.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. So to sort of say that differently, you had some degree of professional training as well as, you know, talking to a lot of people about mental health and you were a little bit shocked by how this thing happened and how its experience was different than what you thought it might be like when you observed it from the outside.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, yeah, totally.

Eric Zimmer:

And so looking back, I want to get more into some of the weird things, but looking back, do you have any sense, would you be able to, and I know you’re not a clinical psychologist, but would you be able to give it a diagnosis at this point with the hindsight of time and knowing what you know?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, one of the more surprising and weird things that happened was when I ended up working with a psychotherapist, which is sort of its own story. At one point, she was like, oh, this sounds like anxiety. And it had never felt to me like anxiety, that I always thought anxiety was people being like, worried about things that they shouldn’t be worried about. But I wasn’t worried about things I shouldn’t be worried about. I was thinking very hard about important things. And then I realized, like, oh, maybe that’s why anxiety is anxiety. Like, if you felt like you were worrying about something that you shouldn’t worry about, it would be much easier to stop doing it when instead it feels like you are spending your time wisely considering all the things that might be wrong or go wrong. That’s why it’s difficult to escape.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, you say something that I think is really profound. You say, I wonder if this is the secret behind a lot of skull poisons. You secretly think you’re not sick at all and you believe that what you’re thinking about is actually extremely important. And I think that’s really very insightful to what happens to a lot of us because I’ve always said that one of the biggest problems with mental illness or skulls full of poison or addiction like my background or depression or whatever it is, is the thing that is trying to figure it out is the thing that’s, I’ll just use the word broken for now. I don’t like that word in general, but it’s easy to use. The thing that’s trying to solve the problem is the very thing that is malfunctioning. It makes it extremely difficult from your own side of things to sort it out. because the thoughts seem really, really true and real.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. And so to overcome them, to deal with them, you’re going to eventually have to do something that feels crazy. The idea of, I don’t need to think about this, it feels stupid. It feels like, no, this is the most important thing to think about in the world. And even if part of you knows that like, no, it’s actually, it’s the thinking about it over and over again, that’s making me feel really bad. Those thoughts go like, no, no, we really need to get to the bottom of, well, why are we thinking about it over and over again? Let’s think about that.

Eric Zimmer:

Right, right. And so what did you find that helped you? Because I think a lot of people do get to the point where they recognize that this rumination, we’ll call it that, is problematic, right? They now suddenly are like, okay, these thoughts are intrusive. I don’t like them. They’re probably, they’re not good for me. I want them to go away. And it’s not that simple. So what worked for you? 

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, a few things. One was accepting a longer timeline. So at the beginning, I always felt like something’s broken, but it could be fixed immediately. And so all solutions are going to be solutions that work right away. Obviously, none of those end up working. And even when people would tell me this, I’d be like, no, you think that because you haven’t found yours. I’m just looking for mine. And instead when I was like, you know, what if the way that I deal with obsessive thinking is like each time it happens, I go like, oh, there it is again. I’m going to stop and do something else. And even if like half a second later, I start doing it again, then I have to respond the same way again. And what if I have to do that a thousand times in 10 minutes? And what if I have to do that over and over again for three months before I start to feel even a little bit better? But that was the only way ultimately that it felt like I ratcheted toward feeling like it wasn’t important to think about that over and over again.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, I’m writing a book that right now is loosely titled, How a Little Becomes a Lot. And it’s based on that very idea, particularly with thought patterns, that the good news is I do believe you can change them. The bad news is it often takes a long time. And the longer you’ve had them, the longer that time period might be. And so it’s just that repetition. And I think you’re right. This desire that we are going to have an insight or epiphany of some sort that is going to suddenly fix it keeps a lot of us really stuck and not buying into what you’re saying, which is, okay, I kind of know the issue. There’s no blinding insight to come. There’s just a really hard work.

Adam Mastroianni:

The insights and epiphanies I think can help, but they’re not the final moment. So there was a moment where I had a really long drive back from my campus to home, like Boston to Ohio. And as I was like an hour into it, I had sort of this moment where it kind of the clouds opened up and I was like, wow, my thinking has been really obsessive and repetitive recently. And even in that moment, I felt like, wow, it’s so helpful to have this moment of realization and it’s going to come back again. Like my head’s above the water for a second. This is what it’s like up here. I got to get back here again.

Eric Zimmer:

Totally. I think the insights or the realizations are critical to know what direction to go. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Like until you have that, you don’t even know what direction to go. But once you have it, there’s still a ways to go. But again, I love that that’s what worked for you was just a little bit by a little bit changing those things.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. Yeah. And I worked with a psychotherapist too that it was also helpful for pointing these things out and was helpful too for like giving me a kick in the pants a couple of times where I had sort of thought because of the discourse that we have around mental illness that like, now the way you need to treat it is with, you know, sensitivity and that’s true. But also sometimes I needed to be told like, no, stop, like stop doing this. But like, you know, I care about you, but like this thing that you’re doing, you do need to stop doing it. It is unacceptable.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, I think about this a lot because on one hand I think we have become a lot more sensitive and we’re a lot more understanding and we recognize that people need to feel seen and heard and understood. But I sometimes wonder if we’ve gone too far in that direction. or we just stop there. And my experience, and I got sober 25 years ago in a pretty hardcore 12 step area program. And there wasn’t a lot of, I mean, the sensitivity could have been dialed up and it certainly is part of what eventually made me not want to go. But also just being told very directly, like, here, do this, do that, turned out to be really, really helpful. And I think sometimes somebody just needs to be heard culture. I think sometimes we also need the next step, which is yes, no one until they feel heard will listen to anything you say. So don’t bother to try and shortcut that step. But there are other destinations beyond that where we do need people who are on the outside to say, well, here’s something I see, or why don’t you try this?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, a big one for me was thinking less about myself and more about other people. The thing about obsessive thinking of any kind is it’s usually about you. And when I could realize that, like, wow, I feel better when I think about other people a little bit more and think about myself less. Or when someone could point that out to me, it was really helpful because I’m like, I don’t want to be the kind of person who is only thinking about how bad I feel all the time. I feel a lot better when I can when I help lift other people up.

