Podcasts about benenson

Episode 289-Remember Bryan Malinowski Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 289 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS ATF raid, Brian Malinowski, unlicensed dealer, Arkansas lawmakers, DOJ investigation, no-knock warrant, self-defense, gun laws, Biden administration, Waco incident, Ruby Ridge, gun deserts, consumer protection, defensive property, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Teddy Nappen 00:24 So. Evan Nappen 00:25 Teddy, what’s up, man? Teddy Nappen 00:28 Well, just flipping through Ammoland from John Crump, by John Crump. I never even heard of this story. Like, I’m going to be very honest. I did not know this happened under the, by the ATF. Arkansas lawmakers are demanding the DOJ investigate the ATF raid on Brian Malinowski. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/05/arkansas-lawmakers-doj-investigation-atf-raid-bryan-malinowski/) Evan Nappen 00:54 Are you talking about Malinowski? Teddy Nappen 00:56 Yeah, Malinowski. When reading the article, I was shocked, because I remember from all the criminal procedures of like, what you would do. And I’m like, this is the, I was getting flashbacks to watching the Waco documentary, from reading, like. Page – 2 – of 14 Evan Nappen 01:14 Teddy, let me explain. Yeah, I’m familiar with the Malinowski case. So, Malinowski was a total law-abiding guy. No priors, no issues, a law -abiding guy. He lived in, I believe, it was Alabama, and he was gun collector. He’d go to gun shows, and he would trade for guns. Sell private sale guns, etc., okay? A collector. And what happened was, as you may recall, the Biden bull garbage that we were dealing with. Trying to turn people into dealers who weren’t dealers. Well, ATF apparently believed that Mr. Malinowski was being an unlicensed gun dealer. Now, here’s the thing. He is a professional, first of all. As I recall, his background was in air traffic, you know, with the airline. Air Traffic Control, I think it was. Teddy Nappen 02:37 He was the, he looked like he was the head of the Clinton National Airport of Little Rock. Evan Nappen 02:43 Yeah. Here is a guy who’s a professional, head of an airport, that has his hobby of firearms, as many of us do. And Alabama is a private sale legal state. Teddy Nappen 02:56 I think it was Arkansas. Evan Nappen 02:59 Arkansas? Oh, yeah, yes, Arkansas, Arkansas. Teddy Nappen 03:02 Or the proper term, ArKansas. Evan Nappen 03:04 Well, it was legal for. Right! It was Arkansas, and it was legal to do. And what happened was just outrageous. They claimed he was in the business of selling firearms without an FFL. So, that’s the charge. You know whether they could prove it or not prove it or whatever, that’s what their claim was. And what happened was, ATF and Little Rock Police got a search warrant, and they came to his home at 6 am to look for evidence of wrongdoing. ATF breached the door with a battering ram. And I think, according to his wife, Malinowsky believed that these were intruders breaking into his home at 6 am, and he fired at the agents, not realizing, of course, what the hell’s going on. He hit one in the foot, and law officers there returned fire. Shooting Malinowski in the head and killing him dead. Evan Nappen 04:27 So, here’s what the lawmakers, they sent a letter to DOJ about this, and the letter reads, listen to this. “Awakened by the sound of the breach, Mr. Malinowski retrieved a handgun and encountered an armed silhouette entering his home. He fired toward the intruder’s feet. An ATF agent immediately returned fire, striking Mr. Malinowski in the forehead and killing him. Mrs. Malinowski was standing only inches behind him.” Now, this is activity by ATF, where they are going after, you know, what is essentially paperwork crime, if it even qualifies as crime. They busted down his door at 6 am. How come this was done as a no knock for this guy? Who knows? Crazy. He ends up getting killed. And yet here, Teddy, you didn’t even hear about it. Yet, we take cases with, and hear about cases with, with ICE, right? Page – 3 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:46 Pretti and Good. (Alex) Pretti and (Renee) Good. Evan Nappen 05:47 Yeah, Pretti and Good. Where, you know, with Renee Good, she was, you know, trying to run down, allegedly, this officer. She went there to protest. She was there knowing there was going to be agitation, knowing there’s going to be trouble going there. Same with Pretti, same with Pretti. Teddy Nappen 06:10 Who actually was fighting with the police. Evan Nappen 06:12 Fighting with them and going there. Evan Nappen 06:14 That’s not what happened here. We have a guy in his home! A law-abiding guy in his home, who at best, has paperwork violations. A licensing violation at best. Not even that that is necessarily legitimate, and he ends up shot in the head over the actions taken by ATF. And you don’t hear a peep about it in the lame stream media. Teddy Nappen 06:42 The other part that really, there’s two pieces that stick out. Three pieces, actually, stick out to me. Number one, the knock and announce. So, I remember, in criminal procedure, we talked about this. It is very important on the knock and announce for the officers. They waited 23 seconds. They knocked, waited 23 seconds, and then break the door down. They also had enough time to tape the camera, the doorbell camera. And no body cams, because apparently, their excuse was low funding. Not enough funding for body cams even though they are supposed to have. Evan Nappen 07:19 They had enough money to buy tape. Teddy Nappen 07:21 Yeah, they had enough money to buy tape. Yeah, they had enough. Evan Nappen 07:24 To cover the doorbell lock camera, cover the door. Look, if they’re there as law enforcement, don’t you want it known to this guy, who has no priors, who’s not a problem? Don’t you want it known that it’s law enforcement there? You want to make it crystal clear! Hey, Government, law enforcement here. Boom! You want to be seen on the Ring that you are law enforcement and not 6 am house hot invaders. Teddy Nappen 08:01 The other factor is there is clear. There have been other encounters with the ATF with this exact same scenario. You know what they did? They knocked on the door and said, Hi, we’re with the ATF. It’s the Page – 4 – of 14 Ring doorbell camera there. That situation. They’ll you say, No, I’m, you know, I’m not talking to you, or we’re here to arrest you. Okay, we’re, that’s it. They had so many other encounters where this could have been. But instead, they decided to go full Waco SWAT team and assassinate this man. Evan Nappen 08:30 It’s insane. It’s insane. And, you know, their history of activities. I mean, we know, you know, Waco was just horrible. They had a guy inside of the facility that could have easily made that encounter completely non- violent. Instead, way back in those days, you know, with Clinton and company, they did it to try to make an example out of this guy’s church, etc. And of course, it was all to “save the children”, to save the children, which all end up dying because of what they did. Teddy Nappen 09:13 And then tried to cover it up. Evan Nappen 09:13 With the fire, and then tried to cover it up. Oh, they bulldozed the scene as quick as they could afterwards. Teddy Nappen 09:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 09:21 You know, because the stuff they used lit the place on fire. Teddy Nappen 09:28 My favorite was, if you do, you remember the hearings? Where you know how the you could clearly see the Dems trying to justify the ATF murdering people? Evan Nappen 09:36 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:37 Republicans fighting, and I love the one. Evan Nappen 09:39 Don’t forget Ruby Ridge as well. Teddy Nappen 09:41 Yep. Evan Nappen 09:42 I mean, over a shotgun barrel, that was where they entrapped the guy, literally entrapped the guy. They ended up paying like $3 million in civil damages for their actions there at Ruby Ridge. Okay? So this kind of rogue insanity, oh, it’s fine, as long as it’s on gun owners, you know. Page – 5 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 10:08 But this is the key. What really bothers me the most, Dad. The biggest question they’re asking from the lawmakers, the political motivation. The question remains, is whether the timing and aggressiveness of the operation were influenced by the impending rollout, by the ATF’s final ruling of the “engaged in the business of selling firearms”. So, imagine if, right now, and I always have to tell this to all those out there who are trying to say, you know, Republicans and Democrats are the exact same thing. Or should have just voted for Kamala Harris. Imagine Kamala Harris now with their current ATF, and they enforce that law, where you and I are going to be assassinated in the night by armed guards bursting in accusing people of being unlicensed. It’s disgusting! Evan Nappen 10:58 The armed agent nonsense of doing this. Luckily, you know, President Trump and his administration are taking steps now to remove, in the 39 rule proposals, remove that absurd “doing business” expansion that Biden did. So, basically, if you sell a gun, you’re considered a dealer under the old Biden. Ending the so-called, where even going after dealers themselves by saying, one error, one error, and you can lose your FFL completely. I mean, these activities are just outrageous. What takes place there barely gets any attention. But if you’re out there causing problems regarding other wrongdoers, that being illegal aliens, that are themselves having broken the law, and here they’re trying to protect other lawbreakers. And then you go to this cause a conflict, the media blows that all over the place. But here, this guy gets shot in the head in his home. Teddy Nappen 12:30 You know, it’s also people don’t talk about that, comparatively to the ICE tactics. The ICE tactics, what they do are actually far much more safer. They do everything they can to not escalate and just go full SWAT team and shoot people on that. The two extremes, where someone is trying to run you over with a car, or the other individual who is attacking and fighting with them, and then during the scarcity of when in the chaos of all them trying to hold him down the confusion, he gets shot. That’s the clear difference here. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, justification, all right. He fired at them. They fired back. Looking at everything prior to where there was barely any knock. They taped the cameras. No body cams. They just went into the night. The wife says, I think there is an intruder. By the way, their warrant said not a dangerous threat, not a dangerous criminal. Evan Nappen 13:26 So, they were even told, so why are they taping the doorbell camera? Just act normal. You know, we’re here. We’re law enforcement. We have a warrant. Let us in. We have a warrant. I would bet you anything, as long as they made it clear they had a warrant, this guy is going to be okay. You have a warrant come in. Instead, he’s under this impression that his house is subject to a hot robbery. Teddy Nappen 13:53 Yeah, by the way, it’s dark. Where were the, you know, badges, anything, just to say, anyone, you bust down the door and yelled police on that front. SWAT teams are trained in that engagement where you’re going in to a situation, clearing rooms, if you’re going to go in that hot. I mean, where’s the justification for that? Where the guy had no priors, nothing. It’s insane. Page – 6 – of 14 Evan Nappen 14:17 It is. And, you know, I visited the site at Waco. If you ever get out there, they have a memorial site. This is, of course, not official, but they have it there, and you can pay a visit. You know, the I saw the actual warrant for Koresh for the raid on Waco. The actual search warrant that they were using. And one of the lines that stuck out to me was where they said they observed, when they had their inside man, that he had subversive literature there. This is actually in the warrant, in the affidavit for the warrant. That he had subversive literature. And the subversive literature, written in the warrant, was Shotgun News and Soldier of Fortune Magazine. Did you know that that’s known as subversive literature? SOF and Shotgun News. Yeah. That was Janet Reno. She was the Attorney General back then. Whoof. Bad news, bad news. Evan Nappen 15:29 And those incidents, you think they would learn from these other horror shows that they conducted. Not to pull that again. But once Democrats are pushing it, especially as you point out, when they want to make an example, they will try to do something like this to push their agenda. I’m sure that was part of their motivation. We’ve seen them try to lay groundwork anytime they want to push an agenda. A great example of it is the so- called, which you don’t hear about anymore after the incident, as you recall the Fast and Furious Operation. With the Fast and Furious Operation, they were providing arms to the Narco terrorists. So, the U.S. Government, through them, gave arms that supposedly had trackers or something to arm the bad guys. And one of the arms ended up killing a Federal officer later. (https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/facts-are-stubborn-things-connection-between-fast-and-furious-and-agent-terrys) I think it was Terry. Brian Terry was his name. They ended up killing Terry with guns supplied by the Government. Now, why were they doing this? Well, they were pursuing an anti-Second Amendment agenda. Teddy Nappen 16:52 Wasn’t it the steel pipeline? Evan Nappen 16:54 Well, the iron pipeline. What it was they. At the same time that they had tried this Fast and Furious Operation, to try to somehow demonstrate that guns are flowing from the U.S. to Narco terrorists. That’s when they also put in the multiple rifle reporting requirements on the border states. And that’s also when they changed the 4473 where you have to either admit or deny your Hispanic heritage. This was all part of this approach that was the iron pipeline idea. It blew up in their face. So, they had to abandon it after Fast and Furious. But that was their evil plan back then. So, it wouldn’t surprise me that this was part of their propaganda campaign, and it ends up with this guy shot in the head. It’s just outrageous. Teddy Nappen 17:59 As I recall, I think it was the head of the operation, during some interview where he’s talking about it. How we planned to put GPS trackers into the firearms to see where they ended up. And did you? No. They just handed the guns, just handed them over. Yeah, then when they found it for some murder or Page – 7 – of 14 some crime, they’re like, oh yeah. They trace the serial number, and like, oh, that’s one of ours. Our bad! Whoopsie. Evan Nappen 18:27 Yeah, yeah. So, as long as the U.S. Government was arming Narco terrorists, that’s okay. Teddy Nappen 18:34 I know, right? Evan Nappen 18:35 And putting guns into. You know, you see from the Left, and this even reflects in the Southern Poverty Law Center. Well, we don’t really have enough racism. So, I guess we’ll pay racists to make sure, you know. Hence, you get Charlotteville and all those things happening. By a creation. by the Left, to create the issue for them to then create more intrusion, more laws, more of their agenda by doing these operations. This is their M.O. Teddy Nappen 19:11 Take it a step further, Dad. You have to remember when it comes to the Left, and this is just, they recruit the mentally ill. I’ll give you the best one. 45% of liberals describe their mental health as poor. 45%. That’s right from a pole. Evan Nappen 19:29 I think that’s low. Teddy Nappen 19:29 It probably is higher, but this is my point. They recruit the mentally ill. They scream and call people Nazis, fascists. They’re going to kill you. They’re gonna go after your family. They’re doing everything they can. Evan Nappen 19:30 Pedos. Smear with everything they can come up with. Smear, smear, smear. Make sure you populate the internet with all the smears. Make sure you have the paid protesters pushing the smears. I mean, their propaganda machine is second to none. Teddy Nappen 20:02 And then when one of them, who’s mentally ill enough to say, yeah, let’s do it. And then tries to run down a hallway and get shot down by an MP7. Thank you, Secret Service. Or another individual tries to shoot at our President, multiple times, different ones. Evan Nappen 20:20 No. Now they want to blame, somehow it’s President Trump’s fault. Teddy Nappen 20:25 Yeah, yeah. Page – 8 – of 14 Evan Nappen 20:26 You know what? Teddy Nappen 20:27 It’s so disgusting. Evan Nappen 20:31 Well, and it’s not just Democrats, but also, as you call the black pillars. They don’t help the situation. Teddy Nappen 20:37 They’re the, I like what Stephen Crowder calls them. They’re the woke Right, the horseshoe Right. They’re saying they’re all the same, man. They’re all the same. Look at the inroads that Trump has made, and imagine. Do you really want to give the other party that power where they’ll send in a hit squad to kill you because they think you’re illegally selling guns? That is what you want? No, thank you. Do not hand it. You’re a bunch of accelerationists thinking that we’re gonna really make change. No, you’re handing power to the individuals that want to destroy us. That is insane. Evan Nappen 21:16 I mean, you know, look back just under the Biden administration, what we put up with. Curtailing freedom of speech, with the conspiracies that are shown to be absolute lies against the President and against Republicans. I mean, the stuff they did is unbelievable. I guess you saw Dan Bongino talking about the burn bag that has all that information in it. They wanted to burn it, and somehow ended up not burned. Somebody, I think, didn’t want that to get burned. Somebody there wanted the truth. Teddy Nappen 21:55 You also have to remember the Twitter files. Mark Zuckerberg admitting that he was pressured by the Biden administration to censor Republicans and the pressure that Democrats in charge to censor Republican and conservative voices. The YouTube censorship. All the big tech censorship, all up and down. Now you’re saying, no, no. Let’s give this back to the Left. It’s no. You’re ridiculous if you think that is actually a good strategy. So, yeah. Evan Nappen 22:23 Well, Teddy. Let me tell you what’s going on this week at WeShoot. So, WeShoot has Smith and Wesson Bodyguards, the 2.0 Performance Center, Carry Comp. This is a pretty hot gun. It’s ultra concealable, which is very important in New Jersey. And it has upgraded performance center tuning and an integrated compensator that keeps recall flat and control high. They also have the Radian Ramjet and Afterburner Barrel and Comp, which is really the ultimate Glock upgrade. It transforms that platform to having reduced muzzle rise, faster follow up and next level shooting dynamics. They also are offering the Daniel Defense DDM4 MK18, which is a short barrel legend with military roots, and that gun will deliver unmatched reliability and maneuverability in tight spaces. And you don’t want to miss Karly Morgan, she’s the “Dirt Bike” All-American Girl, bringing raw energy, independence and fearless spirit to the WeShoot lifestyle. Proving, once again, that freedom isn’t just protected, it’s lived. