Podcasts about i think

On the 23rd episode of Your Question, we handle the following question: Q: When I speak English, I can't think of ideas. There's no problem in my native language. How can I fix this? That's a very interesting question. This came from a student in a recent chat in Clubhouse. I answered the question decently […] The post Your Question 23 | Why Can't I Think of Ideas When I Speak English? first appeared on ALsensei.

“The Suicide Squad” is here, and I THINK… please don't throw tomatoes… that it is easily James Gunn's best superhero outing; though, I do love a good “Guardians of the Galaxy” rewatch. From the comedy to the shock value to the action scenes to the actual plot of the movie to Viola Davis and Idris Elba delivering AMAZING performances, I think DC has another 2021 winner on their hands. Two victories for the DCEU in one year. Me: I Am… Sha-shooketh.This episode contains voice messages from Quin of “Know That: a Real Housewives podcast” and Kaya of “Bravo While Black” and The Dipp.Starting your MCU journey with the Disney+ shows, such as WandaVision or The Falcon and the Winter Soldier? Check out all of my WandaVision [bonus] episodes spanning episodes 1-9 of the HIT series, as well as all of my Falcon and the Winter Soldier episodes... whether you want a compliment for the viewing experience or you just want some additional laughs or commentary during your week.CHECK OUT THE DIPP! The site that allows you to read articles about some of your favorite shows, written by experts and fans FOCUSED ON DEPTH, NOT CLICKS! Their personalized subscription site allows you to follow high-quality coverage surrounding the shows you love, and the shows you love ONLY! Check out this article for instance:https://thedipp.com/the-falcon-the-winter-soldier/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-falcon-the-winter-soldier?via=kendrick43Become a member of the “Melanated Bravo” club on Clubhouse! Kaya and Aaron (from the “Bravo While Black” podcast) join me every Thursday for a weekly kiki about all of our favorite reality shows! We also have a weekly “after dark” Tuesday room where the discussion topic varies, and we have a room on Fridays for Marvel/DC content.DON'T FORGET TO SUBSCRIBE, RATE, AND REVIEW!EMAIL ME: realitycomicstoo@gmail.comFOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @realitycomicstoo / www.instagram.com/realitycomicstoo

This Dhamma talk was given by Luang Por Sumedho on 9 July 2021, a new moon day, at Amaravati Buddhist Monastery, UK. It's an audio version that was firstly published on Amaravati's YouTube channel during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The post I Think, Therefore I Doubt appeared first on Amaravati Buddhist Monastery.

Hey there everyone. I show you a neat feature in terms of the m1 Mac computers. I Think all of you should check it out.

The I Think, Laugh and Love Show is host by DJ Taff about bringing people together in a time where we are being told to stay away from each another. This show will bring ears & minds together so we can think for ourselves, Laugh with one another and most importantly, love and cherish one another. Each show will have interviews and we will discuss topics that you can relate to. Join me and share with others as I bring you music from the 80s, 90s and little bit a 2000's with a segment for new music.

Introducing a new series to the podcast, reviews! In this series I will be reviewing and giving my thoughts and analysis on content such as albums like this episode. In this episode I dive into Tyler the Creator's new album "Call Me If You Get Lost" and "IGOR". I break down my thoughts on every song and give an overall perspective and understanding of the album. Time stamps: (6:54) SIR BAUDELAIRE (8:10) CORSO (9:50) LEMONDHEAD (10:28) WASYUNAME (12:26) LUMBERJACK (14:13) HOT WIND BLOWS (16:40) MASSA (19:00) RUNITUP (20:12) MANIFESTO (21:31) SWEET / I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO DANCE (25:08) RISE! (26:42) JUGGERNAUT (27:23) WILSHIRE (28:54) SAFARI (33:55) IGOR'S THEME (34:39) EARFQUAKE (35:25) I THINK (36:18) RUNNING OUT OF TIME (37:20) NEW MAGIC WAND (39:09) A BOY IS A GUN* (41:04) PUPPET (43:45) WHAT'S GOOD (44:30) GONE, GONE / THANK YOU (46:48) I DON'T LOVE YOU ANYMORE (48:04) ARE WE STILL FRIENDS? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cesar-davila5/support

Episode 341: Mental Gymnastics: Tyler starts off the episode by discussing the new season of the Netflix series I Think you Should Leave. Pat gives his thoughts on the new Netflix horror film Fear Street: Part 2 1978. Tyler leads the discussion of the latest Nerd News (including a discussion of the Emmy nominations). The Nerds then discuss their thoughts on the new MCU film Black Widow. They end the episode with a Nerd Favorite (not really)...where would Black Widow rank in the MCU? Timestamps: -What We are Into: 7:13-25:24 -Nerd News: 25:24-36:55 -Black Widow Review: 36:55-58:49 -Nerd Favorite: 58:49-1:02

Welcome back to the Neuroscience Meets Social and Emotional Learning Podcast for episode #146 with Dr. Howard Rankin, the host of the “How Not to Think Podcast” that runs on the premise that "People aren't logical, they're psychological with the emphasis on the psycho," which made me laugh at the same time as it made me think “How are we NOT supposed to think?” and the research on this topic began. Watch the interview on YouTube here.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DlnOXE39aQ Learn more about Dr. Howard Rankin here https://hownottothink.com/ See past episodes here https://www.achieveit360.com/episodes/ On this episode, you will learn: ✔︎ What is the problem with our thinking, and why is it illogical? ✔︎ How awareness is important when making any decision. ✔︎ The importance of looking at things from a different perspective. ✔︎ Why "the more we know, the more we realize we know nothing at all." ✔︎ Why new knowledge opens up our world to new possibilities. ✔︎ How to motivate anyone to learn something new. ✔︎ Why reality is an illusion. ✔︎ Common problems that occur with our human thinking process and how to be aware of them. ✔︎ How self-limiting beliefs influence our results. I'm Andrea Samadi, author and educator from Toronto, now in Arizona, and like many of our listeners, have been fascinated with learning and understanding the science behind high performance strategies in our schools, sports, and the workplace with ideas that we can all use, understand and implement immediately, for improved results. This week's guest, Dr. Rankin, an expert in cognitive neuroscience, recently published his book I Think Therefore I Am Wrong[i] which looks at the many ways we can sabotage our thinking through cognitive biases, binary thinking, false assumptions and numerous other strategies. The How Not To think Podcast[ii] based on his book, examines how this false reasoning manifests itself in many areas of society through myths, and 'conventional wisdom.' On his podcast that I will be a guest on, Howard speaks with leaders in their fields to examine the impact of faulty thinking that occurs in every sphere of life. Dr.  Rankin has extensive expertise and knowledge in the areas of psychology, cognitive neuroscience and neurotechnology. He is also an experienced speaker and best-selling and award-winning author. Dr. Rankin has written 12 books in his own name, co-written another 9, and ghostwritten 30 others, all non-fiction. He has also published more than 30 scientific articles and been a consultant to the NIH and WHO (World Health Organization). His work has been featured in many newspapers and magazines and he has appeared on national networks including CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, and on “The View” and “20/20”. He hosts the podcast How Not To Think and is the author of I Think Therefore I Am Wrong: A Guide to Bias, Political Correctness, Fake News and The Future of Mankind. Let's meet Dr. Rankin and see what we can learn about improving how we think. Welcome Dr. Rankin, thank you for being here today to share your knowledge and insights on your recent book, I Think, Therefore I am Wrong that you say is about Epistemology, what our past speaker, Tom Beakbane, on episode #144 said was the origin of his book How to Understand Everything[iii]. Can we start right away with the most obvious question? Q1: What is the problem with our thinking, how is it illogical, and why are people psychological, with an emphasis on the psycho? Q2: What inspired you to write your book, and launch your podcast on this topic? Q3: I love making connections with past speakers and what I see with your work, I connected with Tom Beakbane's book on How to Understand Everything where he talks a lot about looking at things from a different angle. With all the books you've written, you've got the knack for uncovering ways to tell something from a different angle, in a way that someone might not have heard it in that way. Why is it important to be able to see things from a different perspective? What does this do to our thinking? Q4: I was talking with my good friend Greg Link from Stephen Covey's organization the other day, after one of my last podcasts, and after some discussion I came to the realization that the more I am learning through these interviews, the more I realize I don't know anything at all! Greg told me that quote originated from the American author Warner Ehrhard who was quoting the Greek Stoic Philosopher Epictetus What do you think about this? The more we are learning, why does it take us into a rabbit hole where we realize we have no idea about anything at all? Q5: Chapter 1 of your book is titled “Is Reality an Illusion” and Einstein said this. What does that mean? Q6: What is logic and why do you think it's involved with some of the problems you see with our thinking? Q7: What about our beliefs or more specifically, our self-limiting beliefs? What are they and how do they influence our results? Q8: How does neuroscience or an understanding of how our brain works tie into our thinking and behavior? Q9: What should we all know and understand about “How Not to Think” for educators, or those in the corporate workspace? Thank you very much Dr. Rankin for your time today to share your thoughts, ideas, books and podcast as tools and resources for those who would like to learn more about How Not to Think. To learn more about Dr. Howard Rankin Facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/HowardRankinBooks/ A website where he posts blogs: https://ithinkthereforeiamwrong.com/ LinkedIn and Instagram Email: DrHRankin@gmail.com WEBSITE FOR THIS TOPIC www.hownottothink.com RESOURCES: Daniel Kahneman's Grip with Behavioral Economics April 26, 2013 https://www.thedailybeast.com/daniel-kahnemans-gripe-with-behavioral-economics Power Talk, the Art of Effective Communication by Howard Rankin, Ph.D. Published Feb. 24, 2021 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08XJLJ6SN/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 REFERENCES: [i] https://ithinkthereforeiamwrong.com/the-book/ [ii] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-not-to-think/id1488982079 [iii] Neuroscience Meets Social and Emotional Learning Podcast EPISODE #144 with Tom Beakbane on “How to Understand Everything” https://andreasamadi.podbean.com/e/author-and-marketer-tom-beakbane-on-how-to-understand-everything-consilience-a-new-way-to-look-at-the-world/

La saison 2 de I Think you should leave de et avec Tim Robinson est enfin arrivée sur Netflix, j'ai donc décidé de vous donner un avis à chaud sans spoiler (très compliqué) en espérant avoir éveillé la curiosité chez vous. Fiche TV TIME : https://www.tvtime.com/fr/show/362753  Fiche Betaseries : https://www.betaseries.com/serie/i-think-you-should-leave-with-tim-robinson

On this episode of Small Biz Florida: Host Tom Kindred Interviews Gregory "Greg" Buschman on his work in Intergenerational Management.  Greg Buschman is the founder of Strategic Leadership Development. Greg is also a keynote speaker, top-ranked business management author, and organizational trainer specializing in inter-generational leadership skills, creative leadership, and high-performing team dynamics. His newest #1 publication “I Think, You Think, We All Think Differently: Leadership Skills for Millennials & Gen Z”, is available on Amazon Kindle.     

Joanne Emmons is a network performance engineer for a Fortune 100 company by day, and spends her nights and weekends helping people with their paranormal issues. Having grown up in an actively haunted house, Joanne has had a life-long fascination with the paranormal, but only started investigating after her son began having his experiences of his own. In 2011, Joanne founded Paranormal Consulting & Investigations of New Jersey to help people with paranormal issues like the ones she grew up with. Along with her team, she does investigations throughout New Jersey, and consultations as far away as Egypt and Norway. She also runs "Requiem", a sub-team dedicated to cleansings, spirit crossings, and other paranormal mitigations with the help of an amazing medium. Joanne is the author of I Think my House is Haunted!, a guidebook for living with the paranormal, and lectures every October at libraries, private events, and schools. She resides in New Jersey with her family and a couple of ghosts that occasionally wander in from the woods behind her home. Visit: www.pcinj.org Our radio shows archives and programming include: A Different Perspective with Kevin Randle; Alien Cosmic Expo Lecture Series; Alien Worlds Radio Show; Connecting with Coincidence with Dr. Bernard Beitman, MD; Dick Tracy; Dimension X; Exploring Tomorrow Radio Show; Flash Gordon; Jet Jungle Radio Show; Journey Into Space; Know the Name with Sharon Lynn Wyeth; Lux Radio Theatre - Classic Old Time Radio; Mission Evolution with Gwilda Wiyaka; Paranormal StakeOut with Larry Lawson; Ray Bradbury - Tales Of The Bizarre; Sci Fi Radio Show; Seek Reality with Roberta Grimes; Space Patrol; Stairway to Heaven with Gwilda Wiyaka; The 'X' Zone Radio Show with Rob McConnell; and many other! That's The ‘X' Zone Broadcast Network Shows and Archives - https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv *** AND NOW *** The ‘X' Zone TV Channel on SimulTV - www.simultv.com The ‘X' Chronicles Newspaper - www.xchroniclesnewspaper.com

Bryce Wilson – Success on the Road In this episode, we have Bryce Wilson with us who is a CEO, Dog Dad, and a world traveler to share his journey with us on success with his company and transitioning amidst the Pandemic that changed how we all think.  [3:21] Why should anybody listen to you?   I Like getting into a little real flow as far as who I am still trying to figure that out. I would say I'm an entrepreneur. I'm a CEO. I'm a partner. I'm a dog dad. I'm a world traveler. I think you should listen to everybody and formulate your own opinions. [4:28] The Aww Shift Moments The grinds of working out and my job was to be fit, healthy, and to be prepared for sports. I did not really ever rationalize or think in my head that there was a life after sports. I was, at that time, in the middle of creating ticket rescue, and had a smooth transition into the next grind. The next thing that I could just wake up and hack away and do.    [7:06] Ticket Rescue Business  This was started in 2017. While I was still playing soccer in college, I realized it was real, I realized there was real potential there but didn't really have the time and energy to put into it. What we do is we purchase tickets from people who can no longer use them.  If you got sick or couldn't go to the show, for one reason or another, instead of just letting the tickets go to waste, you could sell them to us to get some of your money back. [10:00] We landed on helping influencers and personal grant personal brands build their audience, and develop quality leads for their Instagram engagement., What we do is we learn everything we can about someone. We help them to spread their message far and wide through Instagram. [12:17] Building the Team  It's just putting people first. I'm such a firm believer that if your people are well-treated everything else is going to fall in place, the customers will be happy the service will be done. [13:53] Launching an Idea The biggest thing is having good people behind it. I think that constantly optimizing, never being happy with what you're what you currently have. You have to have some way that is going to differentiate you from everybody else. [21:50] Top Three Keys to Living Life Moment First and foremost, putting yourself first. Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you up. Figure out what fulfills you don't let money or things or anything like that be the driver of what you're doing. [24:52] What promise did God make to the world when He created you? I Think the promise would be that I am going to leave it better, much better off than it was when I got here. Keynote [9:00 – 9:15] “I think we were surrounded myself with surrounded by really good people. And I pride myself on not really being good at too many things. But one thing I am good at is finding people that are smarter than me and really good and in areas that are needed” For more information on Bryce Wilson Follow him on Instagram. @Brycethreewilson