Eric Zimmer:

Totally. I think this can sometimes take a interesting deviation, which is that the worry begins to be about people that are around you. And so it seems like it’s not self-referential, but it is in a way ultimately, right? Because whatever that person is happening or whatever they’re doing is causing an emotion in you that you don’t like. Yeah. And so it can be tricky.

Adam Mastroianni:

You think you’re thinking about other people, but really you’re thinking, do they like me? Did I hurt them? Rather than like, are they achieving their goals? Like, what do they need from me? And like, how can I help them do the things that they’re trying to do?

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. Yeah. This is funny. This is just coming to mind because a friend of mine, he’s much younger than me, told me recently he’s, they’re starting to try and have a kid. And it’s like, I think parenting just adds a whole new dimension of weirdness to dealing with your own mental stuff. Because on one hand, you are ostensibly thinking about someone else a lot, and yet it’s a weird space. One of the other things that I read, and it’s not exactly a secret, But as you have a tendency to do, you wrote about it in a way that makes it so obvious, is that you say, if you want to get a taco, the world comes rushing to your aid. Everybody’s got a taco. Everybody wants to talk about their taco. People will vehemently defend their taco stand versus that taco stand or whether al pastor is better than carne asada. But you need a therapist. You’re on your own.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s wild, but like, there’s no Yelp for therapists, at least not one that I found or that worked. Which ones take my insurance? Which ones will take me? When I was the person who was telling someone like, hey, have you ever thought of talking to someone? I had no idea that that’s the gauntlet that they had to face if they decided to do it. At the point where they are least equipped to do it, to deal with a system that makes no sense, is super annoying, doesn’t give you feedback, And then even when you start talking to somebody, they don’t tell you. I mean, a good one might that, like, we’re going to take a while to make any progress here. The first time we talk is maybe even just to see if I think I can help you. I’m not going to be able to do much for you the first time around. It might take a couple of months before we start working in a new direction, 

Eric Zimmer:

Which is really difficult when you have a skull full of poison. Yeah. Right. I mean, it’s the same thing I’ve dealt with my mother and chronic pain for years and years. And you, you finally find a new doctor who’s like, okay, we’re great at what we do. And you go and they’re like, well, now we’re good. I mean, and you’re just like, I could be months from any relief. It’s just really, it’s really challenging.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, especially when our level of understanding is so early and so rudimentary for anything psychological. We just haven’t been at this very long. And even though, you know, we produce these big book of diagnoses, like that book is going to be different or entirely gone, hopefully, you know, 50 or 100 years from now. And so the limit on what we can do for people is also often like not that high. And it really varies by what you present with. And a lot of things we can help a little bit, but few things do we know exactly what they are or what to do about them. And this is like a limit that you have to accept if you’re ever going to get better.

Eric Zimmer:

Right, right. I think that is a good segue here for us to sort of talk about the state of psychology as a science. And what we think about the state of psychology and what we know is very helpful in how we navigate the journey, right? And one thing that studies that seem to keep showing is sort of, I guess for lack of a better word, disconcerting. is that we don’t really know what makes a good therapist, or one type of therapy doesn’t seem to be better than another type of therapy. Sometimes it doesn’t even appear to be better than talking to a friend, and yet we know it can be. Talk to me about what we know about the role of therapy. I think you would say you were glad you did it,