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 23:57 And by the way, WeShoot is running a Mother’s Day special promo, and they have some great deals going on there. WeShoot is the place. It’s an indoor range conveniently located in Lakewood, right off the Parkway. It’s where Teddy and I shoot, and we get our training there. You can get your training there, too. Get your necessary CCARE certificates for New Jersey carry. You can get any of the beginner to advanced training. WeShoot really has it all. It’s a great range, great place. We love it. You’ll love it, too. Check out. weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 24:47 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun laws. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer to guide you through the matrix of insanity that we call New Jersey gun law. It’s all done in that question and answer format. You’ll get answers to your legal questions out of that book in writing by me. That’s right. An attorney who has dedicated his life to defending law-abiding New Jersey gun owners and trying to make it so we don’t commit GOFUs. Because New Jersey is loaded with them. And protect yourself, man. Knowledge is power. Go to EvanNappen com. You’ll see the big orange book there and get a copy today. Hey, what else, Teddy, is on your mind that you’ve discovered? Teddy Nappen 25:47 So, this one came up recently. As everyone’s favorite, I am Spartacus, Senator Cory Booker. One of his staffers decided to bring a his carry into the Capitol. And every time I see that individual, I think of, didn’t you debate Cory Booker? Evan Nappen 26:09 I did. I debated Corey Booker. Teddy Nappen 26:11 When what was it? Evan Nappen 26:13 I debated Cory Booker a number of years ago on TV. He came in, and we were arguing about New Jersey gun laws. They brought him in as, big surprise, for the anti-Second Amendment arguments. And I’ll tell you upfront, as a person, he’s a very personable guy. Like personable. Talking to him, he’s friendly. But, of course, you know, the anti-gun arguments always fail. This was no different. Teddy Nappen 26:46 He’s a Gavin Newsom. He’s slick. Evan Nappen 26:48 Right. He’s slick. But you know, unfortunately, their agenda is that of being anti-rights. They love to claim that they, oh, I support the Second Amendment, BUT. It’s always that, BUT. And the but is, I want to ban all guns or whatever. But they somehow support the Second Amendment, and they’ve never met a gun law they didn’t like. So, so much for that lie. Page – 10 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 27:11 I always think of the Left. They always try. If they ever took power and packed the court, they’re just going to go to the Second Amendment and go, look, that’s a comma. See that comma? That means we can pass whatever we want, like. Evan Nappen 27:32 Well, it’s a living document. It’s a living document. In a modern society, there’s no reason why anyone needs, whatever, fill in the blank. Teddy Nappen 27:44 Yeah. Fill in the blank. Evan Nappen 27:45 As if need has got anything to do with anything. Teddy Nappen 27:48 You know, like the ATF rolling up on your house and trying to assassinate you. Evan Nappen 27:52 Well, you know, what do you need a sports car for? What do you need a supercharged bass boat for? What do you need any. You know, we’re not a needs-based society. We’re not each according to their needs. That ain’t us. Okay? Needs ain’t about it, all right? Teddy Nappen 28:14 Well, the Socialist got nothing to do with it. Evan Nappen 28:17 Yeah, and they do. Evan Nappen 28:18 And that’s a growing movement. You know, you hear the term Democrat socialist. The only difference between a Democrat socialist and a socialist is a Democrat socialist is trying to impose socialism by way of our elections and the political process, to make a socialist. And make the same. Yeah. Teddy Nappen 28:41 They’re communists. They’re just communists. They literally. You had Bernie Sanders honeymooning in the USSR, and you had Sean Penn praising Venezuela. And what was it? Jane Fonda and Cuba praising the Cuban regime. Evan Nappen 29:00 Just recently, Jayapal, the legislator, was caught trying to figure out how they can get oil past the U.S. sanctions embargo to Cuba. (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6395078651112?utm_content=other&utm_source=flipboard) Isn’t that great? Just try to undermine our foreign policy. Isn’t that cute? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 29:00 You know, some might say that would be aiding a foreign adversary, but, you know. Evan Nappen 29:25 Right. Yeah. I mean, who knows, but somehow they just keep on going with this stuff, with our enemies. With folks that are opposed to what has created the greatest standard of living in the history of humanity, and that is capitalism. Teddy Nappen 29:48 But going back to it Cory Booker. His staffer was a retired law enforcement officer. He had the gun on him, and he went into the Capitol. He was arrested last year, and of course, the charges were dropped without any consequences lingering. And now the debate on whether he could carry or not, I went. Evan Nappen 30:08 He may have been retired law enforcement. I don’t know if LEOSA applied in that particular situation in law enforcement safety. Teddy Nappen 30:17 Yeah, I pulled it from the U.S. Capitol Police. Their rules are all weapons are prohibited, even if you are a retired law enforcement officer. Evan Nappen 30:28 So, I don’t know how it got dismissed. Teddy Nappen 30:32 Well, you know why. Evan Nappen 30:35 Yeah, exactly. Teddy Nappen 30:36 But it could have been, the minutia of the staffer had gotten permission. Apparently, if you meet certain requirements, you could have, but it didn’t seem, there was no mention if he even met the requirements. Doesn’t matter. They just walked away the charges. It’s right there with, uh, Mr. Pull the fire alarm because I don’t understand how to open a door. What was his name? Evan Nappen 30:56 I don’t remember. But yeah, yeah, right, yeah. Teddy Nappen 30:59 Like that. Yeah. Charges dropped. But this is the thing. It’s always about the elitism. Where you have, here’s someone extremely anti-gun pushing the anti-gun agenda. Right here, the newest article right from them. U.S. Senator Cory Booker leads colleagues renewed push to establish safety standards for Page – 12 – of 14 firearms in an effort to save lives. Pushing a new bill right here. They’re going to add the Firearms Safety Act. It creates a Consumer Product Safety Act that was first passed in 1972. It corrects the gap. Evan Nappen 31:36 The gap, the so-called gap. What it is they want this mechanism in the Government so that they can ban guns via Consumer Protection. The idea is to abuse Consumer Protection laws, and you see New Jersey doing this state side. They’re alleging the Consumer Protection violations under state law against legitimate dealers, gun makers, etc. So, beware. This is yet a further angle that they’re pursuing to take away our rights. It’s the movement of gun rights suppression is to go at every angle. Whether they can link guns to a health care problem, whether they can link guns to a consumer protection problem, whether they can, you know, anything they can somehow tag it on with that’s what they try to do to expand their suppression of our rights. It’s classic tactics by those that oppose the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 32:53 Well, what they’re trying to do is create and I’ve coined this term. I don’t know who else coined it, but I like it. Gun deserts. They are trying to, the Left are trying to, the Left are trying to push the stupid argument of a food desert, which you can have food delivered very easily. From what they’re doing, going after gun dealers in Jersey, making extremely hard to even open a shop. I’m taking this term gun desert. They’re trying to create gun deserts. Making it extremely hard to get a firearm. Because they know they can’t win on the legislation and our rights, so now they’re just going to sue our rights away by going after the very people. Evan Nappen 33:26 And what’s interesting, one of the regs being put forward, actually a combination of them, federally, will, and I haven’t read the text, but apparently, what they’re looking to do is have the 4473 computerized. Then you’ll be able to purchase a gun online, and the firearm can actually be delivered to your door. Now, I don’t know how that might work under New Jersey state law, probably not able to do it. But in many, many states, it will be feasible if it first goes through a dealer. They’ve recently allowed guns to be shipped even via the post office. Of course, it’s regulated how to do it, but there was at one point a complete ban. That’s no longer the case. Evan Nappen 34:20 And if they get this electronically set up and they change the rules, they can allow it. Right now, for example, you can buy a suppressor and have it go directly to your door. They’ve set up a network of dealers in suppressor-legal states. These companies like Silencer Central, etc, they’re able to process your NFA form online. They have an interface to the e-forms for the federal government. You can do the prints by way of a computer, and then once everything gets approved, you’re literally mailed your suppressor to your door. Now, of course, not in New Jersey. New Jersey has a state ban on suppressors, but that is currently being challenged as to its constitutionality. So, this is where we’re at. There is still good hope. I still am optimistic, seeing these fundamental changes take place federally, and we’re seeing victories politically still happening. The fight is full bore in the courts. Don’t lose hope. We are winning slowly but surely. We’re gaining ground in many of these areas, even though these Page – 13 – of 14 problems are still there that need to be addressed. But the good news is it is a new day when it comes to the ability to have the tools to fight for rights. Evan Nappen 36:06 And that’s something I’ve seen over four decades of gun law practice, my friends. I see it. I remember way back when I started, you couldn’t even find a law journal article that spoke about the individual right to keep and bear arms. And frankly, thanks to the NRA, let’s give credit where credit is due. Early on, they pushed the academic side of researching the truth about our Second Amendment rights, and that became critical in the Heller decision and decisions that have followed from Heller. Having that depth of historic scholarly research on our rights, which 40 years ago didn’t exist, did not exist, because it had been suppressed and ignored. Look, I started my practice with a very you know, I became an attorney, and I had the honor of working for the very first firearm law firm in America, which was Benenson, Kates & Hardy. There was no such thing prior to that of a firearm law firm. And back in those days, you know, another attorney would ask, what kind of law do you practice? I’d say, you know, firearm law. They go, what? What do you mean firearm law? They wouldn’t even know what it was. Couldn’t even wrap their head around it. Evan Nappen 37:44 And now, of course, with the Supreme Court decisions and this growth of challenges, etc, you see a completely different view and understanding of what firearm law means and its importance, and the practice of gun law is accepted. I remember at one point in the old Red Book, they called it, where they list lawyers by categories. And I said, hey, I want a listing of firearm law. They said, we don’t have firearm law. I said well make the category firearm law, because it even exist as a practice area, right that you would focus on for your practice. So there’s been a lot of advancement. The fight is, of course, on, but this is, this is where we are. It is interesting looking back and seeing and I do believe that we will succeed. We will succeed. Truth is on our side. Truth is absolutely on our side, and the day when we no longer have to be victims, but can be defenders, and not just our right to keep their arms being respected, but our right to self defense being respected, because that too is protected by the Second Amendment our right to defense. And don’t take that lightly, because throughout the rest of the world, particularly in the formerly Great Britain, use a gun to defend yourself. You get arrested, charged and prosecuted for using a firearm to defend yourself, right? That’s where our rights are critical, not just having the hardware to do it, but also the legal and lawful ability to do it, and our self defense laws, though, still need to be changed and worked on. Matter of fact, Teddy, we were talking about that, weren’t we? Teddy Nappen 39:56 Yeah, one of the big things we were discussing as well as back from the previous podcast. One of the previous episodes, we were talking about the right of defense of property. I felt that there should be a change in the law. I know you always said “life wins over property”, but. Evan Nappen 40:16 It does. Page – 14 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 40:16 There needs to be. Correct. But there needs to be a deterrence, because right now, heavy amounts of robberies, car jack, like carjacking, the car theft. It’s one of those where I always looked at Jeff Cooper’s quote. I always think to that quote. The criminal does not fear the police. The criminal does not fear the courts. The criminal must learn to fear the victim. That is the only way I can see us solving this issue of crime. To deter the individuals. Knowing, oh, my G-d, if I do this, I might get my head blown off. Evan Nappen 40:56 So, you’re right, and that brings us to the GOFU. The GOFU, of course, is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We look at mistakes and things to be very concerned about, where others have paid a dear price. And that is important when it comes to self-defense. Because self-defense in the law is known as justification for the use of force. And what a lot of folks don’t realize is that self-defense or justification for the use of force is an affirmative defense. And when something is an affirmative defense in law, it means the burden of proof initially shifts to the defendant. So, if you use force, deadly force, if you use that even though you may say, hey, it was self-defense, the burden of proof is on you to be able to prove that you were reasonable. And that reasonableness of your force gets determined by those 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty. So, you better be very reasonable. And the problem is if you depart from that knowledge where you are essentially guilty until proven innocent, and you better realize that if you pull that trigger, the burden of proof is, under our current laws, on you. Evan Nappen 42:35 Now, that’s not everywhere, believe it or not. In Florida, for example, they have put that burden back on the state initially before they can even proceed with the prosecution. They first have to demonstrate that you were not justified in using force, at least to the degree of making their initial charges. But in New Jersey and most other states, it is still an affirmative defense, where, in essence, you’re guilty until proven innocent. Make sure you know the self-defense laws. Make sure that your fear was reasonable. Make sure it was justified under the laws. Because, if not, you’re going to pay a very steep price. Evan Nappen 43:29 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 43:40 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E289_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.louiseperry.co.ukMy guest today is Joyce Benenson, Lecturer in Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and the author of ‘Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes.' We spoke about boys and men – why even very young boys are often obsessed with enemies, superheroes, weapons, and everything else to do with warfare, and how psychological sex differences ar…