I THINK it's an unwritten law BUTT just in case: do NOT trust puerto-rican emotional distress dogs... Do dogs know what you're talking about when you start calling yourself a "birthing person" instead of "mom"? Is Ben Affleck gonna have to cough up a SECOND engagement ring for JLo?? DID WE REALLY LET KENNY LOGGINS GET AWAY WITH A SONG CALLED "PLAYING WITH THE BOYS" FOR OVER 30 YEARS??? Interstellar, gravity-defying level ass talk AND MORE on "Dat Old Thang Back" - EP 13 of AhhFuGGiT !!! LIKE | RATE | COMMENT | FOLLOW | SUBSCRIBE | www.youtube.com/whodissis1 www.instagram.com/whodissis1 www.instagram.com/whodissbeenwatching www.instagram.com/ahhfuggit DONT FORGET: Join me EVERY FRIDAY at 10 PM on IG LIVE while I record my movie recap/review show "¿Who Diss? Been Watching" ... well ... LIVE!!! Comment/ask questions/make suggestions, etc!!! IG LIVE!!: www.instagram.com/whodissis1 MORE AUDIO VERSIONS OF AhhFuGGiT: linktr.ee/whodissis https://soundcloud.com/whodissis1 open.spotify.com/show/6hyS2l2KdQDkX5rfNH5AIp podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ahhf…it/id1084220877 IM ON TWITCH!! BAD GAMER - GREAT TALKER THO!!! streaming LIVE every SATURDAY at 2 pm EST!!! Games will vary!! https://www.twitch.tv/whodissis1

Its really surprising that the show would do 10 let alone 200. Episode 200, a double century of the shit called "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper" and guest tonight is Dan Linley, the first guest of the show and David's friend. . Dan is a bit a low on energy and is a bit subdued. We get a caller in Terry. Dan comes into his own when Miranda's name comes up. They both have a long going feud. and we get the sad news Tony is kinda out of the show, we miss you Tony, join up soon and stay safe. And David is hosting another show. Looks like it will be only these three for the whole show, wish Miranda or Jay Jay pops in soon. And they dont! This is MarU from India, rating this episode a 3.5 of 5. Congrats on your 200th David.

"I know its outdoors, it just not what I THINK is outdoors" Listen as will vents his dating app frustrations and Ryan tries to not get us cancelled. This pod is brought to you by friday beers! Click the link below to shop their awesome merch! Use code suckdown-szn-21 for 10% off! Be sure drop us a follow and rate and review! https://fridaybeers.shop?current-token=xv6Yz74r Follow our Instagram @bachelorsbspodcast Follow our Twitter @BachelorsBS Follow our Tik Tok @BachelorsBSPod

Episode 1 less than a double century "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper" and guest tonight is Pooppy cub, a multificliated DJ, writer, porn star and what not. And as with David, we get poop questions at the very beginning. And we get next hottest topic, crypto currency, of course David invested in Doge and Cub is a part of the XRP Army. Just look a the new shit ELONGATE, made of Elon Musk's statement. And maybe David should an Airdrop of Doge tokens to his listeners. We get a caller Rocky, or swipe left not sure who it is. The we get into a long winded discussion on Gods, religion etc. Then we come to butt holes, yet another of Davids favorites. This is MarU from India, rating this episode a 3 of 5, i am generous today. Missed the regulars, Tony, Miranda, Jay Jay, but still good one.

Listen to Part 1: Origins here.Audio Source: https://www.sunrun.com/quick-reads-from-ceo/masters-of-scale-podcast-sunrun-ceo-lynn-jurichTranscript: https://mastersofscale.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/rapid-response-transcript-lynn-jurich.pdfSAFIAN: You mentioned climate change. With health concerns rising over the last year, itsometimes felt like climate's become, I don't want to say a secondary priority, but it's beenpushed down. Sustainability now certainly includes health in a way that maybe it didn't a yearago. What do you think the long term implications of that will be?JURICH: I think that we're seeing more impact from extreme weather than maybe thequestion appreciates. If you think about California as an example, with people at home,working from home, schooling at home, and the fact that the power is getting turned offbecause of fire risk, that is a very visceral experience for people, and we'll see more ofthis.Puerto Rico is another example where the energy system is just frail. I think 70% of theenergy assets are old, and extreme weather is only making it worse. So I do believe thatit is and will increasingly become visceral for people. And back to that change formula, Ithink that dissatisfaction is, and that pain will drive awareness and attention to it.We're taking a different approach, which is, independent of your view on climate, we canoffer you a better lifestyle and meet carbon emission goals. If you look at the home,there are about four big choices you can make around energy that lead to your carbonfootprint: your car, how you power your home, your heating, and your cooking. Anelectric vehicle is less expensive. An induction stove is superior. An electric hot waterheater can save you money, and solar saves you money. So if you look at what we cancreate for a household, it's an average of $1,000 to $2,000 of savings. So you don't haveto be a climate warrior to adopt these products.The challenge is really social and political and financing, because many of these greenassets, they're more expensive upfront, but they're less costly over time. And that wasthe innovation of starting Sunrun was we saw solar as a technology that would clearly bethe future.What was so breakthrough about solar is that it can be distributed. You can site it locallywhere the power is actually going to be used. In the U.S., two-thirds of your power bill istransmission and distribution. From a first principle standpoint, if you're able to useexisting infrastructure and put the solar on there, it will be a more affordable solution. Wejust needed to eliminate the upfront cost, and so we invented the business model ofsolar as a service where we paid to install the solar system and the homeowner justbuys the electricity, just like they would from the utility, only it's cheaper and it's green.When we think about climate, we don't think it needs to be this ethereal thing. It's abouteveryday savings, a better lifestyle, and job creation.SAFIAN: Now, when you describe all that, it raises the question of why residential solar isn'tmore ubiquitous. It's still a small proportion of residential homes have solar. So what is thatabout?JURICH: First, because this is called Masters of Scale, I'll throw out a few scale facts foryou all, so one, we already have 500,000 customers, just Sunrun, and we've raisedcapital to install about nine billion dollars worth of solar. Sunrun is the second largestowner of solar in the U.S. behind NextEra, the huge utility. Residential does have scalenow and will increase.If you look at a market like Hawaii, where the value proposition was strongest first, it'sabout 30 to 35% of households have solar power. California is about 12%, the rest of thecountry is about 1 to 2%. It will all get there. The amount of power you can get off of arooftop with solar would serve 75% of California's energy needs, it would serve 40% ofthe U.S. energy needs, so it is a scale technology. What's holding us back is inertia. It'swhy do I want to do it now? 90% of Americans are in favor of solar. The interest is there.It's just the challenge of friction in the process.SAFIAN: So I have to ask you, your biggest competitor is Tesla, which took over SolarCity a while back. What's it like to compete against Elon Musk?JURICH: Well, you never underestimate him, that's for sure. I think we're still in theadoption phase where a rising tide lifts all boats. So I'm very pleased with their brandbeing well-known, well-liked because it just increases the awareness of solar energy. Aswe mentioned, it's only 1, 2% penetrated right now, so that'll help lift us. Recently when Ilooked at the data in the markets where we're both competing, we have a higher closerate, effectively. Again, it's this normalization of solar that's a benefit. It's the awareness,it's the trust in their brand, and I aspire to, over the years, have the Sunrun brand bebetter known in terms of turning your home into an electric energy asset.

Episode 196 of the "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper" and the host tonight is Sammie, a white and a Jew, so David has company tonight. So if its David, then the talk wouldn't be very far from Drugs, Shit and Sex, not necessarily in that order. Th profound experience David talks about is the Asshole opening up to poop. Then after some talk of failed careers, we get the line of the episode, "Tinder and Linkedin are for networking" Then we get Tony to the call. David has new prompt for the callers about Sammie's butthole. Its a bit weird., some other prompt will be good. Like ask people to talk in a particular accent or ask them in which position they did it recently. And we get more of these callers. This is MarU from India, rating this episode a 2 of 5, i thought Sammie was good, but didn't take it higher.

The Journey Week Twenty Seven - I Believe, I Think by Pastor Troy Powell

Receba os novos episódios no seu e-mail: http://goo.gl/HbHUl2​  O Man in the Arena é um videocast sobre empreendedorismo e cultura digital apresentado por Leo Kuba, Miguel Cavalcanti e In Hsieh. Neste episódio (#048​) Um bate-papo com Marcelo Tripoli, CEO da SapientNitro Brasil, uma das principais agências digitais globais, eleito um dos mais influentes profissionais do mercado digital brasileiro. Fundou e liderou a agência iThink, principal agência digital independente brasileira no momento de sua aquisição pela SapientNitro. Nos últimos 15 anos, liderou estratégias para marcas como Vivo, Santander, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Mondelez, PepsiCo, Castrol, Google, entre outras. O Man in the Arena tem apoio da FIAP e foi gravado no auditório do Campus Aclimação (São Paulo/SP). Para saber mais: SapientNitro Brasil: http://www.sapientnitro.com.br​  Acompanhe e participe nos canais do Man in the Arena: YouTube: http://youtube.com/maninthearenatv​ Facebook: http://facebook.com/maninthearenatv​ iTunes (Video): https://itunes.apple.com/br/podcast/m...​ iTunes (Audio): https://itunes.apple.com/br/podcast/m...

Our guest this week is noted author and advisor, William Bernstein. Bill’s background and entree to finance is unique--a neurologist by training, Bill taught himself the principles of investing and asset allocation, eventually parlaying that knowledge into a successful financial advisory practice and a series of influential, critically acclaimed books such as The Intelligent Asset Allocator, The Four Pillars of Investing, If You Can: How Millennials Can Get Rich Slowly, and his latest, The Delusions of Crowds.Background BioBooks“Bernstein: ‘I Don’t Think the System Needs Nudges. I Think the System Needs Dynamite,’”The Long View Podcast, May 7, 2019. Current Market EnvironmentThe Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki“A Stock Market Bubble Is Forming,” by John Rekanthaler, Morningstar.com, Oct. 20, 2020.“From 1720 to Tesla, FOMO Never Sleeps,” by Jason Zweig, wsj.com, July 17, 2020.“The 4 Pillars of Investing,” by Larissa Fernand, Morningstar.com, June 19, 2020.“4 Ways Today’s Stock Market Resembles That of the Late 1990s,” by John Rekenthaler, Morningstar.com, March 4, 2021. Inflation, Bonds, and Other Asset Classes“The Case for Minimizing Risk in Your Bond Holdings,” by William Bernstein, wsj.com, Oct. 18, 2015.Inflation, Deflation, Confiscation & Devastation--The Four Horsemen of Risk,” by Wade Pfau, forbes.com, March 4, 2020. “What if Inflation Isn’t Dead?” by John Rekenthaler, Morningstar.com, Aug. 11, 2020.Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment by David F. Swensen.“Fran Kinniry: Applying the Vanguard Approach to Private Equity,” The Long View Podcast, April 1, 2020. “What Are SPACs and Should I Care?” by David Sekera, Morningstar.com, March 2, 2021. Retirement“How to Think About Risk in Retirement,” by William Bernstein, wsj.com, Nov. 30, 2014.“Retirement Planning When You Have Enough,” by Christine Benz, Morningstar.com, Sept. 11, 2020."Of Viruses, Distressed Sales, and Stocks' 'Rightful Owners,' " by Bill Bernstein, efficient frontier.com, 2020. ETFs“No Room on the ARK?” by Ben Johnson and Bobby Blue, Morningstar.com, March 3, 2021. “Digging Into ARK Innovation’s Portfolio,” by Amy Arnott, Morningstar.com, Feb. 18, 2021. “Gerard O’Reilly: Control for the Unexpected, Focus on the Expected,” The Long View Podcast, Jan. 26, 2021. 

Episode 195 of the SHITshow called, "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper", hosted by David himself. The first show from New York. The guest on the show tonight cancelled last minute so we are stuck with Tony. The first discussion is the fiasco over the Meghan Markel - Oprah interview and the ramifications of it. Nice to get a British view of it from Tony. The next topic is David getting a bit down. There are no shitty callers, maybe due the timing going wrong, low wages or also maybe you guys insulting people last time. The first guy to call is called Tomato, from Brazil. And then we continue waiting for a caller. David and Tony are are about to close in the show early and we get a bunch of callers. And then we Taylor with a Kenyan Accent from Texas. And then we have a very long discussion on Meghan Markel Vs British Monarchy. No, 75 cents don't mean a meal for us in Delhi. This is MarU from India rating this show a 2 of 5, need more callers.