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The way I think about it now, especially in retrospect, having had a good experience, was that, like, the part of it where I think of this person as a practitioner of science, like, didn’t actually add anything for me. I would rather think of them as someone whose job it is to help me navigate the issues in my life. And, like, they come from this tradition where they’re very interested in the inner workings of my mind rather than, say, theology or whatever else way that you could get there. But that doesn’t mean that we have all of these studies that are going to make it very clear what they should do with me and how I should accomplish my goals. We’re not there yet. But it did matter a lot to have someone whose job it was to pay attention and listen closely. But a lot of experience helping people navigate these kinds of situations was informed somewhat by some of the things that we know. But it isn’t like taking an antibiotic when you have an infection, like that’s just not the kind of result you’re going to get, because that’s not the level of understanding that we have. And so mentioned the study that I almost wish we could do again. Now the window is closed on doing this study. But in the 70s, there was this very small study where people got randomized either to go to a professional therapist or to a professor of history or engineering or whatever, who’d been selected for being empathetic. And this study is really small. It’s not very well conducted. But as far as they were able to tell, they couldn’t see any difference between the outcomes of the people who were assigned, you know, an older person who’s empathetic and understanding versus someone who is all those things, but also trained in the ways of psychology. And that was that was 50 years ago. But I think you’d get a pretty similar result today.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, and without going into the science to the degree that you do and are capable of, it seems to me that general thinking is that rapport is the name of the game, right? If you have a good rapport with your psychologist, that’s far and away the most important thing.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, I think especially if you don’t have that somewhere else in your life, that if you’re at a point where your relationship’s afraid, or you don’t have many of them, or there’s no one that you feel like you can talk about this stuff to, it’s a no-brainer that you could go and work with someone whose job is to do that. And then I think there’s plenty of things probably above and beyond that they can do, like be an outside observer on your life, note things that you do over and over again, just ask you the question, what have you done to try to solve this? and has that worked for you? All these things that seem really obvious you could conceivably do with a friend or with the mirror, and yet we don’t because we don’t have the structure around it.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. Well, there’s this idea, I believe, that Dr. Ethan Kross at the University of Michigan was one of the coiners of this term, Solomon’s Paradox, which is an idea based on King Solomon that we can have a lot of wisdom towards someone else. But it’s really hard to have it towards ourselves. And I find this to just be amazingly true. And I also have found, I had to write a little reminder to myself at one point that even if I think I know what somebody is going to say to me when I bring them a problem, They’re going to just pare it back my own advice to me or whatever. It still helps to talk to them about it. It still helps somehow to get it out of the squeamishness of my own brain. That’s the wrong word for it. Not squeamishness, just amorphousness of my own brain. And talk about it with someone else.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, yeah, that like your own thoughts are squishy. And when you have to express them to someone else, you suddenly realize like, oh, I really, I need to put this into words. I need to frame this in some way that makes it make sense. And when you do that, you can get it to a level of specificity that you couldn’t get to on your own. I mean, this is also what I find when I’m writing, that like, you can think the same thought over and over again. When you have to put it into a sentence, you suddenly realize like, oh, I didn’t get this, or I didn’t really know what I wanted to say. And I think these are all tools of nailing down the thoughts that you’re trying to have.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, it’s funny. The book I’m writing is based on a program that I’ve taught for a number of years called Wise Habits. But in writing it, you know, sitting down and trying to write the book, I’m like, huh, I didn’t think that all the way through. Or, well, I’m saying this here, but then I’m saying something very like almost the opposite that like just inconsistencies that were not immediately apparent to me in putting it into presentations and talking it out loud.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s a way of dispelling what we call the illusion of explanatory depth, of this feeling that you know something when you don’t actually know it. But like, you know it as well as you need to know it for the purpose that you’re doing. But like, you know it at this level until you bump into something. that requires you to understand it better. And so like writing is a way of doing that. Talking to people is a way of doing that. Teaching is a way of doing that. Breaking through that superficial level of understanding to the level below.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. There’s that idea that if you want to learn something, try and teach it to someone else for that reason. And the fact that we have that illusion is enormously helpful in most areas of our lives. Yeah. You and I are both talking into a microphone. I couldn’t do the most basic job of explaining to you what is happening there. Despite having been around microphones, not just as a podcaster, but a musician my whole life, I have no idea. Now, I have friends that could take this thing apart and explain every bit of it and fix it, but I don’t because I’ve never needed to.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. If you didn’t have that illusion, if when you got to the studio, you were like, Whoa, what’s, what’s this? Like, how could I possibly use this thing if I don’t know everything about, or you’re constantly distracted by that? when you were in a world filled with things like that, like we could never survive or get anything done. If there was an alarm in your head that went off every time you didn’t understand something, because it would always be going off, like you’d never have any peace, right? And so it’s helpful to have this thin film of understanding. If what you want to do is get by if what you want to do is understand, then you have to puncture that envelope.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. So let’s use this idea of understanding to go back to psychology and the state of psychology because I, like you, believe we don’t fully know what is going on. in people’s brains. I mean, I’ve worked with enough people one-on-one into my programs to know that for some people, you say this, and for other people, they need the exact opposite thing. And these could be two people who demographically look the same, two 35-year-old men. But one of them has a problem speaking up. And so you’re like, hey, we need to work on that. And the other has a problem of just being aggressive in conversation. He needs something completely different, yet they look exactly the same. And so the number of variables that go into, even when we’re trying to blind control or control a study seems crazy to me. And it makes me doubt that we’ll ever get a lot further. And a lot of people share this view. The mind’s too complicated. We’re not going to get there, but you don’t share this view. You believe that, well, you say what you believe instead of me saying what you believe.

Adam Mastroianni:

Well, I certainly agree that it’s complicated and it will be difficult to get farther. And it’s also possible that we’ll never get farther. But the fact that it is difficult and is complicated is not, in fact, evidence that it is hopeless that we’ll get farther. And the examples that I take are from the rest of the history of every other science where there are plenty of periods where things seem like hopelessly complicated. How can we possibly make progress? And eventually we do because we discover the underlying structure of the system that we’re trying to work with. And so if you think about the alchemists who are trying to change elements into other elements, and they have no idea what an element is or what they’re made of, or that like the position of Venus does not affect the result of the reaction, but like some things that they consider one element are in fact a mixture of two things. If they don’t understand any of these things, there’s a real limit on how far they can get. But when you start getting those little building blocks of like, oh, there are things called elements that cannot be reduced further. Just from that, you start to be able to do a bunch of things. Now you can ask like, well, how many are there? How does each one react with the other ones? Are there ways that we can predict those reactions? What we don’t have for psychology yet is the equivalent of those elements. We don’t have a good idea of what are the units that make up the world we’re trying to study and what are the rules that govern the interactions of those units. I think we’re still in the prehistory of psychology.