Welcome to Episode 203 of the Tangential Inspiration Podcast- we have an episode brimming with inspiration for the taking. Hear about some people who are helping return stolen bicycles to their owners, Peter Benenson the founder of Amnesty International, and a college president who is running to help community college students. You are sure to find some inspiration. Have a listen.#BeKind#WeStandWithUkraineWe would love to hear from you. Send us your comments or even your own inspirational stories at tangentialinspiration@gmail.com.Follow us on our social media:Instagram: tangentialinspirationpodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/tangentialinspirationTwitter: https://twitter.com/TangentialInsp1Produced and Edited by Craig Wymetalek Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Have you ever been held back by your inner critic, that voice that stops you from reaching your full potential?Today, we're shaking things up by providing practical tips to confront that inner saboteur and reclaim your power. In this episode, I'm revisiting a valuable interview I had with my friend, Sarah Goldberg, about the techniques to overcome your inner critic. This voice inside our heads, also known as the saboteur or negative self-talk, can cause us to feel afraid and doubtful of our abilities, which ultimately stops us from achieving our goals.Join us as we discuss effective strategies to silence that critical voice and propel yourself toward success.Here's what you can expect from this episode:How to discover your inner critic or saboteur because we all have one.Strategies of how you can identify your inner critic's themes and how to manage them.How you can shift your disempowered throught to a more empowering one.We explore how perfectionism can hinder your progress toward significant goals.The key takeaway from our conversation is the importance of internal awareness in addressing the sabotaging voice. Remember, leadership starts with internal reflection.As a seasoned consultant, coach, and communication expert, Sarah Goldberg brings credibility and valuable insights to the topic of overcoming the inner critic. Formerly a Director at The Walt Disney Company and founder of West Coast Advantage, Sarah's unique blend of strategic and empathetic perspectives enhances leadership skills and fosters personal growth. If you found value in this episode, please share it with others. Connect with Sarah Benenson Goldberg:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-benenson-goldberg-1b8ab37/ Website: https://www.sbgleadership.com/   Connect with your host, Kele Belton:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kele-ruth-belton/    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thetailoredapproach/     Website: https://thetailoredapproach.com

E164 - Wayne Benenson, Ph.D. and Barb Hughson, Ph.D. - Co-Authors of Claim Your Light - Gaining Insight for a Fulfilling LifeDr. WayneDr. Wayne is a glass half full kind of teacher. A curiosity for learning and teaching has taken him to many classrooms: from urban to suburban to rural; and from elementary, middle, high school and university; and from large group to small group to tutorials and online. What's kept him enthusiastic in over five decades as a teacher and coach, parent and grandparent, has been the search for the “teachable moment.” Often such an opportunity to grow comes gift wrapped as a problem to be solved. He's found ways, time and time again, to reframe any unwelcome burdens as a mystery to be solved. Dr. BarbDr. Barb has been involved in education and learning for over 22 years. She has been an entrepreneur offering courses in parenting, a mediator for families, and a therapist for children and adolescents.  Dr. Barb coaches leaders of all levels to be better versions of themselves (see her site at www.DrBarbHughson.com). She created a model for coaching centered around self-awareness, the true foundation of leadership.  Her bright spirit and friendly nature allow her to build strong and caring relationships with everyone she meets.   She has an MA and an MSEd in Counseling and Education and an EdD in Organizational Leadership.Book: Claim Your Light - Gaining Insight for a Fulfilling LifeAmazon CanadaAmazon UShttps://www.greatmastersinc.com/A podcast is an excellent business card for your book, coaching program or business! Build a community away from the rented land of social media - speak directly to your community and position yourself as the expert that you truly are!Take your passion to the next level - let us help you start and grow your podcast! Podcasts work. Visit https://truemediasolutions.ca/Dave's Audio Book Recommendation for Spring 2023Storyworthy: Engage, Teach, Persuade, and Change Your Life Through the Power of Storytelling A five-time Moth Grand SLAM winner and bestselling novelist shows how to tell a great story - and why doing so matters. Whether we realize it or not, we are always telling stories. On a first date or job interview, at a sales presentation or therapy appointment, with family or friends, we are constantly narrating events and interpreting emotions and actions. In this compelling book, storyteller extraordinaire Matthew Dicks presents wonderfully straightforward and engaging tips and techniques for constructing, telling, and polishing stories that will hold the attention of your audience (no matter how big or small). He shows that anyone can learn to be an appealing storyteller, that everyone has something “storyworthy” to express, and, perhaps most important, that the act of creating and telling a tale is a powerful way of understanding and enhancing your own life.Dave's Affiliate Link - Support our show by clicking the link belowUS Audible LinkCanadian Audible LinkUK Audible LinkSupport the show!...

Joyce Benenson is an author, a scientist, and a lecturer in the department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. During our conversation, Joyce talks about her field of expertise and research: sex differences in competition and cooperation. She also discusses human hierarchies, common misconceptions about men and boys, how she would, on average, describe the male and female psyche, consistent differences between boys and girls in childhood, and more.Like many of the recent, brilliant guests on this show, Joyce's focus is human nature: what we know about who we are and what we're like. I can't get enough of this subject, and people like her have spent a career trying to answer fundamental questions about what makes us human.------------Support via VenmoSupport on SubstackSupport on Patreon------------Show notesRate on SpotifyRate on Apple PodcastsSocial media and all episodes------------(00:00) Intro (01:54) Joyce's work with children (05:03) The major differences between men and women (09:54) The male vs. the female psyche (17:12) Females care more about equality than males (26:24) Sexual differences of labor (31:59) Male nature in the modern world (41:02) Female intersexual competition: safe, subtle, solitary (53:14) Men are communal: debunking a myth about men

What are the evolutionary differences between men and women, and how do they survive and thrive through differing competitive strategies? In this episode, Dr. Joyce Benenson talks with Bill about her book, Warriors and Worriers, which draws her extensive lifelong research on children's interactions. The result is fascinating array of studies and stories that explore the ways boys and men deter their enemies, while girls and women find assistants to aid them in coping with vulnerable children and elders. Dr. Benenson, a retired professor of psychology at Emmanuel College and an associate member of the Human Evolutionary Biology Department at Harvard University, turns upside down the conventional wisdom that women are more sociable than men and that men are more competitive than women. E.O. Wilson of Harvard praises her work as: "brave, thoroughly documented, and written with unusual clarity … her book explains more about the fundamentals of gender differences – and the meaning of human nature – than a library of conventional social science." An engaging conversationalist, Joyce quickly deconstructs the notion that being male, or female is simply a matter of “sex assigned at birth.”  Human history is a story of men and women genetically built to specialize in different behaviors necessary to ensure the survival of their children to adulthood.