BOOTS & SADDLE - March 9, 2021 1. I'm the Fool (Who Told You To Go) - Asleep at the Wheel (Comin' Right At Ya - 1973) 2. Daylight Savings - Treeline and Shaela Miller (Curtains - 2013) 3. Borrowed Time - Donna Darlene (Welcome To The Other Side of Me - 1977) 4. I'll Travel On - Anthony Ray Wright (The Foolish Anthony Ray Wright - 2021)  5. I Don't Care - Mike Lynch (Building Character - 2020) 6. I Almost Forgot About You - Melissa Carper (Daddy's Country Gold - 2021)  7. Hurry Up and Die - Dennis J. Leise (Single | The World That You Grew Up In Is No More - 2021) 8. The Bottle Knew Me - Dan Whitaker & The Shinebenders (Far, Far Away - 2019) 9. We're On The Road - Robbie Fulks (Revenge (Standing) - 2007) 10. Poor Little Rich Boy - The Lawrence Peters Outfit (What You Been Missin' - 2012) 11. Mom Jeans - Michelle Billingsley (Not the Marrying Kind - 2020) 12. The Last Thing on My Mind - Charley Pride (Pride of Country Music - 1967) 13. The Bargain Store - Hanne Sørvaag (Meg og Dolly - 2021) 14. Silver Wings [Instrumental] - The Buckaroos (The Buckaroos Play Buck & Merle) 15. Midnight Run - Charley Crockett (10 for Slim: Charley Crockett Sings James Hand - 2021) 16. Don't Put Down the Honky Tonks - Don West (Single - 1973) 17. Flame In My Heart - Amber Digby (Here Come the Teardrops - 2006) 18. The Rev's Medley [Instrumental] - Mike T. Kerr (Guitar Rags & Country Ballads - 2018) 19. I Know Just How She Feels - Wayne Kemp (Single - 1982) 20. Amarillo by Morning - Chris LeDoux (Life As a Rodeo Man - 1975) 21. Running Out of Reasons - Mickey Gilley (Mickey Gilley - 1978) 22. Coming Home to You - Nicholas Campbell (Livin' and Other Western Ideas - 2021) 23. Excuse Yourself - Olivia Ellen Lloyd (Loose Cannon - 2021) 24. Deep Breath - Riley Downing (Single - 2021) 25. Sawed Off and Hauled Off - The Golden Roses (Single | Devil's In The Details - 2021) 26. Let Me Talk to You - Wanda Jackson (Reckless Love Affair - 1967) 27. Harper Valley PTA - Nat Stuckey (Nat Stuckey Sings - 1968) 28. Roll Truck Roll - Red Simpson (Hello, I'm a Truck - 1971) 29. I Think of You and Me - Jeanette Hicks (Single - 1953) 30. Move to Town in the Fall - Vernon Oxford (Woman, Let Me Sing You a Song (Expanded Edition) - 1966) 31. I'll Repossess My Heart - Kitty Wells (Single - 1964) 32. Serene Lee - Dale Watson (Dale Watson Presents: The Memphians - 2021) 33. Rosie - Tom Waits (Closing Time - 1973)

Max and Tina discuss Farscape season two, episode twelve: Look at the Princess (Part 2): I Do, I Think

Episode 194 with Laura (the Canadian one) on the "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper". She is a therapist by professions. She is still pissed with David over leaving her without saying goodbye! For a really long they reminiscent about their old days. Very soon we get the first caller on the show, The maniac himself, Tony! The only thing we conclude from the episode is David was a A grade shit, sorry make is still a shit (i am just jealous because he has Miranda) and Tony comes back later also. We also have Miranda's ghost which keeps on messaging David every time he says something shitty. So an idea, we have heard a lot of David, as well as Miranda, we would love to hear David's Ex on this show too. This is MarU from India rating this show a 3 out of 5, one of better ones.

Ok this is Episode 193 of the "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper". Tonight's guest is Kollin Holtz, who is fellow comedian. Finding weird we are almost near 200, that's like 4 years of writing this shit. We get an Q&A's. The pace picked up later when David warmed up to Kollin. Finally after 40 minutes we get a caller, Tony. And later Miranda and Jay Jay also joins in. My two favorite people. Maybe they too sensed the show was going nowhere till they arrived!! Was the Texas caller one of us? That segment needs to improve. No, its was not Bombayish. Then we get a lot of pooping and peeing in the rest of the show. David you turned this show really shitty now with that! An even funnier was Taylor from Texas. This is MarU from India, who's been reviewing this show for past 4 years, rating this show a 3.5 out of 5, one of better ones, the regular gang was bang on!!

Today on Obsessed Show we've got our first ever (I mean, I think it's the first-ever... once you're past 150 episodes, you have the right to forget stuff) - so I THINK it's the first-ever letterpress designer and printer, and his name is James Lewis Tucker. You guys may not know this, but I got my start with very print-oriented design roles, and I've had the pleasure of producing a few letterpress projects, and it's just one of my favorite design touches. Today we're gonna nerd out with James about all things letterpress, and why we might still be thinking about letterpress going into 2021. Side note: I was (strangely) about to lose my voice during this recording, so apologies in advance for when my voice gets all wonky. So without further ado, please enjoy this conversation with James Lewis Tucker.

This is Episode 190, and we are back with David Cooper on his show "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper". Today's guest is Hannah Marianetti, a friend of Davids and a radio talk show host, i think. After a brief talk, we get a caller, asking for help on Zelda. Then after some more talk, we have Tony calling in. He brings some fun to the conservation. Add to it Jay Jay, after quite many weeks now. With this trio we get the best of David's show and throw in Miranda to it, the show jumps up several notches. Then we get a lot of talk, on, you guessed it, Donald Trump. The talk goes on long with various topics including dating advice to a 46 years old. This is MarU from India rating this show a 3.5 out of 5, this more of a typical David Cooper show with a lots of cuss words, Tony, JayJay, random callers, This is the kind of episode i would like to listen to, but would be great if it was edited to a smaller duration. And of course we miss Miranda!!

For Auld Lang Syne         —Rosemerry Wahtola TrommerWe’ll drink a cup of kindness yet,says the song, and I would give youthe cup, friend, would fill itwith whiskey or water or whateverwould best meet your thirst.I fill it with the terrifying beautyof tonight’s bonfire—giant licksof red and swirls of blue that consumewhat is dead and melt the iceand give warmth to what is here.I fill it with moonrise and snow crystaland the silver river song beneath the ice.With the boom of fireworks and with laughterthat persists through tears. WithLilac Wine and Over the Rainbow and Fever.I toast you with all the poems we’ve yet to writeand all the tears we’ve yet to weep,I hold the cup to your lips,this chalice of kindness, we’ll drink it yet,though the days are cold, the nights so long.         —Rosemerry Wahtola Trommer ____The Next Storm ComesAnd suddenly you know: It’s time to start something new and trust the magic of beginnings.         —Meister EckhartAnd suddenly you know it’s timeto shovel the drive. For though snowstill falls, at this moment it’s onlythree inches deep and you can still push it easilywith your two wide yellow shovels.Yes, it’s time to start something new—though it doesn’t feel new, thisshoving snow from one place to another.In fact, your shoulders still feelthe efforts of yesterday.But with each push of the shovels,the path on the drive is new again. At leastit’s new for a moment, new until snowfills it in. Then it’s a different kind of new.How many beginnings are like this?They don’t feel like beginnings at all?Or we miss their newness?Or they feel new only for a momentbefore they’ve lost their freshness?There is magic in beginnings, says Meister Eckhart,and sometimes we see beginnings all around us,a new path, a new promise, a new meal.A new prayer. New snow fall. A new song.Is it too grand to call it magic, this new calendar year?Too grand to call it magic, this momentaryclearing on the drive? Too grand to be magic,this momentary clearing in my thoughts?Or is it exactly, perhaps, what magic is—something we allow ourselves to believe,despite logic, despite reason, something that bringsus great pleasure, makes us questionwhat we thought we knew, our senseof what is possible changed.—Rosemerry Wahtola Trommer_____Watching The Wizard of Oz on New Year’s Eve, I Think of a Resolution toward PeaceAs for you, my galvanized friend, you want a heart. You don’t know how lucky you are not to have one. Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable.—The Wizard to the Tin Man, The Wizard of Oz, Frank L. BaumGive us hearts that breakwhen we see how cruel the world can beand hands that extend toward others.Give us eyes that weep when we feelthe beauty of home, andlips to speak love, to apologize.Give us courage to say what must be saidand ears to hear what we’d rather not hearand eyes that will not turn the other wayfrom anyone in need.Give us brains that are wiredfor helpfulness, compassionand curiosity. Yes, let us ask for heartsthat break and break and growbigger in the breaking. Let uslove more than we think we can love.And the cup of kindness, may weever remember to drink of it,let us share it with each other.         —Rosemerry Wahtola Trommer This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at emergingform.substack.com/subscribe

In a letter that might feel familiar to many, a listener named Jeanne from upstate New York writes in wondering how to find her own words, and how to put them forth into the world.Words by Winter: Conversations, reflections, and poems about the passages of life. Because it’s rough out there, and we have to help each other through.Original theme music for our show is by Dylan Perese, with additional music composed and performed by Kelly Krebs. Artwork by Mark Garry. Today's poem, At the End of My Marriage, I Think of Something My Daughter Said about Trees, by the wondrous Maggie Smith, is read with kind permission of the poet. Check out her beautiful work at maggiesmithpoet.com. Words by Winter can be reached at wordsbywinterpodcast@gmail.com.

In this episode I talk about the incidents that took place at The Capital on January 6th, I also talk about the separation that will grow with Republicans and Democrats and I talk about stock sectors I THINK will do well in 2021. - The Michael Labs Show is a long sit down talk formatted Podcast from myself and friends and guests. The subjects and topics are random and it is designed to be a conversation and free flowing based Podcast. Hope you enjoy! Thank You!

And we are back with David Cooper on his show "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper". Todays guest is Zeus, yes the very much God of Greeks. A founder of Burning Man. And today's is David's last day at this regular work. And for the next 30 minutes or so we hear a lot crap come out of both their mouths and was going nowhere. There is a lot of American Vs Canadian life, it goes on and on. Then we get to everybody's fav Trump, American Education, Jobs, Medicare etc which again goes on for a long time. For North Americans these are good topics for an Indian, have you seen life in India? This is MarU from India rating this show a 2.5 out of 5, An episode with no jokes, but a lot of serious discussions and also no callers today including Tony or Miranda. At 2 hours, its quite long to sit through.

Chelsea are in free fall while Man United & Arsenal may have figured things out for real this time. Plus, Brighton need a new manager, Copa Libertadores semifinals are here, and "King Ry" has already set the standard for cringe in 2021. We discuss all that and much, much more in this show. Subscribe so you never miss another pod including Friday's show previewing the FA Cup and the rest of the weekend action. Table of Contents 00:00:00 Intro 00:00:39 Football + COVID 00:16:23 United Legit Contenders? 00:31:10 Title Race Far From Clear-Cut 00:32:14 Spurs Show Top Gear, Leeds Must Learn 00:45:15 Brighton in Big Trouble 00:52:14 West Brom Regressing? 00:55:05 Arteta Gets It (...I Think?) 01:03:28 Leicester Win, Fofana Dazzles Again 01:07:13 Chelsea in Free Fall, City Finding Form 01:18:41 Should Lampard Get Sacked? 01:21:44 Southampton are Class + LFC Will be Okay 01:29:06 Saka vs. Foden vs. Eze 01:32:09 Bayern Still Kings of Bundesliga 01:36:05 Barça Struggle, Youth Movement Needed 01:39:00 Predictable Madness Ensues in Boca-River 01:41:46 Garcia Wins, Cringe Factor at 100 01:48:25 EFL Cup Semifinals: Spurs, United Need 1st Trophy 01:51:26 Copa Lib Semifinals 01:55:36 Milan-Juve Sets Table for Scudetto Run-In Get in touch on Twitter @statsideabroad. You can also subscribe on YouTube! (Stateside Abroad Football and Stateside Abroad Football Podcast) To support the show, visit anchor.fm/statesideabroad/support To follow and interact on your favorite platform, visit linktr.ee/statesideabroad --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/statesideabroad/support

I THINK "Soul" served it’s unintended purpose: make you question what your soul is really made up of, kinda like what "Inside Out" explored with emotions. it’s not perfect and it’s got nothing that matches Bing Bong BUT... Does it serve the term “soul searching” justice? Does Tina Fey need to be seen and heard to actually be funny?? DOES THIS FILM HOPEFULLY LOWKEY TEACH CHILDREN AND IRRESPONSIBLE ADULTS TO NOT BE SO DISTRACTED WHILE ON THEIR PHONES

Lizzo is a musician, who is known for her body positivity messages--- I Think

Erik Paige is here!! Erik is our very special guest co-host this week and I THINK we talk about Episode 7 of Canada's Drag Race. We deep dive and give OUR opinions on Scarlett Bobo, Jimbo and Lemon, and explore every tangent in this podcast where we talk about the loonies and toonies of the Miss Loose Jaw Pageant 2020.  P.S. I talk about a documentary film in the podcast which I mistakenly call The Pageant. The film I'm talking about is actually: The Queen by Frank Simon. 

In this 185 episode of This is Going Well, I Think. David remembers how people do not like him and that he has a moral problem towards Jews. The main guest Victor Pacheco does not take a fuck out of his mouth, that's all, fuck man, fuck man, fuck man, apparently his brain does not give more to say, just fuck. Then he starts complaining because he booked a show and someone else had also booked and blah blah blah. David as always, celebrating the bad jokes of his guests, giving importance to what does not have it and boasting that he has a gay brother. Victor Pacheco is the same as fuck, fuck, fuck. It seems to me that when he stands on stage the only thing he says to his audience is, fuuck, fuuuck, fuuuuck. And then there's the other jerk who called, the shitty nigga named Tony supposedly from London pouring more shit than the first two already have on them. A man named Tony from London also considers the show to be crap and gave it a -1000 star rating.