Eric Zimmer:

That’s a really good point to think about the periodic table of elements as a reference because it’s not simple, right? We haven’t simplified it, right? There’s a lot of elements. And as you mentioned, how do they combine with each other? We begin to learn that. But by having a certain number of building blocks, we can begin to make progress. And it seems that perhaps with psychology, like you say, we don’t have even these basic building blocks. We have these diagnostic ideas that are, I use the word amorphous earlier, are very amorphous. Almost to the point of being useful to a point in some cases, I think is the best way I could say it for them. So where do you think if you were given the reins of psychological science, right? You talk a lot about how you think we should and shouldn’t do science. If you were just for some reason, I mean, our president’s doing all sorts of what seems to be kind of crazy things. So this would be no crazier. He comes to you and says, Adam, you are in charge of psychology for the next four years. You’ve got all the budget you want. What would you do? Two things.

Adam Mastroianni:

One would be diversify the budget, in that I have the things that I want to do, but I also want to hedge against it by trying to fund a bunch of other different crazy ideas. Because this is what I think we haven’t been doing, or what we’re really bad at doing in science, is diversifying the ideas that we’re working on. The one that I would want to work on, and I’ve been working with some friends on this, and they’re just starting to release the series now, is basically a cybernetic proposal for the way that psychology works. Cybernetics being the science of control systems, and control systems just being a few units that work together to try to maintain something at a certain level. So like a thermostat is a control system. It reads what the current temperature is, it has the desired temperature, and it tries to reduce the difference between them. And I have some friends working on a proposal for like a lot of psychology can be thought about in terms of control systems, that there are many things that humans have to keep at the right level or else they die. We need some salt, but not too much. We need some sugar, but not too much. We need to be at the right temperature. We need to interact with other people, but we can’t spend all of our time interacting with other people. And so when you start to think about that, You might think like, man, the error signal in each of these control systems, the thing that says when it’s out of whack, could be what we think of right now as an emotion. The feeling of hunger is an emotion, your nutrition intake control system saying it’s time to eat. The feeling of loneliness is a feeling from your sociality control system saying that I need to be around other people. And now we might start thinking, well, how many emotions are there? Which ones are stronger than other ones? Like which ones get to take precedence? You know, not all of these go from 0 to 100 quickly. Some go slowly. And now we can start to get something that looks a little bit more like a table of elements, because we start asking, how many? How do they interact? We can try to start filling in the ones that seem to be missing.

Eric Zimmer:

I love this idea of control systems because I’m a big believer in, I would just call it the middle way, meaning that, you know, you can look at most things in life and there is a too much and there’s definitely a too little, right? And when we’re at either of those, a really great solution is just, you don’t have to abandon whatever that thing is. You just have to turn it up or down a little bit. But even this idea of emotions, right? I mean, people have been arguing about what the core emotions are for a long time. How would we even get past that to a point that we could begin to say, here’s our periodic table? Because every book I read, there’s four, there’s 12, there’s 79 shades of blue.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s a great question. And I think the cybernetic approach finally has an answer to it, which is first a conceptualization of what an emotion is in terms of like the units and how they work together. So when we talk about emotions, we’re usually like, you know, that thing you feel. But in this paradigm, an emotion is something very specific. It’s the error signal of a control system. If we don’t have a control system for it, we can’t have an emotion about it. And thinking this way leads to like calling some weird things emotions. In this system, the need to pee is an emotion. we don’t think about it that way. But obviously, sometimes you need to urinate. And that feeling is an error from your control system. That too is an emotion. It would also lead us to think about like, you know, this thing that we call hunger, that’s an emotion too. But it’s probably a confederacy of many emotions, because there’s many different kinds of nutrients that we have to intake. And so there’s probably something called salt hunger, or sugar hunger, or protein hunger, And this is easier to do in animals than in humans by depriving people of one thing and see if they feel hunger and eat another thing. It’s just one way. It’s a very schematic way of investigating this. And so I think the way we make progress is by treating this like we’re trying to figure out the rules of a board game by reverse engineering it. We don’t know exactly what the little tokens mean or what they can do, but we do believe there are tokens that can only go to certain spaces. And now we’re trying to figure out what those are rather than the squishy idea of like, well, you feel a certain way. What are the tendencies that you have or are they constructed? That’s the difference.

Eric Zimmer:

Okay. Because one of the core emotional theory disputes, and again, I’m a lay person in all this, is that there are these core irreducible emotions. Every human has them. They’re the same group. And then there’s the, as you just said, the constructed theory emotion, which is that there’s basically just a stimulus of some sort. And then from there, we build everything that goes on top of that. Do you have a feeling there? How does thinking through that issue tie into, you know, control systems?