Show Notes for Episode Twenty-Four of seX & whY: Sex and Gender Differences in Conflict, Part 2 Host: Jeannette Wolfe Guest: Joyce Benenson, lecturer of evolutionary biology at Harvard and author of the book Warriors and Worriers In this podcast we continue our discussion about women interacting with each other at the workplace and how women often manage hierarchy differently than men. We got into a spirited discussion about a question posted on a female physician's list serve querying whether women physicians want to be addressed as  “Doctor” by other staff members. (My own preference was “yes” in front of patients, and “no” once we were outside of exam rooms.) Benenson believes that when women are interacting with women who are not family, they tend to act incredibly egalitarian. This can be challenging for women in hierarchical positions and lead to a downplay of their power. This intentional buffering may not only use up a lot of cognitive energy, but it can also be a potential disadvantage in professional situations that require a clear chain of command to optimize team performance. This can put women on a professional tightrope that can be hard to balance. Ways to address this include acknowledging that this challenge is real, committing to direct communication and focusing on shared outcome goals of the entire team. Personally, I have also found it extremely helpful to humanize the other person and remind myself that most people don't go to work with malicious intent to try and screw up another person's day. Next, we talked about likeability, and Benenson shared a fascinating economics paper called: I (Don't) Like You! But Who Cares? Gender Differences in Same Sex and Mixed Sex Teams. This paper included a series of studies in which pairs participated in games that involved economic transactions and “likeability”. In pairs where men worked with other men, “liking” their partner was not intricately related to maximizing their profits. This was not the case in teams that involved at least one woman. In these pairs, likeability increased the chance of profits and dis-likability decreased overall profits. This suggests that when interreacting with each other, men may have a greater ability to compartmentalize their professional interactions from their personal opinions. Next, we talked about the “tend and befriend” theory developed by Dr Shelly Taylor. This theory suggests that when stressed, that females may benefit less from a fight or flight response and more from coming together to pool resources and share childcare. Benenson's impression is that there is little scientific evidence that this theory holds true.  She believes, contrary to the popular stereotype, that males are actually far more likely to be the communal sex and are much more likely to form intense group bonds.  At the end, I briefly reviewed some of the findings of a recent paper Dr Benenson published called: Self Protection as an Adaptive Female Strategy which supports the “Staying Alive Theory”. From an evolutionary perspective, behaviors that are more likely to be found in groups of males than females, such as direct competition, physical aggression, resource accumulation and risk taking, have evolved because they provide a benefit to males in optimizing their mating opportunities and reproductive fitness. The question becomes, is there a parallel evolutionary driver for females. The Staying Alive Theory is one proposal. This theory originally developed by Campbell in 1999, suggests that compared to males, females are more likely to be innately wired to avoid conflict and be more physiologically responsive to threats that can jeopardize their health. By doing so, this helps females optimize their chance of their own fitness and the survival of their own offspring.  In their paper, Benenson and her group surveyed several different areas of science to look for support of the Staying Alive Theory and here are some of their findings.  In humans and other mammals, females seem to consistently outlive males, this is particularly true in species in which grandmothers are more heavily involved in caring for infants. There is a health-survival paradox, however, in that although females may have greater longevity, they are also more likely to report the presence of daily symptoms and chronic illness and have higher prescription drug use. In the world of sex and gender-based medicine this phenomenon is nicely summed up with the phrase men die, women suffer. There are sex differences in most types of cancers, in fact, except for thyroid and breast cancers, males have higher incidences of most other cancers and usually have a worse prognosis after diagnosis. Compared to female, males are also more susceptible to most infectious diseases. An as an aside, when we talk about Covid, it is estimated that globally for every 10 females who have died from it, 13-15 males have. During times of global threats, females are also more likely to follow through with public health messaging such as mask wearing and hand washing Females, compared to males, have a heightened sense of pain, which may enhance self-protective behavior to avoid situations in which injury may occur such as physical arguments In general, females are more likely to have more frequent night-time awakenings, suggesting they may be more vigilant to potential night threats than male counterparts. This tendency to break up their sleep however may be compensated by higher quality length and depth of different parts of the sleep cycle. As a group, women appear to be more concerned about environmental issues and according to a recent study involving more than 32 nations and 45,000 participants, women felt a greater urgency to protect the environment and were more likely to support policies that financially invested in it. When looking at how people communicate, females were more likely to use techniques associated with politeness including smiling and tentative language that included buffering and apologizing. Although the area of nonverbal recognition shows some mixed results, overall, it appears that females are better at identifying nonverbal expressions especially those related to fear, sadness and anger. This is a great paper and worth a full read if you are interested in this material. Thanks for listening to Sex and Why! 

Joyce Benenson is a lecturer of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University whose research focuses on human social structures and sex differences in competition and cooperation. We're often told that men are more competitive, more status-driven and more ruthless with rivals for potential mates. In reality doesn't seem to be true, the difference is that women's competition takes a more subtle, cynical and sophisticated route to drive away their competitors. Expect to learn how women compete for status, why women exclude more than men, why women who promote an egalitarian world are less charitable than you might think, how you can interfere with a rivals' relationship without getting caught, the usefulness of gossip as an enforcement mechanism and much more... Sponsors: Get $100 off plus an extra 15% discount on Qualia Mind at https://neurohacker.com/modernwisdom (use code MW15) Get over 37% discount on all products site-wide from MyProtein at https://bit.ly/proteinwisdom (use code: MODERNWISDOM) Get 10% discount on all Optimal Carnivore's products at www.amazon.com/optimalcarnivore (use code: WISDOMSAVE10) Extra Stuff: Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/ 

Carey Benenson Taussig is teaching a NEW course in our online school: Releasing the Shock to the Waters: A Biodynamic Visceral Course for Long Haul Syndromes.A 50 hour online seminar, 4 three-day modulesTimes: 7 am PST, 10 am EST, 3 pm UK, 4 pm European time zoneAll Courses 15 hours over 3 days, 5 Hours min each day, every 5/6 weeks online onlyFebruary 3, 4, 5, 2023March 17, 18, 19, 2023April 28, 29, 30, 2023June 2, 3, 4, 2023https://prenatal-and-perinatal-healin...About the Course:  Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of Osteopathy in 1905 wrote about how diseases such as Diphtheria acted as a sort of shock to the waters in the body which disrupted nerve conduction therefore "tapping off the lymph" and creating fermentation and heat in the system around the organs. Carey Benenson Taussig D.O.(M.P.) a traditionally trained manual Osteopath teaches about how to guide relief to the system as she teaches how to apply biodynamic visceral manipulation techniques and meditative palpation acknowledging the "in-between" spaces between the organs where this bubbling fermentation may be calling for attention. This heat may trigger a continuous over-reactivity of the immune system and slug momentum to the lymphatic system which ultimately disrupts the endocrine system creating often an inflammatory spin.In her teachings, Carey connects with the potency of nature and often refers to the lymphatic system of the forest and the frequency of the bees. As outlined in her article from Massage Magazine, she also teaches students within their scope of practice on how to work with clients both online and in-person as sometimes clients may be in isolation for medical reasons. Offering technique videos and recorded meditations that also help the practitioner support their clientele, this is a four course program that also taps into her work that she did in her specialized studies on Lyme disease that she completed in 2014 which has then grown with her own clinical and meditative work that she has done over the past 8 years.Four Phases will be discussed and outlined in the four courses:The Recognition and Unwinding of the PredispositionThe Moment of Impact and the Reactivity of the MechanismThe Dehydration and Call for Restoration Phase of DiseaseThe Rebuild and Pathway of Care According to the Individual Hive Mind PhilosophyThe Fee is $495 per class, paid for over 4 months. We have a coupon for $50 off the first course for you: https://prenatal-and-perinatal-healin...The Coupon is SALE50 if you find yourself in the online school. Just click the link above for more information too. And here is a short interview with Carey: https://youtu.be/0CgjJJKNBbU

Show Notes for Episode Twenty-Four of seX & whY: Sex and Gender Differences in Conflict, Part 1 Host: Jeannette Wolfe Guest: Joyce Benenson, lecturer of evolutionary biology at Harvard and author of the book Warriors and Worriers Here is a link to Dr Benenson's book Warriors and Worriers.  This book dives deep into the evolutionary roots of human behavior and Dr Benenson makes a very clear and well referenced case that human males and females have evolved from slightly different playbooks.  The root of this difference is sexual selection in that adaptions and behaviors that optimize the chance that a male's DNA gets into the next generation are slightly different than a female's, specifically Benenson asserts that a female's strategy relies more heavily on keeping herself and her children physically safe and healthy. Innate differences may then by amplified or attenuated by sociocultural norms and experiences that shape an individual's “expected behavior." Some bullet points from her work Evolutionary biology focuses heavily on the behavior of non-human primates  Much of the behavior observed in other primates can also be seen in humans When studying human behavior, it can be very hard to untangle behavior rooted in biological sex versus sociocultural influence. This is because the two are tightly interwoven and even if you intentionally raise your child to be “gender blind”, the child will still be exposed to significant gendered expectations by peers and broader societal exposures.   Many of the behaviors seen in adult humans can be visibly observed by watching pre-school children.  Boys and girls (for this podcast we are concentrating on the book ends of the gender spectrum: boys/men and girls/women) typically exhibit different behaviors as children. Boys are more likely to participate in rough and tumble play and are more comfortable with hierarchy and rotating allegiances in groups. Girls prefer playing in smaller groups of two and three. Many girls find in quite difficult to participate in larger groups consisting only of females, as they feel increased pressure to effectively navigate the different relationships within that group.  Chimpanzees, like human males, are two of the few species that engage in “warfare” or systematic behavior to attack other groups of their own species. Groups of male chimpanzees that are good at this behavior enhance the survival of the rest of their group by expanding food and territory. Benenson believes some of this warfare behavior has genetically evolved into humans and that it is  further enhanced by learned sociocultural practices. Benenson has extensively studied conflict and how males and females have different evolutionary consequences to direct aggression. She strongly believes that females are wired to avoid direct conflict to optimize their physical ability to bear and rear children to their own reproductive age. This is Dr Benenson's study that looked at how much time two players spent interacting with each other after the conclusion of a  competitive sports match. It showed that men typically engaged longer with their opponent than did women. She theorizes this behavior suggests that men tend to be more agile in realigning these relationships because the relationship may be needed for a future allegiance (i.e.  in war or hunting.) Please tune in next month for Part 2 of this series. 

Almost half of U.S. voters believe the federal government is controlled by a “secret cabal,” according to a new poll. The Benenson Strategy Group, headed by Obama campaign pollster Joel Benenson, surveyed 1,000 Americans between Oct. 27-30 to see how much they were influenced by “QAnon” conspiracy theories. “We wanted to test QAnon's language that the world is controlled by a secret cabal,” Benenson told Axios. “Given that the U.S. is the world's strongest democracy, we wanted to see how far the appeal of language like that might reach.” The result: 44% of respondents believed the U.S. government is “controlled by a secret cabal.” The respondents broken down by political affiliation: 66% of Democrats, 55% of Republicans, 54% of independents. The majority of Republican respondents, 53%, believe the government is controlled by a secret cabal, while only 37% of Democrats believe that notion. Interestingly, the same poll found “59% of voters agree that the U.S. is a strong democracy.” Though the survey is framed as a measure of how Americans are influenced by “QAnon,” the fact many Americans believe a “secret cabal” pulls the strings of government isn't all that surprising given public remarks by top globalists like World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab. Schwab bragged during a 2017 conference that WEF acolytes “penetrate the cabinets” of world governments to push their Great Reset agenda and other related initiatives. “And I have to say, when I mention our names, like [former German Chancellor] Mrs. Merkel, even [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and so on, they all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum,” Schwab said. “So we penetrate the cabinets,” Schwab admitted. “So yesterday, I was at the reception for [Canadian] Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and I would know that half of this cabinet or even more than half of this cabinet are our actually young global leaders of the world.” Since Democrats control all three branches of government, it stands to reason the 44% of voters believe they are controlled by this secret cabal, a revelation that does not bode well for them with the midterms only days away. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/world-voices/support

Since Bill visited the Hadza in modern-day Tanzania, and I've been learning about cultures that have lived for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, I asked him about how they lived. We talked about their religion, rituals, dancing, singing, fashion, textiles, and culture in general.Neither of us studies people or cultures, so we're just two people talking about our observations, but it's pretty clear when little boys learn to use bows and arrows around when they learn walking and talking that there are cultural differences we can learn from. As for our culture, the summer after high school, a friend and I rode bikes and camped from Philadelphia to Maine and back, about 1,500 miles over a month. Everyone jokes at least, but many say seriously, that parents would be arrested for letting their kids do that trip today.So we talk about how to raise kids and what we may be missing. Are young children taught today to handle sharp knives in the kitchen? Bill talked about a Hadza kid carrying around a machete.In summary, we talk about cultural differences including independence, responsibility, and freedom for youth, which we lack and suppress.American culture has a lot to learn.We also talk about Bill's commitment, helping nurse his plant back to life. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I indulge in asking Bill about his and his wife Laurie's passions, filmmaker friends, goals, and so on. He talks about passionate peers he's worked with like Michael Pollan and Paul Stamets. The names Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen come up too, as two other people who appeared in his movies. He explains the value of celebrity.He shares his storytelling techniques not to make political films or push people, despite covering fields others treat more bluntly. He and Laurie share nuance and subtlety. Also joy and appreciations.He takes an interest in the Spodek/AIM Method so I describe it to him, not just do it. I hope everyone practices it and spreads the joy, fun, freedom, and rewarding emotions and experiences that connecting with nature does. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Whether you call it your saboteur, sabotaging voice, or inner critic, we have all fallen prey to our critical internal voice. There's so much literature about the effect of ignoring that internal voice, and today, we're switching things up and giving you tips and strategies to confront that voice head-on and reclaim your power. In my conversation this week, my guest, Sarah Benenson Goldberg, breaks down how to manage your sabotaging voice and the importance of having a vision for yourself.Sarah is a seasoned consultant, coach, and communication expert focusing on developing influential and high-performing leaders who want to thrive in complex global environments. She brings a unique blend of strategic and empathetic insight to her clients' roles as leaders. With a commitment to growing the whole person, Sarah supports clients in heightening self-awareness while embracing strengths and uncovering potential blind spots. Her coaching process focuses on adopting the mindset of a leader and evolves to include leadership behaviors, communication skills, and strategic thinking. The key takeaway from our conversation is that managing your sabotaging voice starts with awareness of your thoughts and feelings that generate your behaviors. Being a leader starts with doing the internal work first.Here's the episode at a glance:[02:09] There's a big distinction between having a vision and a plan, and everything starts with the vision. [10:13] Myers Briggs captures the most innate and authentic you, and deep down inside your core, you don't change.[12:57] Everyone has a sabotaging voice, and the best way to deal with it is to manage it. And it all starts with raising that voice to intense consciousness and noticing what happens in your body when your sabotaging voice speaks up. [19:03] One of the questions is, how do you know when you've gotten to perfect? Do you have a checklist? The first piece is to recognize there is no such thing as perfect.[20:44] Often, we hold ourselves back from offering an idea or opinion because we're so worried about being judged. We forget that whether the idea is good or bad, or somewhere in the middle, it's often a springboard for somebody else's idea. [23:54] Recognizing your sabotaging voice starts with being familiar with the themes that come up. [25:12] Your saboteur only lives in the past and future, not in the present. When you keep telling yourself, “If only I had done that, or why  was I so stupid?” The future is “What if this happens? What if they don't like me? What if I fail?” It's all the what-ifs. When you are in the present, the saboteur doesn't live there. Bring yourself to the present; literally, put your feet on the floor and feel the weight of your feel. Put your hand where you're feeling the tension of your clenched jaw or your stomach dropping.[28:33] Confidence and empowerment is the greatest tool to back our saboteur. [33:06] Having a vision is critical. It doesn't have to be well-formed. It's just a vision you always want to be moving towards.[35:43] Often, our sabotaging voice stops us from having a vision. It might be saying, “Oh, you could never do that.”Connect with Sarah at https://www.sbgleadership.com/ to learn more about her work.If you're interested in Sarah's leadership program, click the link for more information: https://www.sbgleadership.com/register. Found the episode helpful? Please share it with other leaders who'll benefit from the impactful conversation. I know they'll thank you.Connect with your host, Kele:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thetailoredapproach/Website: https://thetailoredapproach.com 