This week we bring you a secret episode recorded in early October but is surprisingly topical. The hosts bring new segments like "How Animal Crossing Has Affected Me," "Favorite Characters, I Think," "Improvements to the Game," and "Hey Man, What Ya Playing?" ----------- Join our Patreon! https://patreon.com/thepocketpod Don't forget to follow us and subscribe to PocketPod in all the places! Twitter: @ThePocketPodInstagram: @ThePocketPodFacebook: /ThePocketPod/Twitch: /thepocketpod YouTube  |  Apple Podcasts  |  Google Play  |  Stitcher  |  Amazon  |  Podbean  |  Spotify  |  iHeartRadio  |  Player.fm  |  RSS Also, you can follow our songs we sing playlists on Spotify:PocketPod Radio - Volume 1PocketPod Radio - Volume 2

It is the episode 183 of the the show called as "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper" and the guest tonight is Annick Adelle, and its is the second part of it. Adelle is joining us from Berlin, Germany after getting stuck there when she went to visit her mother. We get some stories of corona virus near-misses. Later we get some story of David's divorce and his lawyer for it. Most of the talk is on David's move to New York. We get some random talk and arguments. And we don't get any caller for the whole episode. Not even the regulars like Tony or even Miranda. This is quite small episode only only an hour, lesser than the normal 2 hours one. This is Maru from India, rating this episode a below average 2 points out of 5, it was ok and needs to pick on the fun factor.

Ask David featuring four terrific Should questions, and more questions about “asinine, stupid, narcissistic, self-serving humans! “ Oliver asks: Can a thought be thought as moral or immoral? Vincent asks: I have suffered from depression for about 3 years and say to myself, "I should have gotten better sooner." Isn't this "should" appropriate? Charles says: Your concept of “no self” shot my anxiety way up and made me feel hopeless. . . . It makes me feel worse than before! Michelle asks: How is your requirement that new patients must agree to not make any suicide attempts for the rest of their lives any different to a “suicide contract” which you mention are not effective? Brian asks: I’ve done a few things that made me feel intensely guilty. . . . The knowledge that I didn’t do what I should have done led to a lot of guilt and shame, and eventually depression. Just wondering your thoughts on this Carrel asks: I'm a Democrat in Texas. How can we use disarming to heal the political rifts in our country? Natasha asks: How do I stop the dark thoughts of wishing harm to come to stupid humans who do asinine, narcissistic, self serving, irresponsible things—like driving massive, loud pickup trucks around the neighborhood, honking incessantly as they wave their 20 ft political flags; or bringing the family for a paddle boat ride in the local pond, taking delight in teaching their human offspring to paddle the boat as quickly as they can to chase after the beautiful, innocent geese and ducks trying earnestly and fearfully to swim to safety. and more.   Dear Dr. Burns, Can a thought be thought as moral or immoral? In many podcasts and articles, you use "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to demonstrate morally should statement, which is one of the 3 valid should statements in English. I'm still somewhat confused about this concept. To tell you where I get stuck, I come up with three thought experiments. Imagine the following situations in which a should statement may come to mind: Situation 1 Lisa stole some money from a grocery store. When arrested by police, Lisa said with tears, "I shouldn't have stolen money. I feel ashamed for what I have done." In this case, it is obvious that "I shouldn't have stolen money" is a morally should statement, and also a legally should statement, because Lisa did something that violates the law and her moral principle. DAVID’S COMMENT: YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. LISA’S STATEMENT CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A LEGAL SHOULD AND A MORAL SHOULD. Situation 2 One day, Bob went to Walmart to buy a suit. When he was passing by a shelf, a thought appeared in her mind. "What would happen if I steal this suit? I really want it, but I have very little money." When he came back home, he talked to himself," I shouldn't have felt the urges to steal things. And I shouldn’t have thought about stealing the suit." DAVID’S COMMENT: THESE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED VALID SHOULD STATEMENTS BY MOST PEOPLE, SINCE WE HAVE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT. HUMAN BEINGS HAVE ALL KINDS OF FANTASIES AND URGES ALL THE TIME—AT LEAST I KNOW THAT I DO! AN URGE ONLY BECOMES IMMORAL OR ILLEGAL WHEN YOU ACT ON IT. HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT THINK THESE ARE VALID SHOULDS, BUT I TRY NOT TO IMPOSE MY VALUES ON OTHERS FOR THE MOST PART. I AM A SHRINK, SO I WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING FOR HELP. FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE WITH OCD OFTEN PUNISH THEMSELVES JUST FOR HAVING “FORBIDDEN” THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, OR URGES. THE FIGHT TO CONTROL THEM IS THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE OCD. THE SHOULDS TYPICALLY MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE, NOT BETTER. SELF-ACCEPTANCE CAN BE ONE OF MANY HELPFUL TREATMENT STRATEGIES. RELIGION CAN SOMETIMES BE A SOURCE OF OPPRESSIVE SHOULDS, ESPECIALLLY THE MORE FUNDAMENTALIST TYPES OF RELIGION. RIGIDITY MAY BE A PARTIALLY INHERITED TRAIT. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY RELIGIONS AROUND THE WORLD PROMOTE THE IDEA THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS “WRONG” AND THAT PEOPLE “SHOULDN’T” HAVE URGES AND ATTRACTIONS TOWARD PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE “SHOULD STATEMENTS” BECOME HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL, AND ARE OFTEN A SOURCE OF HORRIFIC HATRED AND VIOLENCE, SOMETIMES IN THE NAME OF SOME “HIGHER POWER.” Situation 3 Lucy was buying fruits in a grocery store when she found that a man was taking an apple off the shelf and hiding it in his clothe! Obviously, the man was stealing an apple. Lucy was very angry and said, "the man shouldn't steal things from the store. It's not right!" In this case, Lucy didn't steal apples, the man did. But Lucy made a moral judgement about the man's behavior, not Lucy's behavior. Then is this should statement valid for Lucy? DAVID’S THINKING. TO MY WAY OF THINKING, YES THESE ARE VALID LEGAL SHOULDS AND MORAL SHOULDS, SINCE OUR CIVILIZATION (AND ALL CIVILIZATIONS) HAVE DECIDED THAT STEALING IS ILLEGAL, AND IS ALSO CONSIDERED MORALLY WRONG IN MOST RELIGIONS: “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL” IS, I THINK, ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. THE GOAL IS NOT TO CLEAN UP YOUR SPEECH SO THAT YOU NEVER USE SHOULD STATEMENTS THAT DO NOT FIT INTO ONE OF THE THREE VALID CATEGORIES OF LEGAL SHOULDS, MORAL SHOULD, AND LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE SHOULDS. AT LEAST I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THAT. MY GOAL IS TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF SHOULD STATEMENTS. sincerely Oliver   Hi David, What is it with "shoulds" related to recovery from depression? I suffer from depression for about 3 years and say to myself "I should have gotten better sooner." Isn't this "should" appropriate? Because who really wants to suffer through this agony? Greetings from Geneva. Vincent Hi Vincent, "I wish I had gotten better sooner." This is a correct statement without the "should." This simple shift in language is called the Semantic Technique, and it was developed by Dr. Albert Ellis who kind of gave birth to cognitive therapy in the 1950s, along with Dr. Karen Horney about the same time. Instead of using a should, you use “it would be preferable if” or “I wish X was true.” In addition, it isn't actually true that you "should" have gotten better sooner! The universe does not always conform to our expectations. Just because we want something, it doesn't follow that it "should" happen. I'd love to have a new Tesla sports car, at least in fantasy, but it isn't true that I "should" have one. It would be “great” if you had gotten better sooner, that’s absolutely true. “I should have gotten better sooner.” That’s totally false. In addition, although one might think that no one would "want" depression, my research and new clinical work indicate that resistance is nearly always the key to recovery. In other words, people do cling to depression, anxiety, troubled relationships, and habits and addictions, but don’t realize why they are resisting change. Once you suddenly see why you are resisting, your resistance paradoxically disappears, and recovery is then just a stone’s throw away. You can learn more about this in my new book, Feeling Great, available now on Amazon. Thanks! PS let me know if you like the new book, and if you find it helpful! All the best, David   A new comment on the post "108: Do You Have a "Self?"" is waiting for your approval Author: Charles Dr. Burns, First off I want to say thank you. Your work has been helping me through my anxiety. However, I really struggled with this podcast. The concept of no self shot my anxiety way up and made me feel hopeless. It made me feel almost as if I was not real or that there is nothing worth striving for. I love helping people. But I feel like I don’t have a purpose if I don’t have a self. It makes me feel worse than before. David’s answer. Hi Charles, The “great death” of the self is a challenging concept, and while it is incredibly liberating, lots of people—most, in fact—don’t “get it.” Some get angry. Some struggle with trying to understand what this could possibly mean. And some find the concept very threatening. That’s why I deleted the chapter from my book. In fact, a couple extremely brilliant and interested colleagues totally couldn’t grasp it, and felt frustrated by my writing on the concept. sometimes, ideas are so simple and basic that people cannot grasp them. The Buddha ran into this problem 2500 years ago. People thought he was fantastic, but almost none of his followers experienced the enlightenment he was so excited to teach them. The 20th century philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, ran into the same problem. He solve all the problems of philosophy, but when he was alive, it was rumored that only seven people in the world, including one of his favorite students, Norman Malcolm, could grasp what he was saying. He went in and out of intense depression and loneliness during his life, in part because of his frustration with trying to teach the obvious. In my book, Feeling Great, I teach that there are actually four “Great Deaths” for the patient, corresponding to recovery from depression, anxiety disorders, relationship conflicts, and habits and addictions. There are also four “Great Deaths” for TEAM therapists. Those sections might be helpful for you! In addition, I focus on the fact that people can never judge your “self,” only something specific that you think or do. Depression cannot exist on the specific level, only up in the clouds of abstraction. For example, Overgeneralization is one of the ten cognitive distortions I described in my first book, Feeling Good. When you Overgeneralize, you see a negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat, and you might also Overgeneralize from some specific flaw or defect to your “self.” You will read about an attractive and vivacious young professional woman who had the thought, “I’m unloveable,” when her boyfriend of two years broke up with her. This is classic depression thinking, and “self” thinking. She thinks she has a “self” that can be loveable or unloveable. But this is simply not true, and it’s not productive, because she’ll spend all her time ruminating and feeling worthless. An alternative is to focus on why the (overall excellent) relationship didn’t work out, and what she can do to change and learn and grow, so as to make the next relationship even better. You can pick up on the details in the chapter on Overgeneralization if you’re interested! As I point out in Feeling Great, the “death of the self” is not like a funeral, it’ like an incredible celebration of life. Death of your old concept of what you are is liberating, and leads to instant rebirth. My teachings cannot make you happy or unhappy. Your thoughts about what I’m saying create all of your feelings, positive or negative. At any rate, thank you for a most important question that most of my audience will definitely related to. As an aside, I lost my “self” years ago, and what a relief that was. Sadly, it comes back to life from time to time, and then I struggle again, until I realize what’s happening. One day, what I’m saying may make sense! In the meantime, please accept my apologies concerning the “self!” If it gives you comfort to believe you have a “self,” no problem. But the “self” is just a concept, and not a “thing” that could exist or not exist. When you lose your precious and protected “self,” you lose nothing, because there was never anything there in the first place! But while you lose nothing, you do inherit the earth, as nearly all great religious leaders—Buddha, Jesus, and others—have taught us. David   Hi Dr. Burns, I’ve just listened to your podcast episode on suicide and found it really interesting and useful but I have a few questions. Firstly, how is your requirement that the patient agree to not make any suicide attempts for the rest of their life any different to a ‘suicide contract’ which you mention are not effective? Also, you talk about doing this assessment at the intake and making non-attempts a condition of therapy. If the patient/client agrees to this, why then do you continue to monitor suicidal thoughts in each session in the BMS? Presumably because the agreement is no guarantee of cessation of thoughts. Surely if you’ve told them it’s a condition of therapy with you to not make any attempts then they’d be likely to not tell you about them even if they occurred, and don’t see how setting the initial ground rule resolves the problem. And lastly, when suicidal thoughts, urges, or fantasies do come again in the BMS how do you handle it then? Do you tell them you’ll end therapy, say “but you promised”? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks, Michelle. Hi Michelle, I have scheduled your email for an upcoming ask david episode, and will use your first name unless you prefer that i use some other name. Here is a brief reply. Most patients with borderline personality disorder will become enraged by the gentle ultimatum at the initial evaluation, and if they decide this is not the type of therapy they want, so be it. The techniques I use will not be effective with patients who continue to threaten suicide. TEAM therapy requires TEAM work. Most, nearly all, patients will "get it" and will decide to continue with the therapy. They can have suicidal thoughts and urges, and we can work on them together in therapy. However, to my way of thinking, it is important that they therapist and patient be protected, in a safe environment. If the patient starts threatening to make a suicide attempt, then they will need another form of more intensive treatment like hospitalization, day care, or intensive outpatient treatment. These are options I cannot personally provide for them. I monitor suicidal urges before and after each session with every patient with no exceptions to protect the patient and to protect myself as well. Thanks! PS the suicide contract is an agreement not to attempt suicide "while we are working together." This is very weak, as the patient can suddenly decide he or she is dropping out of therapy and making a suicide attempt. And this often happens. My contract is more demanding, and intentionally so. Patients must also agree to do psychotherapy homework, too. Some patients want to make the therapist a hostage with suicide threats, which can and so work as a form of manipulation and hostility. Then the therapist is in an almost constant state of agitation, anxiety, and frustration. If I allow a patient to make my life miserable, how can I teach that patient how to be happy? We are all ONE—we go up and down together. If I allow you to make my life miserable, then I am allowing you to make your own life miserable, too. David   Hello David, Thank you so much for everything you do. I’ve listened to all of your podcasts, and read most of your books, and am very grateful for the changes you, Rhonda, Fabrice and the rest of the team have made to my life. I’ve just listened to this episode, and there’s one thing I’m struggling with, which is the concept of the moral should. I’ve done a few things that made me intensely guilty – one in particular was not standing by and supporting a friend who needed people when he was going through a particularly hard time. He was angry and disappointed with me, and, in hindsight, rightly so. He has since forgiven me but I still struggle with it. I feel that supporting him was a moral should. The knowledge that I didn’t do what I should have done led to a lot of guilt and shame, and eventually depression. You say that a moral should is valid; so therefore, I feel that my negative thoughts on this are not misguided but valid – I did something morally wrong and deserved to feel bad for it. Just wondering your thoughts on this. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Hi Brian, thanks! Would love to include this on an Ask David, using just your first name, or even a fake name if you prefer. A quick response might be to ask how many minutes per day would you like to dedicate to feeling guilty? And for how many days, months, or years? In your spiritual or religious beliefs, is a person supposed to feel intensely guilty forever? Most of us have done things we are ashamed of, or feel guilty about. How much guilt and shame would you recommend for me, for example? And what is the goal of the guilt and shame? And how guilty would you recommend I feel, between 0% and 100%? That's one approach. Another approach would be A = Assessment of Resistance, listing what the guilt shows about you that's positive and awesome, and then asking yourself why in the world you'd want to let go of the guilt, given all the many real positives. Then you might validly decide to “dial it down” to some more acceptable level. For example, if you now feel 90% guilty, perhaps 15% or 20% would be enough. In addition, you could also decide how many minutes of guilt you would recommend. If you now feel guilty about eight hours a day, would 10 minutes be enough? If so, you could schedule your “guilt periods” ahead of time, and then really work hard at feeling guilty during those ten minutes. Then, when you’re done with your “guilt work,” you can return to joyous and loving living! Also, instead of one ten minute daily guilt binge, you could schedule, for example, three guilt binges, each three minutes long, in the morning, at lunch time, and in the evening, like three pills the doctor prescribed! David In reply to Dr. Burns. Hi Dr Burns, Thanks so much for your quick response! I really appreciate your advice; I will dedicate a bit of time today to approaching it the way you say. And also, I’d be delighted if you included it on a podcast! You can use my first name by all means. Thanks again! Brian   Comment from Carrel I'm a Democrat in Texas. How can we use disarming to heal the political rifts in our country? How does one find agreement across that ever-widening divide? Carrel David’s reply Hi Carrel, It’s really tough, for sure! Have you listened to my podcast on this topic? There is a search function on my website. If you type in “political divide,” this podcast will pop right up: “127: How Can We Communicate with Loved Ones on the Opposite Side of the Political Divide?” Let me know what you think! David David emphasizes the value of the search function. Often you can find your questions have already been addressed. In addition, the many podcasts on the Five Secrets of Effective Communication could be invaluable (links), and the emphasis would be on using the Disarming Technique to find some truth in what the other person is proclaiming and arguing for. But first, you have a decision to make, and this is always based on ONE person you may want to interact with. First, ask yourself if you do actually want a better relationship with person X, Y, or Z. There is no rule that says we have to get along better with everyone. I think that Joe Biden is doing a pretty good job of promoting unity, and not diverseness in our country. Hopefully, the forces of love and unity will win out over the forces of hatred and war, but it’s not at all clear what direction our country is heading for. And we’re seeing now that at times the tensions are become so intense, and the hatred so strong, that violence is once again on the increase. In the next Ask David we'll have a really cool session devoted to the intense anger that many of us feel when confronted by human behavior that strikes us as narcissistic, vicious, self-serving, and aggressive. This topic should appeal to lots of people! And we have a wonderful question from a woman who's feeling pretty darn enraged! David and Rhonda  