Adam Mastroianni:

So this view, I think would be much closer to the idea that there are basic ones and all the labels that we apply to them are sometimes pointing to emotions that really exist and sometimes calling things emotions that are not productively called emotion. So also in this paradigm, happiness isn’t an emotion. It’s a thing that we feel, but it’s not an error signal. which means that whether it’s constructed or not now becomes a nonsensical question. It’s not part of the list of elements. Original attempts at a table of elements included things like light and heat, which didn’t end up being elements. And a moment of progress was when we realized those things are different. And so it’s possible that happiness is actually a different thing. In this proposal for a paradigm, happiness is actually not a signal that something’s gone wrong. It is the feeling that you get for correcting an error. So you really have to pee, you find a bathroom, happiness is the feeling that you get from your need to pee error signal going to zero. But the same thing you get for, you know, I feel lonely, I talk to someone, the happiness is the thing that you get for reducing that error. So it is a different thing. We don’t have a word quite for it yet. But there’s a weird way of thinking about it, which is part of what makes me excited about it, that like, it uses words in ways that are really counterintuitive, because it has a strong idea of what are the components of the system and how might they work together.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. And I would love to actually spend about an hour and a half on this because I am fascinated. However, I don’t want to make the whole interview about this, but I’m going to use it as a pivot point because one of the things that you say about psychology as a field is that we keep producing paper after paper, after paper, after paper, and that by and large, none of it moves the needle much anywhere. Yeah. And that the way that we’re going to make more progress than we have in the time we have so far is to begin to think about what you call alien ideas. And so I have a question. This relates to something else that you talk about strong link and weak link problems. One of the things about alien ideas is I agree with you, we need them. And when we’re in the middle of say something like a pandemic, they seem dangerous. And alien psychological ideas seem like they could be dangerous. So how do we allow ourselves to take some of the shackles off psychology so maybe we can make progress in a different direction, but maybe not loose a bunch of craziness into the world? Yeah, we need to do it all in secret.

Adam Mastroianni:

No, I think really what you’re pointing to there is there are at least two separable problems that we’re trying to solve at the same time. And that’s why there’s a tension here. When I say science is a strong link problem, which is to say that we proceed at the rate that we do our best work, not at the rate that we prevent our worst work is to say, I’m talking about science is like the process of trying to understand the structure and function of the universe. which is separate from how do you make sure that people believe the right things, which is a totally different thing. Science communication or public health dissemination or something else, the way that you make sure that people don’t believe crazy ideas that are wrong is different from and sometimes contrary to the way that we would discover truths about the universe. So recently when I brought that post back up again and someone was like, you know, but look, there is this paper about vaccines causing autism that like caused all this trouble before it was retracted 12 years later. And I’m like, totally. That’s a big problem from the standpoint of how do we solve the problem of making sure that people don’t believe the wrong thing? It is actually unrelated or mainly unrelated to the idea of how do we understand autism? So it wasn’t the case that when that paper came out, all the scientists who study autism were like, wow, vaccines must cause autism. Many people were like, oh, I don’t believe this paper at all. And at the time, it might have actually been reasonable to think about like, oh, is this a possibility? Like, it’s better for there to be more information rather than less. That is different from the kind of person who’s going to look at that and go like, oh, this means I should change my vaccine behavior.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. And I think part of that comes from something that I don’t think the genie goes back in the bottle on, which is the popularization of and the bastardization of science into the public consciousness. I mean, you don’t have to look very hard to suddenly start seeing that there’s a study. There are people whose job is go find a study and then write an article or a news article about it. And Sometimes they’re reporting the study relatively accurately even though there’s still a lot of nuance getting lost and other times it’s just near nonsense. And so I understand what you’re saying on one hand that science itself, the process of science needs to be a problem where we don’t worry about the bad ideas because the scientific process will eventually weed them out. And what we need to be focused on are the really big, good ideas. And the only way sometimes to get those is to venture way off course from what everybody else is doing. And then you have what’s done with that science. Is this just a problem we have to live with?

Adam Mastroianni:

That’s a problem that we can get better at. And where it starts is in how we teach students about science, like, from elementary school onward. Right now, when you get your scientific education, it’s like, oh, you know, we thought atoms were plum pudding, and then we thought they were this other thing, and then finally we discovered the real thing. not understanding how that process unfolded. For a long time, we went off in this direction, and then we did this other direction, and it took a long time for us to figure out what was true. And so when you see a scientific claim, you should go like, yeah, maybe. Precisely, yeah.

Eric Zimmer:

We don’t follow that with the thought of, and by the way, this current understanding could go through the same revision, right? We just take it as now we know. And if you look back at scientific history, you realize it’s kind of a silly position to take.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. Anybody should be able to trace this through like the evolution of nutrition recommendations over the course of their own lives, if you’re old enough, right? That like, I grew up when every cereal box had that pyramid on the back that was like, you should eat six to 11 slices of bread per day. And then like 10 years later, people were like, you should never eat a slice of bread. And like both of these extremes, and the next year, it’s going to be something else. And what this means is like, we’re still figuring out how nutrition works, like we’re very early on. And the only mistake that we’re making is being extremely certain at each stage that now we know for sure.

Eric Zimmer:

Yep. Before we dive back into the conversation, let me ask you something. What’s one thing that has been holding you back lately? You know that it’s there. You’ve tried to push past it, but somehow it keeps getting in the way. You’re not alone in this, and I’ve identified six major saboteurs of self-control. Things like autopilot behavior, self-doubt, emotional escapism. that quietly derail our best intentions. But here’s the good news. You can outsmart them. And I’ve put together a free guide to help you spot these hidden obstacles and give you simple, actionable strategies that you can use to regain control. Download the free guide now at oneufeed.net slash ebook and take the first step towards getting back on track. And part of the problem with nutrition is part of what we wrestle with in psychology is not everyone is the same. You know, my partner and I wore a continuous glucose monitor for a while. We just kind of wanted to see like what’s happening with blood sugar. Her mom had Alzheimer’s, my dad has Alzheimer’s. And one of the theories is that there’s a metabolic issue here. So, okay, we want to study our metabolism. And it was fascinating to see, like I can eat brown rice and it’s okay. She eats brown rice. She might as well have drank a Coca-Cola. It’s just insane. And so as people, you know, we keep saying like, you should eat this, but people are just very different. And we don’t know what constitutes the difference enough yet to be able to make any sort of like recommendation that I should eat the same thing as you. We just don’t know. But yet we think we do.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, this is a problem that I really wish that it were so much more apparent to people that like, whenever you want to make a universal recommendation, you need extremely good evidence. But like, we’re really willing to just like make universal recommendations.