If you agree innovation and technology has its drawbacks, you may still worry: if we don't press onward, aren't we risking reverting to the stone age with thirty becoming old age and mothers and children dying in childbirth. Don't we store fat so well because our ancestors never knew when their next meal would come?I used to think that way. Learning about cultures that haven't adopted our technology-based culture relieved me of my ignorance. You've heard episodes with authors of books on Hawaiians before Captain Cook and the San bushmen in the Kalahari Desert. These cultures didn't barely eke out survival. They thrived. The San lived for hundreds of thousands of years. They show higher signs of resilience, health, longevity, abundance, equality, and stability than we do. Of course they do. You can't barely eke out 250,000 years.Bill Benenson produced a documentary (free online, click below) on the Hadza in modern Tanzania, who seem to have lived as they do now for about 50,000 years. Watch it to see how they are living just fine, or would be but for their territory being encroached on and traditional ways decimated. We could learn a lot from them. We could use some humility about our culture.Bill shares his journey learning of them, documenting them, and learning from them, including some behind-the-scenes stories of the scenes I found most fascinating.The Hadza: Last of the First, Bill's documentary on themBenenson Productions See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Lawrence B. Benenson is dedicated to several charitable and educational institutions that are working to increase truth, fairness, creativity and logic in New York City and everywhere. Mr. Benenson is currently a member of the Board of the Mosholu Montefiore Community Center in the Bronx, The Lincoln Center Real Estate and Construction Council, Inner-City Scholarship Fund, Center for Arts Education, American Folk Art Museum, ART / OMI International Arts Center, The Realty Foundation of New York, New York Junior Tennis and Learning, Al Hirschfeld Foundation, Ad Reinhardt Foundation and The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Lawrence Benenson gives money to organizations focusing on reducing hunger, increasing reproductive rights, safeguarding the environment, enhancing arts education, housing the homeless and kindness. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

„Besser eine Kerze anzünden, als die Dunkelheit zu verfluchen.“ So hat Peter Benenson einmal in Anlehnung an ein chinesisches Sprichwort sein Lebensmotto beschrieben. Daraus entstand Amnesty International. Autorin: Andrea Kath

Featuring Dr. Jodi Benenson, Assistant Professor in the School of Public Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha Dr. Jodi Benenson, Assistant Professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska Omaha, highlights the power employers and individuals have to combat anti-Semitism and build more inclusive environments. In addition to explaining four steps anyone can take to fight anti-Semitism, she calls out the temptation to prioritize efficiency over humanity and discusses her recent efforts to incorporate these themes into her own work. Jodi Benenson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Her primary research interests include civic engagement, nonprofit organizations, social policy, and social equity. Previously, Jodi was a Postdoctoral Scholar at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University and a nonprofit professional in the Twin Cities. Jodi founded Women and Public Policy Week at the University of Nebraska Omaha in 2017 to amplify policy issues that affect women and girls in Nebraska. She also serves on the national board of the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network, as member of the Women's Fund of Omaha Circles Class 9, on the board of New Leaders Council Omaha, on the advisory board of Huespring, on the nominating committee of the League of Women Voters of Greater Omaha, and is an advisor to several nonprofit organizations. Jodi received a B.S. and M.P.A. from Indiana University and a Ph.D. in social policy from the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. She was also recognized as a TOYO (Ten Outstanding Young Omahans) award recipient in 2019, and has received scholarly awards for her teaching and research. Learn more about Jodi's work.

For our last episode of TigerVentures Season 2, this episode features Naomi Benenson, the 2020-2021 Director of TigerLaunch. As her directorship comes to an end, this episode dives into her time and experience at TigerLaunch this season. TigerVentures Season 2 could not have been possible without the support of Prospect Student Ventures (PSV) and Princeton's Entrepreneurship club! Follow us on Instagram and Facebook: @tigerventures_unfiltered

What are the evolutionary differences between men and women, and how do they survive and thrive through differing competitive strategies?    In this episode, Dr. Joyce Benenson talks with Bill about her book Warriors and Worriers, which draws her extensive lifelong research on children's interactions. The result is a fascinating array of studies and stories that explore the ways boys and men deter their enemies, while girls and women find assistants to aid them in coping with vulnerable children and elders.  Dr. Benenson, a retired professor of psychology at Emmanuel College and an associate member of the Human Evolutionary Biology Department at Harvard University, turns upside down the conventional wisdom that women are more sociable than men and that men are more competitive than women.   E.O. Wilson of Harvard praises her work as “brave, thoroughly documented, and written with unusual clarity … her book explains more about the fundamentals of gender differences - and the meaning of human nature - than a library of conventional social science.”    An engaging conversationalist, Joyce quickly deconstructs the notion that being male, or female is simply a matter of “sex assigned at birth.”  Human history is a story of men and women genetically built to specialize in different behaviors necessary to ensure the survival of their children to adulthood.

Carey Benenson Taussig D.O. (IT) is an Osteopathic practitioner, professor, and certified graduate of Boston University and the College d'Etudes Osteopathique (CAN.) Teaching and working both in Italy and in the U.S., she is also an affiliate of the of the national Italian society ROI (Registro degli Osteopati d'Italia.) She first made her mark as an educator when her biodynamic visceral manipulation program was featured by Bastyr University in 2016. At that time, she was also published in the National Publication, Massage Magazine, and was recognized for creating a synergetic fusion between the biodynamics and the traditional philosophies originally established by the late 19th century bone setters and grandfathers of Osteopathy and visceral manipulation including the Founder, Dr. Andrew Taylor Still as well as Dr. Barber and more.In her teachings she brings in the component of asking the viscera which body the strain is imprinted upon within the three bodies. This three-body concept was originally recognized in traditional Osteopathic teachings where it is taught that we have three bodies: the structural body, fluidic body, and electromagnetic body. She teaches also about the space inbetween the bodies where we can journey beyond the matter to invite or be invited to dialogue with matter in different phases of life and development. This often allows opportunity to shed the ancestral strains that can be translated through the generations through the ground matter and through the grid of the DNA.Having also a science background, Carey helps the student keep their feet rooted in the anatomy offering the possibility to experience the liquid state of the continuum and the constant of energy in her teachings. With this, she stays footed in the anatomy and in her classes, she outlines the influence of the artery, capsule, tissue, scar tissue, vessels and nerves that can have a primary influence on the functionality of the organ (dense) or viscera (hollow organ.) The matter and the position of the structures count in their functionality potential.At the same time, Carey refers often to the poetry in nature as a way to mirror in a true reference point to maintain the fulcrum without exhaust. She acknowledges the power of the visceral spine being more influential at times then the vertebral spine and lectures on the resonance potential of certain key point structures to maintain the tidal patterns of homeostasis.Carey is highly intuitive, studied also with grand master physicians and practitioners worldwide and has studied extensively with the Native American Church. She is known for her extensive work with some of the most complicated cases involving the brain and nervous system, the heart, autoimmune disorders, chronic and acute pain as well as her extensive understanding and experience in.She is teaching in the online classroom:Asking the Viscera: An Introduction to Biodynamic Visceral Manipulation The Three Bodies: The Full Spectrum of Visceral Manipulation She owns Osteo in Florence, a private practice in Florence, Italy

In the final episode of Battleground before Election Day, David and Steve discuss the banality of evil and its most recent mascot, the previously anonymous Miles Taylor. Then, they're joined by two all-star pollsters: Joel Benenson, CEO of the Benenson Strategy Group and the lead pollster for the Obama '08 and '12 campaigns and Matthew Dowd, Chief Political Analyst for ABC News and formerly the chief strategist for George W. Bush. They dive into voter enthusiasm, the wasted potential of incumbency, Trump's “ant trail” path to victory, why 2020 is not 2016, and the aftermath of the election in America's splintered media ecosystem. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Find out the 3 keys to success for campaigns; who has the best polls (Fox News); what the biggest shifts in the electorate are; what he's watching most closely now; and the path forward for both parties.

Recorded during a October 13 virtual event, Joel Benenson talks with NewDEAL CEO Debbie Cox Bultan about what polling is telling us about the 2020 race and why this moment is different than 2016. NewDEAL Leaders from Arizona, Colorado, and Georgia finish the discussion with a recap of what they're seeing on the ground in these key states.

Le podcast de LA CROIX sur l'Amérique de Donald Trump. En partenariat avec le programme Alliance–Columbia et French Morning. Quels seront les États clés des élections américaines du 3 novembre 2020 ? Peut-on s'attendre à des surprises ? Dans ce nouvel épisode de "C'est ça l'Amérique", Joel Benenson, l'ancien responsable de la stratégie de campagne d'Hillary Clinton en 2016, et conseiller au sein des campagnes victorieuses de Barack Obama en 2008 et 2012, explique comment les évolutions de populations dans certains États, les "swing states" peuvent faire basculer les élections. ► Résumé de l'épisode : Dans ce nouvel épisode de "C'est ça l'Amérique", il est question de stratégie. Dans le système politique américain, chaque État pèse un certain nombre de grands électeurs ("electors"), qui varie en fonction de la taille de sa population. La Floride en a 29, le Texas 38, la Californie 55 et New York 29, pour ne citer qu'eux. Le premier candidat qui arrive à 270 grands électeurs remporte la présidentielle. Pour arriver à cet objectif, il doit notamment s'imposer dans des "swing states", des États stratégiques dont les caractéristiques démographiques font qu'ils peuvent basculer dans un camp comme dans l'autre. Quels sont ces États clés de 2020 ? Quelles sont les surprises de cette année ? Interrogé par Alexis Buisson, correspondant de La Croix à New York, Joel Benenson répond à ces questions. L'ancien responsable de la stratégie de campagne d'Hillary Clinton en 2016 et conseiller au sein des campagnes victorieuses de Barack Obama en 2008 et 2012, analyse la situation de ces États qui feront le prochain président.  ► A lire aussi sur le site et l'application du quotidien La Croix : EXPLICATIONS – Élection américaine 2020 : que sont les États clés (ou "swing states")  ? REPORTAGE – Les banlieues américaines, champs de bataille électorale EXPLICATIONS – Donald Trump et la Maison-Blanche face au Covid-19 ► Autres sujets et personnalités reçues dans "C'est ça l'Amérique" : Joseph Stiglitz, prix Nobel de l'économie ; Raphael Liogier, sociologue et philosophe ; Roger Cohen, éditorialiste au New York Times ; Benjamin Haddad, membre du think tank Atlantic Council ; Célia Belin, chercheuse à la Brookings Institution ; Claude Grunitzky, journaliste fondateur de la plateforme média True Africa… Parmi les sujets abordés : Les États qui font l'élection ; La politique internationale de Donald Trump ; Afro-américain, la lutte inachevée… ► Retrouvez sur le site de La Croix notre dossier spécial Élection présidentielle américaine 2020. CREDITS : Responsable éditorial : Christophe de Galzain. Interview, prise de son et montage : Alexis Buisson. Suivi de production : Célestine Albert-Steward. Création musicale et habillage sonore : Emmanuel Viau. Mixage : Stéphane Letur. Voix : Laurence Szabason et Jérôme Chapuis. Identité graphique : Olivier Balez. Rédaction en chef : Jérôme Chapuis. C'est ça l'Amérique est un podcast original de LA CROIX - septembre 2020. En partenariat avec le programme Alliance – Columbia et ses partenaires (Sciences-Po, Polytechnique, La Sorbonne), et French Morning, le premier web magazine des Français d'Amérique.