【主播的话】 2019年11月7日，在一顿南京大牌档和许多个微信电话之后，《不合时宜》播客成立了。 那时我们三个人开玩笑：看看能坚持多久？第一期节目的名字就是《「不合时宜」距成为「主流电台」还差100期》。 如今一年过去，我们已经做了50期（此处应有掌声）。 这一年里我们收获了很多的喜爱、关注和支持，但也被下过节目、遭过谩骂。我们建立了起数百人的听众群、志愿者群，登上了《经济学人》，还被多个播客平台推荐过首页。我们在节目中披露的个案，带来了一整个公益行业对于性别议题的重视，并作出了系统性的改革。 正如我们的名字一样，在节目中我们谈论那些不合时宜的人类、事物与生活方式，也关注社会中那些拨动你我神经的新闻事件和文化议题。 觉得好像已经走了很远，又觉得好像才刚刚出发。 11月22日下午，我们将在北京举办一场不合时宜一周年的线下派对，欢迎你来玩。报名方式请详见不合时宜微信公号的最新推送。 ps，本期节目结尾处有来自听众的彩蛋。 【主播】 若含（微博@X_Ruohan） 孟常（微博@孟常） 王磬（微博@王磬） 【本期剧透】 05:40 第一期番外是如何录制出来的？ 07:10 孟常：还没有能力去描述和回忆2020 08:07 《不合时宜》播客是孟常所有side project中坚持时间最长的一个吗？ 09:09 若含：听到观众发来的语音留言，关键词是“联结” 11:05 若含：2020年把我变成一个乐观的悲观主义者 13:18 若含：在节目里讲述了自己的经历，然后发生了什么 18:40 磬：通过播客的形式，讲述个体经历，推进公共讨论 19:37 孟常：对985相亲局这期节目的补充观察，为什么呈现不同的观点是如此重要 27:40 统一回应：几个常见的批评 30:00 孟常：为什么大家要喊我常老师？ 32:47 由一顿南京大排档开启的播客旅程 35:40 磬：做播客减小了我对自我暴露的恐惧，克服记者的中立强迫症 39:27 用价值观筛选对象是比tinder更好的机制，《不合时宜》要不要搞相亲局？ 45:54 回顾最初起名的艰难：「不合时宜」的名字是怎么来的？ 47:12 全球听众发来的语音情书，十个听众与不合时宜的故事 【本期音乐】 片头曲：I Think of You - Rodriguez 片尾曲：Go west - Pet Shop Boys 片中曲： What A Wonderful World - Louis Armstrong 【延展资料】 本期cue到的节目： 《番外：「不合时宜」距成为「主流电台」还差100期》（2019.11.7） 《过了6年，我终于说出这个秘密》（2020.4.18） 《都市里的相亲焦虑和婚恋观》（2020.10.30） 【logo设计】刘刘（ins: imjanuary ) 【后期制作】CC 【制作总监】王若弛 【收听方式】 推荐您使用Apple播客、Spotify、小宇宙App或任意安卓播客客户端订阅收听《不合时宜》，也可通过网易云音乐、喜马拉雅收听。 【本节目由JustPod出品】 【互动方式】 微博@不合时宜TheWeirdo 微信公号：不合时宜TheWeirdo 不合时宜听友群：加入方式详见微博置顶帖 欢迎打赏：https://afdian.net/@TheWeirdo