Eric Zimmer:

I think it’s partially that’s a human tendency. And I think that people want it. I mean, I think that it goes back to what you were talking about, you know, when you had a skull full of poison, what you wanted, the desire that emerged from that was not to listen to an hour long nuanced conversation about the science of psychology like we are doing right now. You wanted somebody to say, here’s the one quick trick to get rid of your skull full of poison. Right. And so we’re just in a world that nuance is not incented. I find it personally semi painful. as a person who my brand is nuance, I think.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, and I also think it’s on the part of experts making the recommendations, there’s this fear that like, oh, people are too stupid to understand nuance. So we can’t give it to them, even though we know it might be there, we just need to tell everybody the same thing, or else they’ll get the wrong idea, or some of them will do the wrong thing. And so we just need to be really confident and conclusive about telling everybody what they should do, which ultimately just leads to the erosion of trust, because why would you trust someone? who’s going to knowingly tell you something other than the full truth of what they know.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. We sort of hit this and you may have already answered it, in which case you could say we’ve already covered that. What are some of the ideas in psychology that you find interesting, promising, new? So you’ve just mentioned one, which is this idea of control systems. Yeah. Are there any others out there that you currently are like, wow, that’s really interesting.

Adam Mastroianni:

That’s the one that I think is most promising. But I think it is worth looking back at the ideas that we have had that were productive and good. And now there’s a temptation to keep doing them forever, even though I think we’ve gotten out of them what they had to give us. So some of those dominant ideas in psychology were like, oh, people aren’t perfectly rational. They don’t obey the rules of optimal decision making. This is an idea that’s been so successful that it’s won the Nobel Prize twice. And I think it’s a great one, and it started all kinds of lines of research. I also think that now we’ve pretty much gotten everything out of it that we’re going to get out of it. Same thing with situations matter. So this is like a revolution in the 60s and 70s that at the time it was reasonable to think that like, you know, there’s just different kinds of people, and some people are good and some people are bad. And then people started creating these like little pantomimes and situations where you put someone in it, someone who seems normal, and like now they’re shocking someone to death in the other room, or at least they think they are. That was a really important point to make, but we can keep doing that forever. We can keep inventing new situations and showing like, wow, when you do this, like some people do that thing. And I think here too, we’ve gotten most out of it that we’re ever going to get out of it.

Eric Zimmer:

So these are both good. Let’s take that second one there, which is essentially is another way of saying context really matters. Yeah. I get on one hand how like we just said it, right? Context matters. Okay. Move on. Right. But are there useful ways of showing in what ways context informs or changes based on different things? Like, I still think like you and I know that. But a lot of people are going to take a personality test and they’re going to go off and believe that that personality test is telling them a lot about themselves. And I would argue the primary limitation to a lot of those is context matters. I hate these things. They drive me up the wall because it’s like, would you rather read a book or go to a party? And I’m like, well, I have nine questions I need to ask you before I make that decision. You know, what’s the party? Who’s going to be there? What book am I reading? Am I tired? Like, I mean, is it cold outside? And so it seems like on one hand, we know context matters and yet, broadly speaking, I’m not sure that most people do. But is that a communication versus a research issue again?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, I think so. I don’t know how many more demonstrations we can do. I mean, the Milgram shock experiments from 1963, this is the famous experiment where probably a lot of people have heard of it, but in case they haven’t, you get brought into what looks like a lab and you think that you are doing a learning task with someone who’s in a different room and you’re supposed to give them a little shock when they get the question wrong. And they set it up that like, oh, the person gets so many questions wrong that eventually it seems like you’re shocking them to death Even when you’re and there’s this whole like recording here, you think it’s real, where it seems like they have a heart condition and they maybe pass out, whatever. And like in that situation, two thirds of people kept shocking someone until they ostensibly died because the person behind them was like, no, no, it’s very important. You can continue. Like, I don’t know what better demonstration you can do. And by the way, people have tried to debunk this a couple of times, and I think it has survived the debunkings. A lot of great research from that era hasn’t. Like, I don’t know what else you can do to show people that, like, no, that you, a very normal person, could be put in a situation where you could do something that you look back on it and think that it is horrifying. Like, I think the only way that you can drive that point home better is by bringing that person into the lab and doing it to them. Right. Otherwise, it’s not going to land.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. Okay. So let’s go back to, for some reason, I don’t like the word cybernetic because it makes me think about a cyborg or something, but I get it. We’re talking about systems. And I’d love to talk about one of your posts that’s all about systems. And it’s really about the idea of us having a mental heater and a mental air conditioner. Kind of walk me through this idea.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. So this comes from my thinking about the control systems of the mind, that there’s this naive idea that we just want to be maximally happy. I mean, literally, psychologists will write this in their papers, like, well, obviously, people want to be happy and not unhappy. And they’ll give six citations for it. But I actually think that if you watch people, this doesn’t seem to be the case. People will do things all the time that do not seem to make them happy. Like, why do we go to haunted houses? Like, why do we watch movies about the Holocaust? If you ask people afterward, like, did that make you happier? People would be like, no. Okay, well, why did you do it? And I think part of the reason is we don’t actually desire maximum happiness. We desire the right level of happiness. It is dangerous and bad for us both to be too sad. It is also dangerous and bad to be too happy. Like we call that mania. And when people are stuck in that mode for too long, they end up doing things like thinking they’re the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, or they do a bunch of drugs, they spend all their money starting a stupid business, and they end up in the hospital. And so it is bad for us to max out this system. It is also bad for us for the system to be working at its minimum. This seems like a case in which we have a control system governing, trying to keep us at the right level. And so when we’re too high, it tries to bring us down. And when we’re too low, it tries to bring us up. And that’s the thermostat that runs with the furnace and the air conditioner.