Democratic Pollster and former Obama campaign advisor Joel Benenson and renowned Republican Strategist Susan Del Percio discuss competing strategies, plans and ideas for their parties as they battle to win the House, Senate and the White House. Joel Benenson, founder and CEO of the Benenson Strategy Group, is one of the leading political and corporate strategists in the world. Benenson led the award-winning research and polling programs for President Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns and is the only Democratic pollster in history to have played a leading role in three winning presidential campaigns. A New York-based Republican strategist and founder of Susan Del Percio Strategies, she has advised dozens of candidates in New York and elsewhere on successfully communicating messages to an electorate. Ms. Del Percio has served as a media spokeswoman on many campaigns, both political and corporate, and frequently appears on many local and national news outlets as a political analyst. Susan is also an MSNBC contributor. She served in the Giuliani Administration and holds a Masters degree in political communications. To RSVP for upcoming events, visit our events page at: https://www.thecommongoodus.org --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

„Prosit, Freiheit!“ – ein Fall für Amnesty: In Portugal kamen zur Zeit der Diktatur zwei Studenten ins Gefängnis, weil sie auf die „Freiheit“ angestoßen hatten.

Walker Smith speaks to Joel Benenson, founder and CEO of the Benenson Strategy Group, a leading political and corporate strategist, and formerly American ‘Pollster of the Year’. As the US enters election season, and faces the huge challenge of a global pandemic, how is the relationship between politics and business changing? Joel talks about the state of US politics and levels of polarisation, the affect on brands and the changing nature of customer demand, and the importance of employee sentiment – and measuring that accurately – in building strong brands.

What up stokers, in this fire episode we are joined by director/producer Bill Benenson to discuss his new documentary Lost City of the Monkey God. We also discuss his time working on Pumping Iron and lots of other stoke inducing stuff. Jabwow!

Newly released polls show wide-ranging political scenarios, but reading the electorate can be hard. What exactly is going on and what might pundits and media be getting wrong? In this week’s episode, Joel Benenson discusses his work on four presidential campaigns with Sam Wang and Julian Zelizer. Benenson argues for tempered media coverage of these campaigns, suggesting the key to winning an election centers around addressing people’s lived experiences and economic struggles. Benenson is the founder and CEO of the Benenson Group and one of the leading strategists in the world for campaigns. He is an award-winning researcher and pollster who helped run President Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. He also played a critical role in Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2016 campaign and President Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign and is currently working on Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign. Benenson was named “Pollster of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants. He previously worked as a journalist for the New York Daily News, communications director for Governor Cuomo, and vice president at FCB, a global advertising agency.

On this episode of The Open Mind, we're delighted to welcome Lawrence B. Benenson, co-owner and principal of Benenson Capital and founding member of and advisor to the Patriotic Millionaires, a group of Americans with incomes over $1 million dollars who are leading the charge to raise taxes on the rich and to combat political and income inequality. On the most pressing issues facing the American people. Economic fairness, environmental security, and educational access Benenson is admirably on the front lines. “Charitarian, humanitarian American patriot,” as one leading industry publication profiled, my guest today's altruistic nature makes him a passionate champion of education, equal rights, and improving the lives of others, a moral conscience in an age of degrading moral fiber.Moreover, he is chiefly determined to uphold fundamental American values that are eroding today: combating the resurgence of bigotry, deescalating the climate crisis and facilitating civically intellectually and democracy revitalizing media options unrigged to the latest tweet, including here on The Open Mind - for which I must disclose, he is a critical benefactor from the next generation, something for which I am eminently grateful.

On this episode, join Bruce and Josie for a live interview from the Midwest Public Affairs Conference with Dr. Jamie Levin Daniel from Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. Dr. Daniel talks about the importance of incorporating discussions about religion, faith, and tolerance into the MPA classroom and the road map that she and Drs. Fyall and Benenson provide in their example of discussing antisemitism that was recently published in the Journal of Public Affairs Education. References from the Show: Jamie Levine Daniel, Rachel Fyall, & Jodi Benenson. (2019). Talking About Antisemitism in MPA Classrooms and beyond. Jamie Levine Daniel. (2018). Consistently Inconsistent. Hannah Lebovits. (2019). Academic Parenting Blog Series. Subscribe to Academics of PA today! New episodes drop every other Thursday. Follow the podcast on Facebook and Twitter: @AcademicsofPA Follow the hosts on Twitter: Bruce McDonald: @academicpiracy William Hatcher: @ProfHat Josie Schafer: @SchaferJosie

If you enjoy listening to my podcast, please take a minute to leave a review here! I found my guest today, Dr. Joyce Benenson, through a book I read called Top Dog, recommended to me by one of my recent guests, Navy Seal, Captain Tom Chaby. Joyce is a professor of Psychology at Emmanuel College in Boston and an Associate Member of the Human Evolutionary Biology department at Harvard University. She is an author of a fascinating book called Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes. The book explores the evolutionary differences between men and women and how they survive through competitiveness. Drawing on an interesting array of studies and stories that explore the ways boys and men deter their enemies, while girls and women find assistants to aid them in coping with vulnerable children and elders, Benenson turns upside down the familiar wisdom that women are more sociable than men and that men are more competitive than women. As much as I love to interview guests on leadership and high performance topics on my podcast, in this interview, Joyce and I discuss what IT business leaders could learn from her studies on gender differences to get the most out of their high performance teams. Key Points of Interest in This Episode: I think self-awareness is the key to being a high-performance leader. You will need to draw your own conclusions from my discussion with Joyce Benenson. In an age of political correctness and non-brave communications, I love reading and listening to experts who explore topics worth considering in our political environment. As you explore your own process of developing as a leader in business and in your life, learn unique biological attributes of man and women that will help you be a better more “self-aware” leader. With this, I’d like to welcome you to my interview with Joyce Benenson. Major Take-Aways From This Episode Men can recover and make up after a head-on conflict while women cannot. What happens when you place eight 4-year old’s in a room and ask them to decide who is going to be the leader? Differences with men and women in competition and sports Being aware of the feminization of men/boys so you can call into question your beliefs on this topic. Why is it so hard for women to “reconcile” after a fight? Women, Power, and Hierarchies – How sports can be a positive framework for competition, power, and hierarchy Tips on helping women in competitive environments The roles of respect for men Read the Full Transcript Here About Joyce Benenson Dr. Joyce Benenson is currently a professor of Psychology at Emmanuel College in Boston and an Associate Member of the Human Evolutionary Biology department at Harvard University. She has studied children’s interactions since she was 19 as an undergraduate at Duke University. After obtaining her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1988, she was a post-doc at Radcliffe College, an assistant professor at the University of Hartford, an assistant/associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a reader in Ethology at the University of Plymouth in England before her current positions. How to get in touch with Joyce Benenson LinkedIn Facebook Books | Articles | Links Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes, by Dr. Joyce F. Benenson, Henry Markovits, and Coleen Marlo. Emmanuel College Profile and list of publications. No Hard Feelings, Article from The Economist, 2016 that talks about a theory by Joyce Benenson that reconciliation after competition is more a masculine than a feminine trait. Men may have evolved better “making up” skills, Article from BBC News, 2016 that discusses Men’s historical dominance of the workplace may, in part, be because of their ability to reconcile with enemies after conflict, a new study suggests. Gender predicts how athletes interact after game, Reuters.com article, 2016 talks about a study of four sports that showed that male pro-athletes may linger on peaceful or even loving touches after a match, while female athletes don’t tend to embrace as heartily. This episode is sponsored by the CIO Scoreboard, a powerful tool that helps you communicate the status of your IT Security program visually in just a few minutes. Credits: * Outro music provided by Ben’s Sound Other Ways To Listen to the Podcast iTunes | Libsyn | Soundcloud | RSS | LinkedIn Leave a Review If you enjoyed this episode, then please consider leaving an iTunes review here Click here for instructions on how to leave an iTunes review if you’re doing this for the first time. About Bill Murphy Bill Murphy is a world renowned IT Security Expert dedicated to your success as an IT business leader. Follow Bill on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Join us as we speak with Bill Benenson, Producer/Director of , “THE LOST CITY OF THE MONKEY GOD”, a great film playing at the Vancouver International Film Festival. This film is one of 22 films out of 300+ that will be replayed now that the festival has ended. This is a great documentary following a […] The post VIFF: Lost City of the Monkey God with Bill Benenson appeared first on Conscious Living Radio.

Joel Benenson is a premier political strategist and pollster. He's the only Democratic pollster to have played a leading role in 3 winning presidential campaigns. He recently visited University of Montana to speak with our students about the Big Sky Poll project. Joel and I discuss the roll of polling, the problems associated with reporting on poll results, and how some things went wrong (for his candidate) in the 2016 election. Joel is founder and CEO of The Benenson Strategy Group where he and his team serve as strategist and consultants to heads of state, domestic political leaders at all levels, Fortune 100 CEOs, and leaders of major advocacy and nonprofit institutions. https://www.bsgco.com/who-we-are/team/joel-benenson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Benenson http://www.umt.edu/bigskypoll/