Hi everyone, and thank you for tuning in to another episode of the We Make Books Podcast - A podcast about writing, publishing, and everything in between! We Make Books is hosted by Rekka Jay and Kaelyn Considine; Rekka is a published author and Kaelyn is an editor and together they are going to take you through what goes into getting a book out of your head, on to paper, in to the hands of a publisher, and finally on to book store shelves. We Make Books is a podcast for writers and publishers, by writers and publishers and we want to hear from our listeners! Send us your questions, comments, and concerns! We hope you enjoy We Make Books! Twitter: @WMBCast  |  @KindofKaelyn  |  @BittyBittyZap Instagram: @WMBCast  Patreon.com/WMBCast   Episode 47: Let Us Tell You About Show Don't Tell (Our usual transcriptionist is taking a well-deserved break. Any drop in quality of today's transcript is totally our fault.) Rekka (00:00):Hi, everyone. Welcome back to another episode of we make books, a show about writing publishing and everything in between. I'm Kaelyn Considine. I am the acquisitions editor for Parvus Press. Rekka (00:08):And I'm Rekka. I write science fiction and fantasy as RJ Theodore. Rekka (00:11):And you know what you've done? You have shown us that you write science fiction and fantasy as RJ. Theodore, you have not just told us Rekka (00:18):Although today I did just tell you. Rekka (00:20):You did just tell me now, but I mean, the books exist. I've seen them. So you've shown us that, but you have also talked at length about different parts and aspects of how you've written these and things that have happened to you, therefore showing us that you wrote them. Rekka (00:34):Or did I just tell you all this stuff? I don't know. What does this rule mean anyway? Rekka (00:41):Yeah. So today we're, we're tackling another one of those,uthose weird, funny little notes that you get from,ueditors and people critiquing your work. And you'll see, "show me, don't tell me" and – Rekka (00:52):Really frustrating because everyone says it and assumes you know what they mean, but if you haven't really processed what it means, or you haven't managed to do it and have someone say, "yes, that's what I mean by show, don't tell," like you just feel a little bit lost. You feel like maybe you are falling behind in the class kind of thing. Like why does everyone know what this means? And I still don't understand? Rekka (01:16):It is difficult, but I think it's one of those things that once you kind of figure out, it's a lot easier to understand what the note means. What, you know, we're trying to get at here is describing something to the reader and making the sentence do a lot of– do work in more than one way is a lot more interesting to read than just a list of descriptions, actions, emotions, or feelings. Rekka (01:41):If you at least identify when you're doing it in the revisions that's going to go a long way to improving your relationship with beta readers and editors later. Rekka (01:51):And improving your relationship with your characters, because we're going to talk a lot about that in this episode too. So– Rekka (01:56):All right. So let's not tell you what the episode is. Rekka (01:59):Let's show you! Rekka (02:00):On the other side of the music. Kaelyn (02:17):In this case, we're here mostly just to tell people things. If we just record this while showing things to each other, it's not going to be very, Rekka (02:25):What we're showing is our competence with writing skills and techniques Kaelyn (02:30):Ah okay. Rekka (02:31):And demonstrating, Ooh, maybe that's it. Okay. I solved it. Don't call it. Show don't tell because that confuses people show, call it demonstrate don't elucidate. Rolls right off the tongue. Kaelyn (02:44):Oh goodness. That's going on a mug somewhere. So yeah, but today we're, we're talking about one of the other great notes that people frequently get back from editors and agents, which is "show me, don't tell me I, I will, I think this is not as quote-unquote unhelpful as, you know, "tighten your storylines, work on your character arcs," that kind of thing. Um. Rekka (03:12):But it's one of the ones that people get early on in their writing because it's supposed to be so helpful, but if you haven't come across it and you don't know how to identify why it's being pointed out in your work, like what the heck does it mean? Kaelyn (03:30):Yeah. So there's, you know, before we, before we get started in too deep into this, let's kind of define some of the areas that we're talking about here. And it's funny because Rekka and I were talking about doing this episode and we both came to this with kind of different approaches to the show. Don't tell me like, things that were important to Ned,uwhile doing some research, I kind of discovered that what Rekka and I both think is important. Most of the literary world doesn't think is as important. Rekka (03:57):Well, we are genre-focused. Kaelyn (04:00):Yeah. Exactly. Rekka (04:00):That just supports that. Kaelyn (04:02):Yeah. So I came into this with like one of my big pet show me, don't tell me a pet peeves is characters. Urecords is world-building and,I– Rekka (04:13):It's not even that it was that you said characters first. So I said, Oh, okay. But also "world building." It wasn't like, I was like, "No, world building first!" This wasn't like a showdown. Kaelyn (04:22):It's always a showdown. Rekka (04:22):It was a telldown. I'll show myself out. Kaelyn (04:28):All right. That's the podcast, everyone. We're done. Rekka (04:30):Like forever. She can't take it anymore. Kaelyn (04:34):Oh God. Okay. but it's funny because then when I was doing research on this and most of these "show me, don't tell me examples. And what everybody's talking about is more of writing and prose and style. So the point of all of it is nobody wants to be bombarded with facts and told "this is the way things are in this book" without actually experiencing it while reading it. One it's bad storytelling and two it's disorienting, Rekka (05:04):But if they're reading it, aren't they experiencing it? Kaelyn (05:07):Well, no, they're not because that's not experiencing it, that's just being read a list of facts and statements. Rekka (05:14):I know I'm playing devil's advocate in case you didn't tell. Kaelyn (05:18):I know. Um so why is this a problem? Rekka (05:23):Because you bore your reader, you don't engage them. You don't pull them through the book. Kaelyn (05:27):Yeah. This is one of those things that, and we rarely, you know, kind of come down to this it's bad writing. It's like, I mean, really, you know, we don't, we don't talk too much about like, you know, universally accepted things that are considered bad writing, but this is one of them because as Rekka said, it's boring, it is not engaging. It's not pulling the reader into the book. Anyone can sit here and rattle off a list of, you know, facts about like the, you know, the kitchen table that had sitting at right now, it was brown and round. Light brown with wood patterns on it. It was made of wood. And that's not really interesting. It distracts from the story. It doesn't paint a scene. It doesn't give you any indication of how the character is feeling or interacting, or considering how to act based on their surroundings or their thoughts. It's bad writing. And it's well, not always lazy, but oftentimes lazy. Rekka (06:30):But it's also not serving a purpose other than to describe the table. And if the table itself doesn't have anything to do with the tension you're trying to build in a scene or inform you what this character might be like, because you know, you're discussing the furnishings of their house, which describes the character. Maybe more than just saying the character can afford lots of nice furniture. You know. Kaelyn (06:58):The, every everything, well, the vast majority of what you write in your book should be serving two purposes. If a monster erupts out of the ground to try to eat our heroes and you have to stop the action and the story to describe the monster, that's serving two purposes. One, you want to describe the monster. You want to know what the heroes are about to fight against, but two, you want them to know how scary this monster is. So the words you use, you don't just say, "it looked like a centipede. It was purple. It had a lot of legs and weird green eyes with lots of facets on them. Venom was dripping off its fangs." Actually "venom was dripping off its fangs" is a good example of what, how to describe it. But instead of stating facts about it, what you should be doing instead is, you know, "the creature erupted out of the ground, spraying rock and sand everywhere. Once they cleared the dust from their eyes, they beheld the monster before them. It was a towering behemoth of," you know, and go on like that, because what you're doing is you're showing that the readers are, or excuse me, that the heroes are freed here. And then you also don't have to tell us that they're afraid. Rekka (08:09):I was just going to say well can't you sum it up and say the monster burst forth from the ground and scared the heroes? Kaelyn (08:14):Absolutely. If you don't want anyone to know what the monster looks like. Yeah. Rekka (08:19):Yeah. So you would use this to do both things, show that the person is scared and the reaction without having to say this is their reaction and do the thing that you'd really like to do, which is, I assume if you're creating a monster as you want to get into what the monster looks like and the creature design. Kaelyn (08:35):Yeah. So in this case you know, what we're kind of talking about here is the last thing I brought up, which is sort of like the style and prose and writing technique of, you know, making your sentences do extra work for you. You're describing the monster and then you're also establishing that it is threatening and our heroes are afraid of it to, you know, circle back to some of the other ones that Rekka and I came up with here. You know, well Rekka you know, had specifically said world-building. Rekka (09:05):Yeah, well, mostly because when you have a genre book, you've got some sort of aspect of the world that you've invented from whole cloth. And of course, you're very proud of that. And of course you want to talk about it. And this isn't to say, like, there's the whole iceberg theory thing, and I'm not going to go into that. That's not what I mean by this. But the idea that you want to keep the book interesting, which means you need to keep the motivation of the reader of wanting to find out what happens next. If you're just describing a setting in your world. Well, it doesn't matter what happens next. That setting is probably unaffected by the plot and the story. And the time you take away from keeping that reader in the story is detrimental to their, you know, their draw into the whole world. Rekka (10:01):So even though you think like, "Oh, my world is so cool. I have to get all this in here." Your reader cares less and less about the world when you keep interrupting the story to tell them about it. So just like Katelyn was saying, do two things with your sentences, you know, throw a little bit of your world building into an action. That's happening in the story. You know, passing the,uneon ice cream shop where all the ice cream was neon of course is what I mean. Not that it's painted neon. That's ridiculous. You know, so like build your world building in the same way that you're going to build your emotional reactions to things in and your physical descriptions of things. So in the sense, your first example kind of was world building. Ubut it was also emotional. And so your sentences need to do at least two things. So they can be emotion and world building or action and world building, or action and emotion, or character and world like, you know, mixing match. Don't just have nouns and verbs in the right order. Kaelyn (11:03):Yeah. So, and then my, my particular pet peeve with the show me don't tell me is is character related. I hate reading books, I hate getting submissions, where all I'm reading about is how a character is. So this and guys, this character, they are just, so This Thing, this, that they're, so This, that it's practically coming out of their ears. Everyone knows that they're, they're, This they're just the most This that there is. And then you see nothing in their actions, thoughts, or speech that would indicate that aside from the author and then usually other characters around them telling you this. Rekka (11:42):Reinforcing it in a very direct and obvious way. Kaelyn (11:45):Yeah. So it's that's, that's one of that is my big show me don't tell me pet peeve is,uif you know, you've got a guy who's supposed to be like the most brilliant, I don't know codebreaker in the entire world, but we don't actually see him break any codes and that's not part of the plot, why is that, you know, why do you need me to tell to know this? Why is that important here? And,uubut you know, there's, there's things that I think you get a little more and you see this a lot in,uyoung adult and teen novels where,uyou know, you want the cool kid, the shy kid, the goth kid, the, you know, where we get these sort of like emotional angles and none of them are actually then displayed in the writing of the character. Uso why... You know, apart from why is this important? Why, why is it bad writing? Rekka (12:45):Good writing is something that someone can enjoy. So if they're not enjoying it– you know, like, okay, across the board, not everyone is going to enjoy every story, but there are things you can do to increase your chances that someone's going to enjoy the story. And one of those things is to control, for example, the pacing and the immersion of the reader in the world. And when you tell someone something, rather than show it to them, you're kind of saying, "No, no, no, no, just trust me on this," without providing the proof. Exactly. And so it's hard for a person to sink into that world and enjoy it if they're constantly thinking, "Well, okay, you say that, but where I, like, what does that mean to this character? Or what does that, how is that going to impact the story or anything like that?" Kaelyn (13:36):Yeah. And I think that where this comes from a lot is this, especially, you know, in genre fiction, like, you know, Rebecca and I work in is "I've come up with this really cool thing, and I need everybody to know all about it. I need them to know about how awesome this world is or how scary this monster is or how cool and bad-ass my main character is." Rekka (14:00):Well we do want to know these things. Kaelyn (14:02):Yes, absolutely. But "if I tell them over and over again, they'll get it," and that is not how you get a reader to internalize things, readers, internalize things by the actions of the characters or the interaction with the world around them. Rekka (14:18):Do you think this is kind of, and I hate this phrase, is this just like a "rookie mistake" where they know they need to convince somebody of this, or they know they need to include this. They just don't know how to go about doing it properly? Kaelyn (14:30):Yeah. And I think it is. I think it's something that you see a lot with new and emerging writers, where you've just got all of these amazing ideas coming out of your ears and you've just, you know, gotta gather them all up and get them on a page. And so what it turns into is just, you know, a list of reasons why this thing is how you say it is rather than seeing people you know, either display those characteristics or seeing the world, or even just the way that you're writing. So a lot of times, you know, as we said, when you, you're going to get into, if you Google, you know, "show me, don't tell me" it's going to be pages and pages of you know, examples and literature and all of these famous quotes and stuff about it. But it goes beyond just style and the ability and the way that you write. Within the story itself, you can't, you know, make a character a certain way by having everyone else around them insist they are that way, but them showing no signs of that whatsoever. Rekka (15:41):So I'm going to give an example with Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, because when you think about Scrooge, you tend to think like, "Oh, well he's a cheapskate." I mean, the name is synonymous with cheapskate. This is a thing Dickens did. He made stuff pretty clear just by the way he named people. His story is about his character arc. You think about it, and you're like, "yeah, no, people are pretty clear that Ebenezer's really awful." And you can say "Ebenezer's is really awful," if you were writing the story or you can describe him as "the cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shriveled, his cheek, stiffened, his gait made his eyes red, his thin lips blue and spoke out shrewdly in his grading voice." Like– Kaelyn (16:27):Yeah, that's good writing that. Rekka (16:29):Yeah. And I'm not a huge Dickens fan. He got paid by the word. And so he did go on, but like he was described, he described Scrooge as "a squeezing wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching covetous, old sinner." Like these are descriptive things but they're adding so much. Right? And then not only that, but the character behaves in such a manner. You're not just told this, but he says, you know, when people come to him and this is what you're saying about like the character supporting like, "Oh, just saying, Oh, you're an old miser, Scrooge," no people come to him looking for charitable handouts for the holidays. As, you know, as being established as, as good and wholesome and Scrooge says, "are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Like, he has an argument with people that shows how you might expect a person to behave and how this person is behaving in contradiction to that. And so it's just like a really, Kaelyn (17:34):No, that's. Rekka (17:34):It's rich. Like the way that, you know, this is, this is seven layers of Scrooge-ness that you get out of these, these, these words that are chosen. And so like in some ways it's good that he was paid by the word. Kaelyn (17:46):Most people in the English speaking world, even if they haven't read a Christmas Carol or seen one of the movies, which by the way, the Muppet version of it is, is the best one. Michael Kane, as Scrooge, there should be no other Scrooges ever. Rekka (18:01):Certainly not Jim Carey. Kaelyn (18:03):Most people know when somebody says like, Oh God, he's a Scrooge. Or, you know, like call you Scrooge. They, Rekka (18:11):It's an idiom now. Kaelyn (18:11):Yes, exactly. Because this was so effective in the writing. So that's a really, really good example of why this is important. Going back to, you know, like new writers and just wanting to get this stuff out there. I just think that information dumps, this insisting upon– the characters that insist upon themselves, is really distracting from the story. Rekka (18:37):Because you can feel it's the writer doing the insisting. Kaelyn (18:40):Yes. It makes you not like the characters. And I'm not saying every character in your book needs to be loved and cheered for, but you usually need at least one to love and cheer for or everyone's going to have a really hard time getting through the book. Rekka (18:53):Yeah. And I'm dealing with that in some of the TV shows I'm watching right now. There are so many important characters, but you at least understand their motivations, even if you don't like them or want to spend any time in their presence. Kaelyn (19:06):Did you just finished The Boys, Rekka? Rekka (19:08):I might have, yes. There's no one left to root for almost. But the, the idea of you insisting, "Mary Sue–" Kaelyn (19:20):Yeah, let's lean in here. Rekka (19:20):"Was So beautiful. Everyone loved her and she looked great in everything she wore." That's, that's great, but I'm not getting anything out of that. Kaelyn (19:32):Well, also, do you see what just happened there? You're not developing a character. You're giving me a list of qualities and traits about them. Rekka (19:41):This is like a job application. Kaelyn (19:43):Yeah, exactly. Let's use Bella from the Twilight series. Rekka (19:49):I think she's a prime example of this. Kaelyn (19:51):Yes. So you know, for those of you who have not read this or have not seen the movies and I, dear God, Kirsten Stewart Um so one of the really common critiques of the Twilight books apart from, you know, like apart from the "dear God, why?" Was, you know, on, a literary level that Bella is an empty vessel and there's debate as to whether or not this was the intention of the author, you know, that she'd just come off as like a very plain uninteresting character with very little personality to speak of, so that young girls reading this could, you know, easily put themselves into, you know, relate to her and say, "I am just like Bella." But what is really infuriating about this character and full disclosure—I have read all of these books. I haven't read the most recent one because why would I, at this point Um one of the things that, you know, a lot of people pointed out about this that is a legitimate critique of Twilight apart from the fact that these are vampires that don't catch fire the sun, but that's fine. It's, it's fine. We don't actually see Bella do too much that would establish her personality. If you took out the fact that this is written from her perspective. And even despite the fact that it's written from her perspective, there isn't a whole lot going on with this girl. She doesn't have a whole ton of defining characteristics other than the fact that she's in love with a vampire. That is her entire personality. We're told things like she's very smart, she's very accident prone. She's very you know, she's a hard worker. Kaelyn (21:38):She's really loyal. The loyalty one, maybe we see a little bit, but I'm not sure if it's loyalty or obsession. One of the running jokes through the whole book is how accident prone she is. I, I could not come up with anything other than sometimes she bumps into people in the hallway there, so this is a good example of, you know, show me, don't tell me where and granted, here's the thing: this may have been deliberate on the part of the author, even though I said, I haven't read the newest one. So,ushe re-wrote the first book from the perspective of the shiny vampire boyfriend. Okay. Uso you're getting everything from his angle and you know what, for the sake of this podcast now, I think I'm going to have to go read this book because it would be very interesting to see Bella from outside Bella, and whether or not she seems to have a personality. And I think that's exactly what this book is. So now.. Dammit, Now I've gotta go read this book. Rekka (22:41):Well you don't HAVE to. Kaelyn (22:43):No. I have to, for the sake of science. Bella, I think is a good example of in terms of characters, "show me, don't tell me" because we just keep hearing all this stuff about her without ever actually seeing her be anything except pretty much completely passive aside from acting dramatically and irrationally when it comes to Shiny Vampire Boyfriend. Rekka (23:05):And you say, this is an effective tool to rope in a certain kind of reader. But it seems to me that if you write a compelling character, you're going to rope in a reader of any type. Kaelyn (23:18):I would hope so because here's the thing, there were, she was surrounded by compelling characters, everything around her was far more interesting than she was. Rekka (23:26):And it was just rubbing off on her, was that the idea? Kaelyn (23:29):I GUESS. You know, like I didn't, I remember talking about this with someone and they were like, "I don't understand why, you know, girls, like all of these young girls love this book so much. Like, I mean the main character is like so boring." And I said, "they're not reading it for her, the reading it for the love triangle, the reading it for Hot Werewolf Guy and Shiny Vampire Boy." Rekka (23:49):Yeah. Kaelyn (23:49):Um Bella's just a vessel to carry that story along in all of this. Rekka (23:56):It just seems like it could also be done effectively with someone who is not an empty vessel. Kaelyn (24:00):Absolutely. And that's the better story. Rekka (24:04):Okay. So getting back to the "show, don't tell," don't don't take too much to heart from the gobs and gobs of money that the Twilight series has made. Please. We would hate for you to go down that dark and disturbing path. Kaelyn (24:16):–To Make a lot of money off– Rekka (24:19):Look, if, if that's what you enjoy reading and that's how you liked your characters... I guess? Kaelyn (24:23):Hey, you know what, look, everybody like knocked Twilight for a lot of stuff. If that's just something you enjoy sitting down and reading and kind of, you know, mindlessly, or in a very engaged way, going through. Awesome. That's great. But Bella is a good example of characters that we were told about rather than shown. Rekka (24:42):Okay. So getting back to the, the origins of this, when it's handed out as advice and who's handing it out as advice and where does it come from? Where's it supposed to take you and how do you want a new writer to interpret the phrase? Kaelyn (25:02):So if I tell somebody, I never just put, you know, highlight something and say, "show don't tell me," I always put a note next to there saying like, "Hey instead of you telling me about how, you know, sharp, this sword is, have the character pick it up and slice something