Eric Zimmer:

So with mania, you know, my favorite example, what we’re not getting across well enough in this interview is how funny you are in your writing, right? Like, I mean, you’re genuinely hilarious. And one of the things you did when you’re writing about mania is go look at like Reddit forums for what people did when they were under mania. And my favorite was collected enough signatures to become mayor. And if you’ve seen it, and I’ve been close enough to people with addiction problems and severe psychological problems to have been on some psych wards visiting, and mania is terrifying. When you see somebody who’s in mania, it is genuinely frightening. So I get the idea that, okay, we don’t want to get too high. We don’t want to get too low, right? You get too low, you basically don’t move. And as humans, we need to move and do things. You also talk about how happiness doesn’t tend to change a lot over time. Do you then believe that we each have an individual happiness set point that we’re largely going to return to? And if so, why would mine be 40% and someone else’s would be 90%? And is the fact that I am reporting myself as unhappy simply my error system? To use your theory, my sense of unhappiness is simply my internal control system saying, you need to be up there. Because one of the things that I’ve found, I’ve said before about having depression, is one of the things I’ve done, I think, is get better at it. And what I mean by that is I often just don’t make a very big deal out of it. There are times where I’m like, it is what it is. No existential crisis needed.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, I mean, to your first question of whether I think different people have different set points, that seems to be true empirically, that you track people over time, that some people are consistently at a 6 out of 10, and some people are consistently at an 8 out of 10. And even when disturbances happen in their lives, even when they get a new job that they love, lose a job that they love, find someone they love, lose someone they love, they obviously go up or down, but they come back to that point. And so that seems to be empirically true. Now, why would it be that some people are stuck at 6 when they’d rather be at 8, or why can’t we all be at 10? I think for the same reason that we differ in all other kinds of ways, like other control systems also have different set points. So we think that weight is probably also governed by some kind of control system. Some people weigh 150 pounds and some people weigh 200. Why is that? The ultimate answer is genetics and then what you get exposed to in the environment. But from a broader sense, why would there be variance across humans? Like, because it is actually useful for people to be different, I think is the ultimate answer. The way that humans have succeeded is by producing a diversity of humans who have different ideas and behave differently so that we can benefit from the different strengths that different people have. And so, like, there may be a reason why we don’t all have the same level of happiness. That would be my guess. We don’t really know, but that’s my guess.

Eric Zimmer:

Now do you think that then what we might think of as extreme levels of high, which would be mania, but the opposite seems to be far more common, which is being very low. is a control system failure? Because when you talk about weight, right, yes, we all have a natural weight. We also know people who weigh 75 pounds and people who are way on the opposite end of that, that are not in what we would probably consider the natural range because we’re exposed to all sorts of different things. So is that what mental illness is, is a control system failure?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, there are lots of ways that the systems can break that end up looking like different kinds of mental illnesses. So my friends who write under the name Slime Mold Time Mold are releasing a whole series about this. So hopefully by the time it comes out, it’ll be out there for people to read. They have a whole series of papers about how different ways that you break the system produce different things that look like depression or anxiety. So for instance, If you turn down the errors on all of your control systems so you get no error signal, you will look like someone who is extremely depressed. You won’t do anything because you have no errors to correct. This looks ultimately like that kind of bedrock depression where that person doesn’t move. Yeah. If you increase the sensitivity on all of your control systems, so you’re getting super high errors all the time. Now you start to look like someone who’s manic because you’re rushing around all the time trying to correct your errors and you’re feeling great about it because you’re always corrected and then they pop up again and correct them again. You’re playing whack-a-mole and it feels wonderful. There’s like 10 other ways that you can, you can break this system, but it starts to lead you to think about like, okay, when people feel bad or feel really good, like what is going on underneath? Like not necessarily the level of like chemicals, which is, I think has been a real dead end for us. Like what’s the software that’s running on the mind that could possibly produce this pattern of results.

Eric Zimmer:

obviously at the end of the day, the brain is firing off electrical signals and chemicals. Is your belief that that software is ultimately, that’s how it does what it does, right? Is through those things.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yes. So like often when I tell people about this, they’re like, Oh, okay. So you think all psychology is just neuroscience. And I’m like, no, ultimately it does have to work on the machinery of neuroscience. But this is just like saying, if you want to understand how a subway system works, You’re not going to talk in terms of atoms of carbon and oxygen moving around. You’re going to talk in terms of there’s trains and stations and passengers. And all those things are made up of smaller things. And whatever I say about a train has to be possible at the level of the elementary particles. But that it makes no sense to explain it in terms of like, oh, a massive carbon is moving. What you want to say is the train is arriving in the station. So there’s different levels of analysis that are useful for describing things that are happening in that system. The train and station and passenger level is the one that we’re trying to get to in psychology.