Dr. Zinaida Benenson is a researcher at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, where she heads the "Human Factors in Security and Privacy" group. She and her colleagues conducted a fascinating study into why people click on what appears to be obvious email spam. In the second part of our interview, Benenson offers very practical advice on dealing with employee phishing and also discusses some of the consequences of IoT hacking. Transcript [Inside Out Security] Zinaida Benenson is a senior researcher at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Her research focuses on the human factors connections in privacy and security, and she also explores IoT security, two topics which we are also very interested in at the Inside Out Security blog. Zinaida recently completed research into phishing. If you were at last year's Black Hat Conference, you heard her discuss these results in a session called How To Make People Click On Dangerous Links Despite Their Security Awareness. So, welcome Zinaida. [Zinaida Benenson] Okay. So my group is called Human Factors In Security And Privacy. But also, as you said, we are also doing technical research on the internet of things. And mostly when we are talking about human factors, we think about how people make decisions when they are confronted with security or privacy problems, and how can we help them in making those decisions better.   [IOS] What brought you to my attention was the phishing study you presented at Black Hat, I think that was last year. And it was just so disturbing, after reading some of your conclusions and some of the results. But before we talk about them, can you describe that specific experiment you ran phishing college students using both email and Facebook? The Experiment [ZB] So in a nutshell, we sent, to over 1,000 university students, an email or a personal Facebook message from non-existing persons with popular German names. And these messages referred to a party last week and contained a link to supposed pictures from the party. In reality, this link led to an “access denied” page, but the links were individual. So we could see who clicked, and how many times they clicked. And later, we sent to them a questionnaire where we asked for reasons of their clicking or not clicking.   [IOS] Right. So basically, they were told that they would be in an experiment but they weren't told that they would be phished. [ZB] Yes. So recruiting people for, you know, cyber security experiments is always tricky because you can't tell them the real goal of the experiment — otherwise, they would be extra vigilant. But on the other hand, you can't just send to them something without recruiting them. So this is an ethical problem. It's usually solved by recruiting people for something similar. So in our case, it was a survey for... about the internet habits.   [IOS]  And after the experiment, you did tell them what the purpose was? [ZB] Yes, yes. So this is called a debriefing and this also a special part of ethical requirements. So we sent to them an email where we described the experiment and also some preliminary results, and also described why it could be dangerous to click on a link in an email or a Facebook message.   [IOS] Getting back to the actual phish content, the phish messaging content, in the paper I saw, you showed the actual template you used. And it looked — I mean, as we all get lots of spam – to my eyes and I think a lot of people's eyes, it just looked like really obvious spam. Yet, you achieved like very respectable click rates, and I think for Facebook, you got a very high rate – almost, was it 40% – of people clicking what looked like junk mail! [ZB] We had a bare IP address in the link, which should have alerted some people. I think it actually alerted some who didn't click.. But, yes, depending on the formulation of the message, we had 20% to over 50% of email users clicking. And independently on the formulation of the message, we had around 40% of users clicking.  So in all cases, it's enough, for example, to get a company infected with malware! 50% Clicked on Emails [IOS] That is surprising! But then you also learned by surveying them, the reasons they were clicking. And I was wondering if you can share some of those, some of the results you found? [ZB] So the reasons. The most important or most frequently stated reason for clicking was curiosity. People were amused that the message was not addressed to them, but they were interested in the pictures. And the next most frequently stated reason was that the message actually was plausible because people actually went to a party last week, and there were people there that they did not know. And so they decided that it's quite plausible to receive such a message.   [IOS] However, it was kind of a very generic looking message. So it's a little hard to believe, to me, that they thought it somehow related to them! [ZB] We should always consider the targeting audience.  And this was students, and students communicate informally. Quite often, people have friends and even don't know their last names. And of course, I wouldn't send … if I was sending such a phishing email to, say employees of a company, or to general population, I wouldn't formulate it like this. So our targeting actually worked quite well.   [IOS] So it was almost intentional that it looked...it was intentional that it looked informal and something that a college student might send to another one. "Hey, I saw you at a party."  Now, I forget, was the name of the person receiving the email mentioned in the content or not? It just said, "Hey"? [ZB] We had actually two waves of the experiment. In the first wave, we mentioned people's names and we got over 50% of email recipients' click. And this was very surprising for us because we actually expected that on Facebook, people would click more just because people share pictures on Facebook, and it's easier to find a person on Facebook, or they know, okay, there is a student, it is a student and say, her first name is Sabrina or whatever. And so we were absolutely surprised to learn that over 50% of email recipients clicked in the first wave of the experiment! And we thought, "Okay, why could this be?" And we decided that maybe it was because we addressed people by their first names. So it was like, "Hey, Anna." And so we decided to have the second wave of the experiment where we did not address people by their first names, but just said, "Hey." And so we got the same, or almost the same, clicking rate on Facebook. But a much lower clicking rate on email.   [IOS] And I think you had an explanation for that, if you had a theory about why that may be, why the rates were similar [for Facebook]? [ZB] Yeah. So on Facebook, it seems that it doesn't matter if people are addressed by name. Because as I said, the names of people on Facebook are very salient. So when you are looking up somebody, you can see their names. But if somebody knows my email address and knows my name, it might seem to some people …. more plausible. But this is just ... we actually didn't have any people explaining this in the messages. Also, we got a couple of people saying on email that, "Yeah, well, we didn't click that. Oh, well it didn't address me by name, so it looked like spam to me." So actually … names in emails seem to be important, even if at our university, email addresses consist of first name, point, second name, at university domain.   [IOS] I thought you also suggested that because Facebook is a community, that there's sort of a higher level of trust in Facebook than in just getting an email. Or am I misreading that? [ZB] Well, it might be. It might be like this. But we did not check for this. And actually, there are different research. So some other people did some research on how well people trust Facebook and Facebook members. And yeah, people defer quite a lot, and I think that people use Facebook, not because they particularly trust it, but because it's very convenient and very helpful for them. Curiosity and Good Moods [IOS] Okay. And so what do you make of this curiosity as a first reason for clicking? [ZB] Well, first of all, we were surprised how honestly people answered. And saying, "Oh, I was curious about pictures of unknown people and an unknown party." It's a negative personality trait, yeah? So it was very good that we had an anonymous questionnaire. Maybe it made people, you know, answering more honestly. And I think that curiosity is, in this case, it was kind of negative, a negative personality trait. But actually, if you think about it, it's a very positive personality trait. Because curiosity and interest motivate us to, for example, to study and to get a good job, and to be good in our job. And they are also directly connected to creativity and interaction.   [IOS] But on the other hand, curiosity can have some bad results. I think you also mentioned that even for those who were security aware, it didn't really make a difference. [ZB] Well, we asked people if they know — in the questionnaire —we asked them before we revealed the experiment, and asked them whether they clicked or not.  We asked them a couple of questions that are related to security awareness like, "Can one be infected by a virus if one clicks on an attachment in an email, or on a link?" And when we tried to correlate, statistically correlate, the answers to this question, to this link clicking question, with people's report on whether they clicked or not, we didn't find any correlation. So this result is preliminary, yeah. We can't say with certainty, but it seems like awareness doesn't help a lot. And again, I have a hypothesis about this, but no proof so far. [IOS] And what is that? What is your theory? [ZB] My theory is that people can't be vigilant all the time. And psychological research actually showed that interaction, creativity, and good mood are connected to increased gullibility. And on the other hand, the same line of research showed that vigilance, and suspicion, and an analytical approach to solving problems is connected to bad mood and increased effort. So if we apply this, it means that being constantly vigilant is connected to being in a bad mood, which we don't want! And which is also not good for atmosphere, for example, in a firm. And with increased effort, which means that we are just tiring. And when we...at some time, we have to relax. And if the message arrives at this time, it's quite plausible for everybody, and I mean really for everybody including me, you, and every security expert in the world, to click on something!   [IOS] It also has some sort of implications for hackers, I suppose. If they know that a company just went IPO …  or everyone got raises in the group, then you start phishing them and sort of leverage off their good moods! Be Prepared: Secondary Defenses [IOS] What would you suggest to an IT Security Group using this research in terms of improving security in the company? [ZB] Well, I would suggest firstly to, you know, to make sure that they understand the users and the humans on the whole, yeah? We security people tend to consider users as you know, as nuisance, like, ‘Okay they're always doing the wrong things.’ Actually, we as security experts should protect people! And if the employees in the company were not there, then we wouldn't have our job, yeah? So what is important is to let humans be humans … And with all their positive but also negative characteristics and something like curiosity, for example, can be both. And to turn to technical defense I would say. Because to infect a company, one click is enough, yeah? And one should just assume that it will happen because of all these things I was saying even if people are security aware. The question is, what happens after the click? And there are not many examples of, you know, companies telling how they mitigate such things. So the only one I was able to find was the [inaudiable] security incident in 2011. I don't know if you remember. They were hacked and had to change, actually to exchange all the security tokens. And they, at least they published at least a part of what happened. And yeah, that was a very tiny phishing wave that maybe reached around 10 employees and only one of them clicked. So they got infected, but they noticed, they say that they noticed it quite quickly because of other security measures. I would say that that's what one should actually expect and that's what is the best outcome one can hope for. Yes, if one notices in time.   [IOS] I agree that IT should be aware that this will happen and that the hackers and some will get in and you should have some secondary defenses. But I was also wondering, does it also suggest that perhaps some people should not have access to email? I mean … does this lead to a test  … .and if some employees are just, you know, a little too curious, you just think, "You know what, maybe we take the email away from you for a while?" [ZB] Well you know, you can. I mean a company can try this if they can sustain the business consequences of this, yeah? So if people don't have emails then maybe some business processes will become less efficient and also employees might become disgruntled which is also not good. I would suggest that ... I think that it's not going to work! And at least it's not a good trade off. It might work but it's not a good trade off because, you know, all this for...If you implement a security measure that, that impairs business processes, it makes people dissatisfied! Then you have to count in the consequences. [IOS] I agree that IT should be aware that this will happen and that the hackers will get in and you should have some secondary defenses. But I was also wondering, does it also suggest that perhaps some people should not have access to email? I mean ... does this lead to a test where   if some employees are just, you know, a little too curious you just say, ‘You know what? Maybe we take the e-mail away from you for a while.’ [ZB] Well, you know, you can. I mean, a company can try this if they can, you know, if they can sustain the business costs and consequences of this, yeah? So if people don't have emails then maybe some business processes will become less efficient and yeah, and also employees might become disgruntled which is also not good. I would suggest that, I think that it's not going to work! And at least it's not a good trade off. It might work, but it's not a good trade off because, you know, all this for...if you implement security measure that impairs our business processes and makes people dissatisfied, then you have to count in the consequences.   [IOS] I'm agreeing with you that the best defense I think is awareness really and then taking other steps. I wanted to ask you one or two more questions. One of them is about what they call whale phishing or spear phishing perhaps is another way to say it, which is just going after not just any employee, but usually high-level executives. And at least from some anecdotes I've heard, executives are also prone to clicking on spam just like anybody else, but your research also suggests that some of the more context you provide, the more likely you'll get these executives to click. [ZB] Okay, so if you get more context of course you can make the email more plausible, and of course if you are targeting a particular person, there is a lot of possibilities to get information about them, and especially if it's somebody well-known like an executive of a company. And I think that there are also some personality traits of executives that might make them more likely to click.  Because, you know, they didn't get their positions by being especially cautious and not taking risk and saying all safety first! I think that executives maybe even more risk-taking than, you know, average employee and more sure of themselves, and this might get a problem even more difficult. So it also may be even to not like being told by anybody about any kind of their behavior. IoT and Inferred Preferences [IOS] I have one more question since it's so interesting that you also do research on IoT privacy and security. Over in the EU, we know that the new General Data Protection Regulation, which I guess is going to take place in another year, actually  has a very broad definition of what sensitive data is. I'm wondering if you can just talk about some of the implications of this? [ZB] Well, of course IoT data is everything's that is collected in our environment about us can be used to infer our preferences with quite a good precision. So… for example we had an experiment where we were able just from room climate data, so from temperature enter the age of humidity to determine if a person is, you know, staying or sitting. And this kind of data of course can be used to target messages even more precisely So for example if you can infer a person's mood and if you suppose if you buy from the psychological research that people in good moods are more likely to click, you might try to target people in better mood, yeah? Through the IOT data available to you or through IOT data available to you through the company that you hacked. Yeah …  point is, you know, that targeting already works very well. Yeah, you just need to know the name of the person and maybe the company this person is dealing with!   [IOS] Zinaida this was a very fascinating conversation and really has a lot of implications for how IT security goes about their job. So I'd like to thank you for joining us on this podcast! [ZB] You're welcome. Thank you for inviting me!