in half." That's way more interesting than, you know, just staring at this sword and describing it in great detail. Rekka (25:27):Although a little irresponsible. Kaelyn (25:28):Well, it depends what you're slicing in half. You know, if there was a watermelon that you were about to eat anyway, then sure. You know, Rekka (25:34):Yeah but the sword doesn't deserve to be used as cutlery! Kaelyn (25:38):Depends on the sword. Rekka (25:39):Okay. So two characters arguing over whether or not they can use the sword to cut the watermelon. "I'm Not saying it won't cut the watermelon. I'm saying that's not an appropriate use of our family's sacred sword." Rekka (25:49):"And I'm saying that we all want the watermelon. I see nothing else around except the family sacred sword. Don't you think your family would want us to have the watermelon?" Rekka (25:56):"And we'll wash it right away. We'll hang it back on the wall over the hearth. Everyone will just think we polished it. It'll look better. Everyone will be happy." Kaelyn (26:03):And then we get watermelon. Rekka (26:04):And then later, monsters attack and the edge of the sword is dull because you cut the watermelon with it and everybody dies, the end. Kaelyn (26:10):Oh. Very good Rekka. Very good. Yeah. So when I highlight these things, what I'm trying to communicate to the reader really at the core of it is either one, you were slowing down the story or two, you're missing an opportunity to contribute something to the story. Be it, you know, establishing of piece of information we didn't know before, giving the characters a chance to kind of show their feelings or their emotions a little bit you know, having an action rather than a description. The author who wrote Fight Club– Rekka (26:47):Palahniuk. Kaelyn (26:48):There you go. Chuck Palahniuk. I remember reading something that he wrote and I actually, I did go and look it up before this, and he, to remember doing exactly he said. But he doesn't like what he calls Thought Verbs thinks knows, understands, wants desires. What he's saying instead is make sure you have an Action Word in there. Kaelyn (27:14):And by that, like, instead of saying like, you know, "understands," describe what they're understanding. They smelled something and it triggered a memory and they remembered this. They, you know, reach their hand out in the dark and touch something and realized it was the centipede monster from earlier in the story. It ate both of those heroes and unow it's hiding in the dark. Rekka (27:38):He's back. Kaelyn (27:39):Yeah. He's back, the centipede monster's here forever. So, sensory and action details are a good way to avoid telling people about it because what you're doing then is you're making the character experience something and you're making them relate things to you and have to describe it. You can't just say "Rekka smelled something," you need to say, "Rekka smelled something foul. It made her nervous. It reeked of death." Because now what you're doing is you're describing what Rekka smelled. You're giving us a sense of her emotional state. And you're implying that there is probably a dead body somewhere. Rekka (28:14):Right. Kaelyn (28:15):So you're setting up the scene. Rekka (28:17):And I did find the Lit Reactor article that you're talking about with Chuck Palahniuk's words. And so "instead of characters knowing anything, present details that allow the reader to know those things" is kind of how he phrases it. So instead of a character wanting something, you have to describe the thing so that the reader wants it. In the sense of Twilight, you're putting the character in that main character's shoes, except you're not doing it by making those shoes empty for the reader to step into. You're actually tying them onto the reader's feet yourself. Kaelyn (28:50):Okay. That's– There you go. Yeah. And that's exactly what it is, is it's immersive. Every story is told from something's perspective, be it, you know, a super advanced alien life form or a somehow borderline sentient rock. They're both still experiencing things. Now they're experiencing them very differently, but that's your job to communicate in the book, and just telling us what they're experiencing is not immersing the reader. If you're a rock on Mars, just sitting there going "wow, I'm just this rock of Mars. It's really red and dusty here." Rekka (29:23):See, I thought you were going for Sylvester and the Magic Pebble when you talked about being a rock. Kaelyn (29:27):Oh, that's a good book. Rekka (29:28):That's an excellent book. Kaelyn (29:30):Scared me when I was a kid. Rekka (29:31):Scared you, really? Kaelyn (29:32):I don't know. It's just like, so for those of you who haven't read Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, first of all, go, go read that. But it's a story of a donkey who finds a magic pebble. Rekka (29:43):I think his parents give it to him. Don't they? Kaelyn (29:45):I thought he found it in a Creek and if he holds it and he realizes he can make a wish and the wish will come true. And he's being attacked by a lion at one point, and I'm not sure geographically where takes place. Rekka (30:00):It was Oatsdale, of course. Kaelyn (30:01):He's being attacked by a lion and wishes that he were a rock because the lion won't attack a rock. Except then he realizes he's dropped the pebble and he's not holding it anymore and he can't wish himself to be back from being a rock. Yeah. And he stays a rock for a really long time. Rekka (30:17):Well, that's what I'm saying, this is the point of view of a rock. Kaelyn (30:20):Yeah. But no, it's actually really sad because his parents think like he's dead and like go, you know, search for him forever. And like, they keep like standing on top of him to like search for him and sitting on him and crying about him. And it's, it's a really weird children's book. You know, so if you're, you know, as I said, the rock on Mars and you know, it's still dull, dull, boring life. And then all of a sudden robot shows up your prose and your sensory words and your, you know, way that you're experiencing, and the things that you're seeing obviously have to change in order to communicate the excitement of the rock, because "Hey, robot!" Rekka (30:58):Which you can't call to or wave to, or walk over to, or offer ice cream to. Kaelyn (31:03):Maybe it's going to pick you up to study you. Rekka (31:07):If you're lucky. Kaelyn (31:07):Yeah. And then what if, you know, you start to fall in love with the robot, but it turns out that it's not actually the robot because it's a bunch of people in NASA controlling the robot, but you don't know that. Rekka (31:16):I don't know, the robot's got algorithms. Kaelyn (31:19):Yeah. That's true. How do you fix this? How do you avoid falling into this trap? Rekka, have you ever had to kind of reconcile with this? Rekka (31:29):I was just thinking like, I wish I'd grabbed the notes, but Ryan Kelley, my editor at Parvus, when we were working on Salvage, one of the things he did was point out a few areas,uwith the one character Emeranth where some opportunities were there that I had missed to make her as clever and as caring and as smart as she could have been. And so his suggestion was something along the lines of like, "this is a great opportunity to show her doing the governing that she's forced into" and that sort of thing. Kaelyn (32:00):Yeah. That is something that I frequently make notes of is it's not even, you know, with the writers at this point that I'm getting bored, it's that you're missing an opportunity to have this person do something and, you know, be the bad-ass that you're saying they are. Be the clever person that you're saying they are, the great leader, the great fighter, the coward, you know, any, any number of these things Rekka (32:23):He said when he was pointing out a spot that needed showing, not telling he wasn't saying "show don't tell" waggling a finger and then moving on like, "Oh, my job is done. What a good editor I am." He was saying, "I would suggest that you use this to build this character into the character you say they are." And now Emeranth's scenes make me get all, like we be in shivery on the regular. So... Kaelyn (32:49):"Show don't tell" helps develop, you know, whether it be like your world building, your character, or just even your writing technique, it's going to give you a more rich style. You know, like at the most basic level you don't say you know, "Stephanie was a selfish immature entitled girl." You write a scene where Stephanie's throwing a fit because everybody forgot to throw a surprise party for her dog's half birthday. Rekka (33:20):So we talk about this broadly, we've talked about children's books, we've talked about movies, we've talked about YA books and all kinds of stuff, but are there genres in which this applies less or more like, are there expectations of like, "yeah, no, I actually just want you to get out of my way with this character and let me use them as an avatar for myself in this story." Kaelyn (33:46):I don't know if there are, genres where it's acceptable. I'll be honest with you. This is something that I think is pretty universally frowned on. This is one of the few sort of constants. You know, that said, anytime you're writing something, there's going to be instances where you have no choice but to do a little bit of quote-unquote telling you know, be it because maybe it's a really fast-paced scene and you want to keep the reader engaged and you want to keep the action going. So it's, "he parried left. She swiped, right. He ducked, she dodged they've rolled on the ground," you know, like you're. Rekka (34:20):But that's action. Kaelyn (34:21):Exactly. Yeah. Rekka (34:22):It's engaging. And if we're using Chuck Palahniuk's example, like that's exactly where you want to be, is more in the physical. So if you are telling and, but it's action beats, would you say that's better than telling in thought beats? Kaelyn (34:38):Absolutely. Yeah. Rekka (34:39):Okay. So then my question is, what role in this conversation specifically, would you say adverbs play? Kaelyn (34:49):Ooh. Rekka (34:49):I feel like there's some bleed in, you know, between the two. Kaelyn (34:52):I think adverbs are, like any other thing in life, good in moderation. You know, there's again, and this is another thing that there's a lot of people with very strong opinions about there, about– Rekka (35:05):Never ever ever use adverbs. Kaelyn (35:07):Yeah. That's impossible. Rekka (35:09):Right. Kaelyn (35:09):It's simply, it's simply, it's like not ending your sentences with a preposition, it's like just not the way the English language works. So what Rekka's referring to here is, you know, some editors and, you know, people who get all stuffed up about this stuff. Will say, I don't want to see you write "'Oh, you'll see,' Rekka said slyly.'" I want to hear "Rekka closed the laptop and turned to me with a sly smile on her face and a glint in her eye. 'Oh, You'll see,' she said." Notice how I made it not an adverb. Rekka (35:44):Yeah. By not connecting it to the say. Kaelyn (35:46):Exactly. Yes. And yeah, there is this little kind of weird nebulous area there where like, you're like, "well, I'm describing what she's doing. It's, it's kind of an action." But at the same time, you're telling me what she's doing, rather than showing me with a sly smile on her face. Rekka (36:05):That's I would point out that in the, the example, your quote-unquote correction, we also have things that ground us in the space. And so one, a person who might feel the need to tell you what everyone is thinking might also feel the need to show all the actions in the right order, what hand they're using. Like "she used her left hand to close the door while she scratched her nose with her right, with the fingertips of her right hand," you know, like being very specific about everything. Kaelyn (36:36):Yeah. That's interesting that you bring this up because what you're doing now is you're crossing into a different literary problem. We are past the "show, don't tell" and we are into the "excessively detailed for absolutely no reason." Rekka (36:47):And we will maybe talk about that in another episode. Kaelyn (36:49):Yes. But that is, that is a good point. Is that there is a certain, you know– we get past a certain telling like capacity and into the you're now describing the placement of every single thing in the room for no reason. Rekka (37:05):This is a game of twister. Kaelyn (37:05):Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Rekka (37:07):But what you did was you combined the two things to say, like, we've moved ahead with the story because the laptop has been closed or maybe "Rekka closed the laptop and grabbed her jacket. 'You'll See.'" That implies movement. Kaelyn (37:21):Yes. But you're leaving is she being threatening? Rekka (37:25):I wasn't going so much for the sly as talking about like trying to get more action in, in that sense. Kaelyn (37:29):Yeah, exactly. Rekka (37:30):In the case of being sly, then you might say "Rekka closed the laptop, grabbed her jacket and narrowed her eyes as she shut the lights off. 'You'll See.'" Or whatever. Kaelyn (37:39):Yeah. So yeah. Are there times where you have to, you will have to tell rather than show? Absolutely. Are adverbs a never use them? No, I mean, you will, at some point have to use an adverb, but they are a slippery slope to telling, not showing, even though they sound like you're doing a good job of describing something, they're really telling rather than describing, Rekka (38:00):They are skipping the cues that we want in the story and they are jumping right to the judgment. So what you're doing is you're telling the reader how to feel rather than making them feel that. But one thing you did mention earlier, real quick, that I just wanted to get back to before we wrap this up, is the idea of a fast paced scene where there's a lot of action and maybe you've just, you know, watched a Jason Statham movie and you feel like you need to really show all that action and show and describe the, say, like train– underground train tunnel they're in while they're running around chasing each other. But if stopping to describe the space they're in means that you lose that momentum, then it may still be in the physical, but it could also be more telling than we need. You know, "I nearly slipped on a loose piece of old soggy newspaper" or something like that. That's still– Kaelyn (39:02):Gross. Rekka (39:02):That brings you back into the action, increases the threat because you could fall down now, versus like "the train station had been abandoned since 1970, despite many attempts by the local politicians to renovate and drum up support for a Renaissance of the train museum, which was founded by so-and-so." Kaelyn (39:24):Yeah, Exactly. Rekka (39:26):That's world building! Kaelyn (39:27):We don't need to know all of that. Rekka (39:29):That doesn't serve your action scene with Jason Statham, who's got to get in that train car and then take off his sweater and use it to defeat his enemies. Kaelyn (39:36):Yeah. Because unless the enemy he's defeating is the corrupt politician that was siphoning money out of the budget to restore the train station. All we need to know is that has been abandoned for about 50 years. Rekka (39:46):Yeah. And some gross newspaper will communicate that better than a history lesson. Kaelyn (39:51):Just to round this out. You know, somebody comes back to you and is like, Hey, show me, don't tell me you're kind of going, "Oh, well, what the heck do I do with this?" Take a look at the sentence or the paragraph in particular that they're calling attention to and try– read it out loud, try to figure out if it sounds like the paragraph or the sentence is doing double work to you. Is it conveying more than simple statements of fact or very straightforward descriptions of what people are doing or how they appear or a feeling? Rekka (40:24):Is it a list of judgements of a thing versus list of evidence to support that judgment? Kaelyn (40:30):Yeah. I would say that, listen, this isn't, you know, we're being kind of catty about this in terms of, you know, like this is one of those universally considered bad things, but this is also very hard. This is one of the reasons why it's difficult to be a good writer. Because we, as humans are used to, when you describe something, you know, like, "Oh, I went on a date with this guy. Oh, cool. Let's say like, well he's tall and he has Brown hair and blue eyes and he's got a scar on his eyebrow. And,uhe, you know, plays the saxophone and he works as a barista." Like you're telling me, like, you're just listing this stuff about a guy who is a real living, breathing person, but that's a totally acceptable thing that we do all the time. Uyou know, a friend of mine is like, "Oh, let me tell you about my new boyfriend. I don't need poetic soliloquy about, you know, his feelings on the bass versus the alto saxophones,uand why he prefers one and the childhood trauma surrounding that. Umou know, I just like to know that he plays the saxophone. So that's a normal thing for us with how we talk and how we describe things to people in everyday life. However, when you're doing that, you're looking at your friend as they're doing that and you're and you know, says like, "'Oh, he, you know, plays the saxophone and he's a barista.' Rekka rolled her eyes. This was Kaelyn's fourth barista of the year. Second one that played the saxophone. Where was she finding these men?" But Rekka knows that that's going on in her head. Rekka (42:01):Right. But you put that in the story and suddenly there's context again. Kaelyn (42:05):Exactly. But for regular conversation, you don't need context. And hopefully if that's what Rekka's actually thinking, she's not going to start narrating her internal thoughts to me, because then I'm going to– Rekka (42:15):Oh! That's a great idea. I'm going to start doing that now. Kaelyn (42:20):Um so it's a hard thing to do just because of the way we're used to conducting ourselves in our daily life. We don't need to, you know, I don't need to describe to Rekka the fact that I'm sitting in my kitchen right now and I'm wearing a sweater because it's finally getting a little bit chilly here, but I still have some of the windows cracked open... Because one, Rekka doesn't need to know that two, she can see me in the sweater and probably see the window behind me. In stories you don't have that. So you need to make your sentences do as much work as they can, otherwise you are just describing lists of actions, emotions, and feelings. Rekka (42:57):And this might be a great opportunity to take the book that made you feel the most feelings, and give it a skim and see how their prose sounds compared to yours in areas where you're being told this needs some showing versus telling. I mean, the best thing to do is to pay more attention to people who are making you feel the way you want your reader to feel when they read your book. Rekka (43:19):"What Can I do to become a better writer? How should I get started writing?" And my first answer is always you need to read a lot. Rekka (43:25):Always. Never stop reading. Kaelyn (43:27):Really. Never stop reading, because having all of these things in the back of your head, you know, it's not stealing. Think of it as a research. How did this author, that I really liked this book, how did they handle this problem? How did they make sure, how did they grab me by, you know, the heart and really squeeze it for this one scene? Kaelyn (43:45):Like, what did they do that left me in tears here? What did they do that made me stand up and cheer? Why did I stay awake until three in the morning? Because of something I read? You know, so don't think of that as copying. It's not that I think of it as research. Rekka (44:00):Right. Cause you're not going to take their words and use them in your book. You're going to figure out what they did and find how that parallels what you're trying to do. And that's a good thing, you know? Chances are, they did that too. Kaelyn (44:15):Yeah, exactly. So anyway, I'm not sure how much advice that was on Show Don't Tell, but at least hopefully that was some information about why it is important and what people are trying to say when they point it out to you. Yeah. And if this is something you struggle with, don't feel down about that. It's hard. We don't think about practicing writing, but like you really do have to practice writing. Now granted, practicing is doing revisions, but you know, I think we think like you practice piano and then, you know, you don't really have anything to show for it at the end, but practicing can still, you know, it's the same way as like, you know, practicing cake decorating. Maybe it's not great, but you still have a decorated cake at the end of it. Rekka (44:56):Yeah. Rekka (44:57):Yeah. And you can use that to look back and say how much you've improved because your next cake has way more skill applied to it because you've learned Kaelyn (45:05):Plus cake! And even if it doesn't look pretty, maybe it tastes really good. Rekka (45:09):Exactly. You know, when you keep writing, that's how you keep improving. You're not going to sit down and plunk out one amazing novel and never write again. And it will need revision and whatever you write is going to need a second draft or is going to need at least another pass. There's little you can do to avoid that. The more that you write, the less often that you will fall upon some of these like quote-unquote rookie mistakes, you'll make all new mistakes of more advanced variety, but you will get better. And reading more, writing more, and you know, getting other people's opinions will help. There are critique groups out there on the internet, you know, that you can join and you'll get feedback of varying harshness and helpfulness, but like, it will help you. When you critique other people's work, it will help you critique your own work. Because if you can sit back and read it like you were reading someone else's work, how am I going to help this person understand what I'm trying to say I think it needs? Because sometimes you need to rubber ducky your own thoughts a little bit. Kaelyn (46:18):You know, at the end of the day, you hope that you get to a point where somebody puts a note in there of show, don't tell and you go, Oh, of course, right. You don't just sit down and be awesome at writing. That's not how this works. As I said, hopefully that at least kind of clear some of the mystery around the "show, don't tell me." Rekka (46:38):Hopefully clear some of the frustrations so that, you know, when you see those words, if they aren't paired with concrete advice, then you can back up and take a look from, you know, a little bit further away from where it is in your mind and say, "okay, what, what do I think I'm communicating that I'm not communicating?" Kaelyn (46:58):Exactly. Rekka (46:58):Because that's what it comes down to a lot of the times, it's like, okay, you say this person's great. Or you say this monster is scary, but – Kaelyn (47:04):You know that in your head for these reasons and you're not showing it to me, the reader. Rekka (47:09):Yep. Kaelyn (47:09):Well, I think that's, that's pretty much it. I guess that's what we got there. Rekka (47:12):We did manage to go on at length, despite me thinking it was going to be pretty straightforward. I got a whole bunch of these really straightforward quickie episodes planned that are going to be at least the normal length, if not longer. So if you're looking forward to those, make sure that you are subscribed to the podcast. If you have questions about any other kinds of editing tips that you've received in your manuscripts that you were like, "what, what?" Kaelyn (47:35):What is this note? Rekka (47:36):"Kaelyn, Explain this to me, please. Tell me I don't have to do whatever this is saying. "I Think did it say rewrite? Is it saying revise? No, I don't want to just tell me it's perfect." if you have any questions for us about these random topics that editors mark up in your manuscripts, and you're not really sure what they mean, or you want to know how to avoid them in the future, or advice you see that you still don't quite understand, just let, let us know, for sure, @WMBcast on Instagram or Twitter. Kaelyn (48:09):We like, we like these episodes. These are fun. Rekka (48:10):And we love to answer questions and we love to help people. So let us help you. And hopefully we have helped you. And if you feel that we have, you could really help us out by sharing these episodes with a friend who might be interestedUm do make sure that you're subscribed and not just clicking the link that we post on social media because having more subscribers helps other subscribers potentially find us. And also um, really helpful in getting subscribers to find us is to leave a rating and review on Apple podcasts or, you know, generally any review is helpful anywhere, but the Apple podcasts really seems to still have the corner on the market for that. Kaelyn (48:46):That's very true. Rekka (48:46):And, and if you are super, super appreciative and want to show that with currency, in gratitude or in an expression of the editor's fees we've saved you, you can go to patreon.com/WMBcast. We are not trying to steal the work from the professionals. We love all editors, present company included. Kaelyn (49:07):Thank you. Rekka (49:08):We will talk to you in two weeks. Kaelyn (49:10):Thanks for listening, everyone. Rekka (49:11):Thanks everyone.