Eric Zimmer:

Got it. When we talk about happiness set points, sometimes people just take that as like, well, this is just where I am. I’m fixed. Right? We do know that if we follow your theory, it’s possible that you’re not at your actual set point of happiness. You’re at the point that you’re at because of these errors in the control system and we can do things to fix that. And so I can look at myself and be like, okay, 24, I was a homeless heroin addict, which I’m going to just make a grand interpretation here and say, I wasn’t doing so well heading into all that, right? Yeah. And I think I can look back and go, okay, there was depression happening and all of that. And so I think that I’ve changed obviously from there to here. And then within that, I think there’s this point where things get tricky and this gets back to kind of some of what we talked about with your skull full of poison. Let’s just say that I’ve got my control systems kind of working fairly well. and I’m a 6. If I keep thinking I have to be an 8, I might be then turning myself into a 4. From everything that we’ve talked about and from your own experience with this, how do you think about this in navigating your own internal world?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. So I guess one thing to say is that like consistency over time is in itself like not necessarily evidence of a control system. It’s consistency against disruption. So if you put me in a cell for the rest of my life, I’d be pretty unhappy. And you could say like, well, you know, I came back and checked you 20 years later and you were a four. Four must be your set point. But actually to know that four is my set point, you have to put me in a cell versus like, you know, I have to dive into a swimming pool full of gold coins. Like if I’m a four across every situation, it’s just something that’s trying to keep me at a four.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah.

Adam Mastroianni:

So when you’re in a situation like situations can keep you at a four for a long time if they’re really strong. These things can change over time, and we can see this in some of the systems that we understand a little bit better. For instance, if you take lithium as a psychoactive medication, which usually they do for bipolar, for a lot of people that causes them to gain weight. For some percentage, they lose a lot of weight. On average, they gain weight, which is also interesting that there’s these paradoxical reactions. We know that it is possible to change the set point of people’s weight by introducing foreign substances. The fact that that works for one control system suggests it’s possible for other ones that you can change these set points either by like introducing chemicals that at the chemical level make things different, but you could probably also do it at the trains and stations and passengers level to make things different. So I think this is what a lot of us are trying to do when we’re trying to live a more balanced life is like, okay, this isn’t going to be a matter of what substances, I mean, some of it might be a matter of what substances I put on my body that change my set point, But what are the things that I might consistently do that could keep me artificially lower than I might otherwise be? For me, some of these things are obvious. Like, well, if I don’t sleep enough, if I eat poorly, I’m gonna be consistently at a low level.

Eric Zimmer:

Before we wrap up, I want you to think about this. Have you ever ended the day feeling like your choices didn’t quite match the person you wanted to be? Maybe it was autopilot mode or self-doubt that made it harder to stick to your goals. And that’s exactly why I created the 6 Saboteurs of Self-Control. It’s a free guide to help you recognize the hidden patterns that hold you back and give you simple, effective strategies to break through them. If you’re ready to take back control and start making lasting changes, download your copy now at oneufeed.net slash ebook. Let’s make those shifts happen starting today. Oneufeed.net slash ebook. Wonderful. Well, I think this is a good place for us to wrap up. You and I are going to continue in the post-show conversation because we need to talk about eating frogs and the statement that demons are real, which seems like an odd statement from a – I guess you wouldn’t call yourself a rationalist, but a guy who’s on that side of the spectrum. Listeners, if you’d like access to this post-show conversation with Adam, as well as ad-free episodes, and to support this show, then go to oneufeed.net slash join and become part of our community. We’d love to have you there. Adam, thank you so much. I’ve gotten so much pleasure out of reading your sub-stack. We’ll have links in the show notes to where people can get to it, and I highly recommend it.

Adam Mastroianni:

Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

Eric Zimmer:

Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought-provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better, and that’s you. Just hit the share button on your podcast app or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the One You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Footer

GET YOUR FREE GUIDE

Sign-up now to get your FREE GUIDE: Top 5 Reasons You Can’t Seem To Stick With A Meditation Practice (And How To Actually Build One That Lasts), our monthly newsletter, The Good Wolf Feed, our monthly email teachings about behavior change as well as other periodic valuable content.

"*" indicates required fields

Name*

The One You Feed PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR A BETTER LIFE

Quicklinks

  • Home
  • About Eric Zimmer
  • About Ginny Gay
  • About the Parable
  • About the Podcast
  • Podcast Episode Shownotes
  • Contact: General Inquiries
  • Contact: Guest Requests

Programs

  • Free Habits That Stick Masterclass
  • Wise Habits
  • Wise Habits Text Reminders
  • Membership
  • Coaching
  • Free ebook: How to Stick to Mediation Practice

Subscribe to Emails

Subscribe for a weekly bite of wisdom from Eric for a wiser, happier you:

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By submitting your information, you consent to subscribe to The One You Feed email list so that we may send you relevant content from time to time. Please see our Privacy Policy.

All Materials © 2025 One You Feed | Terms | Privacy Policy |  Powered by Tall Poppies