Zinaida Benenson is a researcher at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, where she heads the "Human Factors in Security and Privacy" group. She and her colleagues conducted a fascinating study into why people click on what appears to be obvious email spam. In the first part of our interview with Benenson, we discusses how she collected her results, and why curiosity seems to override security concerns when dealing with phish mail. Transcript [Inside Out Security] Zinaida Benenson is a senior researcher at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Her research focuses on the human factors connections in privacy and security, and she also explores IoT security, two topics which we are also very interested in at the Inside Out Security blog. Zinaida recently completed research into phishing. If you were at last year's Black Hat Conference, you heard her discuss these results in a session called How To Make People Click On Dangerous Links Despite Their Security Awareness. So, welcome Zinaida. [Zinaida Benenson] Okay. So my group is called Human Factors In Security And Privacy. But also, as you said, we are also doing technical research on the internet of things. And mostly when we are talking about human factors, we think about how people make decisions when they are confronted with security or privacy problems, and how can we help them in making those decisions better.   [IOS] What brought you to my attention was the phishing study you presented at Black Hat, I think that was last year. And it was just so disturbing, after reading some of your conclusions and some of the results. But before we talk about them, can you describe that specific experiment you ran phishing college students using both email and Facebook? The Experiment [ZB] So in a nutshell, we sent, to over 1,000 university students, an email or a personal Facebook message from non-existing persons with popular German names. And these messages referred to a party last week and contained a link to supposed pictures from the party. In reality, this link led to an “access denied” page, but the links were individual. So we could see who clicked, and how many times they clicked. And later, we sent to them a questionnaire where we asked for reasons of their clicking or not clicking.   [IOS] Right. So basically, they were told that they would be in an experiment but they weren't told that they would be phished. [ZB] Yes. So recruiting people for, you know, cyber security experiments is always tricky because you can't tell them the real goal of the experiment — otherwise, they would be extra vigilant. But on the other hand, you can't just send to them something without recruiting them. So this is an ethical problem. It's usually solved by recruiting people for something similar. So in our case, it was a survey for... about the internet habits.   [IOS]  And after the experiment, you did tell them what the purpose was? [ZB] Yes, yes. So this is called a debriefing and this also a special part of ethical requirements. So we sent to them an email where we described the experiment and also some preliminary results, and also described why it could be dangerous to click on a link in an email or a Facebook message.   [IOS] Getting back to the actual phish content, the phish messaging content, in the paper I saw, you showed the actual template you used. And it looked — I mean, as we all get lots of spam – to my eyes and I think a lot of people's eyes, it just looked like really obvious spam. Yet, you achieved like very respectable click rates, and I think for Facebook, you got a very high rate – almost, was it 40% – of people clicking what looked like junk mail! [ZB] We had a bare IP address in the link, which should have alerted some people. I think it actually alerted some who didn't click.. But, yes, depending on the formulation of the message, we had 20% to over 50% of email users clicking. And independently on the formulation of the message, we had around 40% of users clicking.  So in all cases, it's enough, for example, to get a company infected with malware! 50% Clicked on Emails [IOS] That is surprising! But then you also learned by surveying them, the reasons they were clicking. And I was wondering if you can share some of those, some of the results you found? [ZB] So the reasons. The most important or most frequently stated reason for clicking was curiosity. People were amused that the message was not addressed to them, but they were interested in the pictures. And the next most frequently stated reason was that the message actually was plausible because people actually went to a party last week, and there were people there that they did not know. And so they decided that it's quite plausible to receive such a message.   [IOS] However, it was kind of a very generic looking message. So it's a little hard to believe, to me, that they thought it somehow related to them! [ZB] We should always consider the targeting audience.  And this was students, and students communicate informally. Quite often, people have friends and even don't know their last names. And of course, I wouldn't send … if I was sending such a phishing email to, say employees of a company, or to general population, I wouldn't formulate it like this. So our targeting actually worked quite well.   [IOS] So it was almost intentional that it looked...it was intentional that it looked informal and something that a college student might send to another one. "Hey, I saw you at a party."  Now, I forget, was the name of the person receiving the email mentioned in the content or not? It just said, "Hey"? [ZB] We had actually two waves of the experiment. In the first wave, we mentioned people's names and we got over 50% of email recipients' click. And this was very surprising for us because we actually expected that on Facebook, people would click more just because people share pictures on Facebook, and it's easier to find a person on Facebook, or they know, okay, there is a student, it is a student and say, her first name is Sabrina or whatever. And so we were absolutely surprised to learn that over 50% of email recipients clicked in the first wave of the experiment! And we thought, "Okay, why could this be?" And we decided that maybe it was because we addressed people by their first names. So it was like, "Hey, Anna." And so we decided to have the second wave of the experiment where we did not address people by their first names, but just said, "Hey." And so we got the same, or almost the same, clicking rate on Facebook. But a much lower clicking rate on email.   [IOS] And I think you had an explanation for that, if you had a theory about why that may be, why the rates were similar [for Facebook]? [ZB] Yeah. So on Facebook, it seems that it doesn't matter if people are addressed by name. Because as I said, the names of people on Facebook are very salient. So when you are looking up somebody, you can see their names. But if somebody knows my email address and knows my name, it might seem to some people …. more plausible. But this is just ... we actually didn't have any people explaining this in the messages. Also, we got a couple of people saying on email that, "Yeah, well, we didn't click that. Oh, well it didn't address me by name, so it looked like spam to me." So actually … names in emails seem to be important, even if at our university, email addresses consist of first name, point, second name, at university domain.   [IOS] I thought you also suggested that because Facebook is a community, that there's sort of a higher level of trust in Facebook than in just getting an email. Or am I misreading that? [ZB] Well, it might be. It might be like this. But we did not check for this. And actually, there are different research. So some other people did some research on how well people trust Facebook and Facebook members. And yeah, people defer quite a lot, and I think that people use Facebook, not because they particularly trust it, but because it's very convenient and very helpful for them. Curiosity and Good Moods [IOS] Okay. And so what do you make of this curiosity as a first reason for clicking? [ZB] Well, first of all, we were surprised how honestly people answered. And saying, "Oh, I was curious about pictures of unknown people and an unknown party." It's a negative personality trait, yeah? So it was very good that we had an anonymous questionnaire. Maybe it made people, you know, answering more honestly. And I think that curiosity is, in this case, it was kind of negative, a negative personality trait. But actually, if you think about it, it's a very positive personality trait. Because curiosity and interest motivate us to, for example, to study and to get a good job, and to be good in our job. And they are also directly connected to creativity and interaction.   [IOS] But on the other hand, curiosity can have some bad results. I think you also mentioned that even for those who were security aware, it didn't really make a difference. [ZB] Well, we asked people if they know — in the questionnaire —we asked them before we revealed the experiment, and asked them whether they clicked or not.  We asked them a couple of questions that are related to security awareness like, "Can one be infected by a virus if one clicks on an attachment in an email, or on a link?" And when we tried to correlate, statistically correlate, the answers to this question, to this link clicking question, with people's report on whether they clicked or not, we didn't find any correlation. So this result is preliminary, yeah. We can't say with certainty, but it seems like awareness doesn't help a lot. And again, I have a hypothesis about this, but no proof so far. [IOS] And what is that? What is your theory? [ZB] My theory is that people can't be vigilant all the time. And psychological research actually showed that interaction, creativity, and good mood are connected to increased gullibility. And on the other hand, the same line of research showed that vigilance, and suspicion, and an analytical approach to solving problems is connected to bad mood and increased effort. So if we apply this, it means that being constantly vigilant is connected to being in a bad mood, which we don't want! And which is also not good for atmosphere, for example, in a firm. And with increased effort, which means that we are just tiring. And when we...at some time, we have to relax. And if the message arrives at this time, it's quite plausible for everybody, and I mean really for everybody including me, you, and every security expert in the world, to click on something!   [IOS] It also has some sort of implications for hackers, I suppose. If they know that a company just went IPO …  or everyone got raises in the group, then you start phishing them and sort of leverage off their good moods! Be Prepared: Secondary Defenses [IOS] What would you suggest to an IT Security Group using this research in terms of improving security in the company? [ZB] Well, I would suggest firstly to, you know, to make sure that they understand the users and the humans on the whole, yeah? We security people tend to consider users as you know, as nuisance, like, ‘Okay they're always doing the wrong things.’ Actually, we as security experts should protect people! And if the employees in the company were not there, then we wouldn't have our job, yeah? So what is important is to let humans be humans … And with all their positive but also negative characteristics and something like curiosity, for example, can be both. And to turn to technical defense I would say. Because to infect a company, one click is enough, yeah? And one should just assume that it will happen because of all these things I was saying even if people are security aware. The question is, what happens after the click? And there are not many examples of, you know, companies telling how they mitigate such things. So the only one I was able to find was the [inaudiable] security incident in 2011. I don't know if you remember. They were hacked and had to change, actually to exchange all the security tokens. And they, at least they published at least a part of what happened. And yeah, that was a very tiny phishing wave that maybe reached around 10 employees and only one of them clicked. So they got infected, but they noticed, they say that they noticed it quite quickly because of other security measures. I would say that that's what one should actually expect and that's what is the best outcome one can hope for. Yes, if one notices in time.   [IOS] I agree that IT should be aware that this will happen and that the hackers and some will get in and you should have some secondary defenses. But I was also wondering, does it also suggest that perhaps some people should not have access to email? I mean … does this lead to a test  … .and if some employees are just, you know, a little too curious, you just think, "You know what, maybe we take the email away from you for a while?" [ZB] Well you know, you can. I mean a company can try this if they can sustain the business consequences of this, yeah? So if people don't have emails then maybe some business processes will become less efficient and also employees might become disgruntled which is also not good. I would suggest that ... I think that it's not going to work! And at least it's not a good trade off. It might work but it's not a good trade off because, you know, all this for...If you implement a security measure that, that impairs business processes, it makes people dissatisfied! Then you have to count in the consequences. [IOS] I agree that IT should be aware that this will happen and that the hackers will get in and you should have some secondary defenses. But I was also wondering, does it also suggest that perhaps some people should not have access to email? I mean ... does this lead to a test where   if some employees are just, you know, a little too curious you just say, ‘You know what? Maybe we take the e-mail away from you for a while.’ [ZB] Well, you know, you can. I mean, a company can try this if they can, you know, if they can sustain the business costs and consequences of this, yeah? So if people don't have emails then maybe some business processes will become less efficient and yeah, and also employees might become disgruntled which is also not good. I would suggest that, I think that it's not going to work! And at least it's not a good trade off. It might work, but it's not a good trade off because, you know, all this for...if you implement security measure that impairs our business processes and makes people dissatisfied, then you have to count in the consequences.   [IOS] I'm agreeing with you that the best defense I think is awareness really and then taking other steps. I wanted to ask you one or two more questions. One of them is about what they call whale phishing or spear phishing perhaps is another way to say it, which is just going after not just any employee, but usually high-level executives. And at least from some anecdotes I've heard, executives are also prone to clicking on spam just like anybody else, but your research also suggests that some of the more context you provide, the more likely you'll get these executives to click. [ZB] Okay, so if you get more context of course you can make the email more plausible, and of course if you are targeting a particular person, there is a lot of possibilities to get information about them, and especially if it's somebody well-known like an executive of a company. And I think that there are also some personality traits of executives that might make them more likely to click.  Because, you know, they didn't get their positions by being especially cautious and not taking risk and saying all safety first! I think that executives maybe even more risk-taking than, you know, average employee and more sure of themselves, and this might get a problem even more difficult. So it also may be even to not like being told by anybody about any kind of their behavior. IoT and Inferred Preferences [IOS] I have one more question since it's so interesting that you also do research on IoT privacy and security. Over in the EU, we know that the new General Data Protection Regulation, which I guess is going to take place in another year, actually  has a very broad definition of what sensitive data is. I'm wondering if you can just talk about some of the implications of this? [ZB] Well, of course IoT data is everything's that is collected in our environment about us can be used to infer our preferences with quite a good precision. So… for example we had an experiment where we were able just from room climate data, so from temperature enter the age of humidity to determine if a person is, you know, staying or sitting. And this kind of data of course can be used to target messages even more precisely So for example if you can infer a person's mood and if you suppose if you buy from the psychological research that people in good moods are more likely to click, you might try to target people in better mood, yeah? Through the IOT data available to you or through IOT data available to you through the company that you hacked. Yeah …  point is, you know, that targeting already works very well. Yeah, you just need to know the name of the person and maybe the company this person is dealing with!   [IOS] Zinaida this was a very fascinating conversation and really has a lot of implications for how IT security goes about their job. So I'd like to thank you for joining us on this podcast! [ZB] You're welcome. Thank you for inviting me!

Welcome to Amy Alkon's HumanLab: The Science Between Us, a weekly show with the luminaries of behavioral science.This week's show explains why advice to "lean in" is totally unrealistic and other ways evolved male/female sex differences shape who we are.My guest this week is psychology professor Dr. Joyce Benenson, discussing her fantastic new book, "Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes." This is really solid science that will open your eyes to so much about male and female behavior, including male-male and female-female friendships and competition, and will give you some much-needed realism you can use to inform how you relate socially and at work.Join me and all my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. PT, 10-11 p.m. ET, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.Please buy my book, the science-based and funny "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck." It helps support the work I put into this show. 

Kristen & Margie are back! We went up to Harvard's IOP Campaign Manager Summit.  While you may have heard about some testy conversations, our pollster summit with Clinton pollster Joel Benenson & Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio was friendly and informative. What kinds of questions did they ask? Were they surprised? How have their years in the trenches prepared them for this race? Listen to our live show  & hear about our new big announcement! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this edition of Capital Download, Susan Page speaks with Joel Benenson, pollster and chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Pollster Joel Benenson tells Glenn Thrush that Donald Trump has no path to victory in November and predicts that states like Arizona and North Carolina could flip in a Clinton/Trump matchup.

Joel Benenson, senior strategist for Hillary Clinton, chats with David in Manchester, New Hampshire, about his journey from working for a beer distributor in New York to being a top campaign strategist, Clinton's chances in the Feb. 9 primary, the art of polling, and more.

During the Know Your Value event, hosted by Mika Brzezinski, Natalia met up with five inspirational women and asked them how they stand out! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in science.This week's show explains why advice to "lean in" is totally unrealistic and other ways evolved male/female sex differences shape who we are.My guest this week is psychology professor Dr. Joyce Benenson, discussing her fantastic new book, "Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes." This is really solid science that will open your eyes to so much about male and female behavior, including male-male and female-female friendships and competition, and will give you some much-needed realism you can use to inform how you relate socially and at work.Join me and all my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. PT, 10-11 p.m. ET, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.Please buy my book, the science-based and funny "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," here. It helps support me and the work I put into this show.  And an even better reason: Library Journal just gave it a starred review and called it "highly recommended"!

Caroline hosts Bill Benenson, co- director of “Dirt! The Movie,” that we humans may be humbled by humus, once again. www.dirtthemovie.org The post The Visionary Activist Show – Caroline hosts Bill Benenson appeared first on KPFA.

Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in science.This week's show explains why advice to "lean in" is totally unrealistic and other ways evolved male/female sex differences shape who we are.My guest this week is psychology professor Dr. Joyce Benenson, discussing her fantastic new book, "Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes." This is really solid science that will open your eyes to so much about male and female behavior, including male-male and female-female friendships and competition, and will give you some much-needed realism you can use to inform how you relate socially and at work.Join me and all my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. PT, 10-11 p.m. ET, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.Please buy my new book, the science-based and funny "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," here. It helps support me and the work I put into this show. Also, Library Journal just gave it a starred review and called it "highly recommended" (Sept. 15 issue).