Well, it's another "Film School" edition of LNP as we're joined by Writer/Director Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Time After Time, The Day After), and lay it all out with two absolutely fine film staples. Wow, we've really grown up and put our big kids pants on for this one!The Innocents (1961)The Exorcist (1974)I Think of Demons - Roky Erickson (1980)

On today's episode, enjoy the following: “Come With Me and Be Free” by Kate Dudding from People Who Made a Difference (12:11) “Clever Counting” by Pam Faro from Why Didn't I Think of That? (11:19) “Isaac and the Glum Drum Bridge” by Donna Washington from A Tureen of Tales (9:28) “The Evergreens” by Odds Bodkin from The Evergreens (7:44) “A Ride to Remember” by Glenda Bonin from Dust Vail Tales: Growing Up on The Empire Ranch in Arizona (5:55)

It is the episode 177 of the the show called as "This Is Going Well, I Think with David Cooper" and the guest tonight is no one, and he plans to play country music again. firstly we get songs from Ray Price, I have never heard of his songs earlier and probably wont listen in the future too. David you are still to reply on my request for Bollywood songs! And we have Tony and Miranda, who seems to have a bad day. David is still stuck in Canada. We have a long winded topic of David's divorce. It goes on for a long time. Then we get to reminiscing about some of his callers. Yes David, add some of us to the show. The we get back to the songs. This is MarU, with a capital U, from India rating this episode an average 3 points of 5, it is certainly much better with the regulars.

The 16:9 PODCAST IS SPONSORED BY SCREENFEED - DIGITAL SIGNAGE CONTENT If you have been around digital signage for a while, you have almost certainly heard a discussion at some point about accurate color reproduction on screens, and the problems big brands can have with that. The example used most often is Coca-Cola Red, which is a VERY specific red. It can be a problem at the display level, but it also has to do with the source. A small research team of academics and students at Clemson University in South Carolina are well down the path of sorting it out. In their case, the problem was Clemson orange - a very specific shade of orange seen on 10s of 1,000s of shirts, hats and giant foam fingers during Clemson football game broadcasts. The orange shown on TV sets and replay boards is not, in some cases, the right orange. A research project called ColorNet is using AI and neural networks to make real-time color adjustments on the fly to the broadcast signal - using an algorithm light enough that it can run on an off-the-shelf PC. I spoke with Dr. Erica Walker and graduating student Emma Mayes about the project, and how the technology might be applied as a low-cost box in the back of digital signage screens - so that networks run by brands can really show their true colors. The chat is a bit technical, but even I got most of it. One other note - I THINK at some point I reference Clemson as being an SEC team. Wrong. It's in the ACC. I'm in Canada. Ask me about curling. This is how you'd reach Walker - eblack4@clemson.edu Subscribe to this podcast: iTunes * Google Play * RSS TRANSCRIPT Emma, Erica, thank you for joining me. Can you give me a rundown on what ColorNet is all about? I know it's a university project that you guys presented at Display Week, going back about a month or so.  Erica: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having us today. ColorNet is an artificial intelligence solution for brand colors to be displayed correctly on screens. So not a color solution that would display all colors correctly, that solution already exists. This is specific to a brand color, and in this case, Clemson University’s orange and purple.  That’s because you guys are working or studying out of Clemson, correct?  Erica: That’s correct. And actually the solution could work for any color. We just happened to use the colors that we see the most on our own campus and in our athletics.  Which is orange?  Erica: That's correct.  So this is a project coming out of the graphics communication department, or is it multiple departments?  Erica: It actually includes a lot of different departments. Each of us on the project is from a different department. In fact, I'm from graphic communications. The students are from engineering and computer science, a variety of engineering degrees. And then my co-creator, or co-inventor, works in a multidisciplinary department with a focus on data science.  Okay, so what's the problem you're trying to solve here? Erica: Yeah, thanks for asking that. It is something that is very commonly talked about at Clemson Athletic games and probably at other universities as well. But, the orange is incredibly recognizable, our brand orange for Clemson fans. And when you watch a broadcast of the football game or basketball game or baseball game, the orange is always skewed. It's always normally skewed towards red. Now, obviously the settings can be impacted by the settings on your screen itself, but what if we could address this at the feed level, at the camera level, at the production level?  And that would ensure that if Clemson orange is a Pantone color that is going to be color accurate, at least coming out of the feed? Erica: Exactly. That's really that's the tipper right there is that we don't have control over other people's screens. Like the screen inside your home, we aren't trying to make any adjustments to that. That would be the homeowner or the screen enter the bar that would have to make those adjustments, but we can make adjustments to the screens inside of our facilities. So the big screen inside of the football stadium, we could adjust that cause we have control over it, but the main thing is just having a clean feed, having a feed where Pantone 165 is a recognizable color and it displays correctly. And why is that a problem either, you know, if I'm a Clemson fan, I know my orange, but, if I'm a Syracuse fan, maybe it's a different orange who's going to know other than the Clemson fans?  Erica: Right. So, that's a fair question. On any given Saturday, there are over 70,000 people in the stadium watching the game, and so that's a big audience, but in general, we just use Clemson orange as kind of a testbed, for this example. So it could be done for soccer teams, you know, in Europe, the big leagues. It could be done for major league baseball, it could be done for NBA finals. It could be done for really anything where brand color is recognizable to a fan of any team of any sport. And again, you can't really control the final output, like on my TV, if the calibration is off, it's gonna show it to be orangey-red instead, or wherever. Will this help that at all?  Erica: In my head, if the feed is better than more than likely, it will show better on your TV. Now that's not true if you've amped up your colors or if maybe, I know there are settings that are specific to gamers that they like, and so if you've changed the color settings on your TV, then that could be a problem, but one of the conversations we've been having with these screen manufacturers is what if we could address this at the screen level as well? But obviously, the goal of artificial intelligence is not to weasel our way into people's homes and make adjustments on their TV. So that's not the goal, but we do think that we could address it in, think of like large format displays. So if you go to the Coca Cola headquarters, they want their Coca-Cola red to display correctly on the screens that are scattered throughout their entire building or their manufacturing facility, or anywhere where they have the control over their screens. So kind of thinking of it from the brand level, as much as from the consumer level.  Yeah, it’s not really the business application here, I mean, you mentioned that there's a patent around it and the idea around that is for really super brand sensitive, color-sensitive companies like Coca Cola, and any number of other ones, that they have more of an assurance that the broadcast advertising is going to look in the color that is really important to them? Erica: Right now, that's what we're looking at as brand applications. So, as I said, there are solutions out there to solve, like overall, you know, a correct profile so that your TV shows colors accurately. So we aren't trying to necessarily do it across all colors, we're trying to really focus on the brand colors.  Right. So how does it work and how did you get started on this? This doesn't strike me as one of those things that you wake up in the middle of the night and go, “I must solve this.”  Emma: Right, so the basic approach that our team took is that we were trying to make it where when you're color-correcting, instead of correcting the entire frame, instead, we're working more with image segmentation. So the current process with athletics is that, oftentimes, they have to pick something in the frame and color-correct to that, and just hope everything falls out. So with basketball games, they look at the court and they say, “okay, the Clemson paw print in the middle of the court has to be brand color. Everything else will just be what it has to be.”  But we're trying to just get that right. The idea is that, well, what if we can make it so they don't have to compromise? So that way, it can be segmented, So we're color correcting the correct areas and frames as opposed to everything else. The idea was also to decrease the kind of manual burden on the technician when it comes to the color correcting, so we looked at doing image segmentation through machine learning by creating a convolutional neural network.  I know what those are.  Emma: (Laughter) Without getting into the nitty-gritty. We usually just look at the acronym CNN, so you don't even really have to know how to spell it, but what I’m saying is, just the gist of it that we basically looked at this game footage, we pulled it and we used Adobe Premiere Pro and the Lumetri color panel and we basically picked the range of colors we wanted to correct. So that way we can adjust it to kind of perceptually that natural approximation of what we're looking at for that color brand, and then we pass in the color incorrect and correct footage into the model and it creates a mask and it's basically just showing pixel by pixel what's the difference in color. And so the whole idea is that our model is able to generate these masks and automatically generate exactly what those corrections are gonna look like. So once we created this data, we trained it, and then that way it learned how to color-correct to these brand specifications in these image segmentation. So that way our grass is in a weird color, our court is in a weird color. We're just adjusting the jerseys and the Clemson football fan gear and the audience, so it's fixing the colors that need to be fixed and leaving alone what needs to be left alone.  And is that because you're segmenting it and isolating certain elements of it, that's how you can do it in real-time or near real-time as opposed to doing it in post-processing? Erica: What makes it able to do it in real-time is partially the hardware. You need hardware that can run on that. And it really just looks like a desktop computer, like a regular box that you're used to, but we do want it to run it in real-time. And so in order to do that, we try to make everything as slender as possible. Some neural networks have just millions of parameters that they're checking on and we kept making things smaller and smaller so that it could run more efficiently. Now there is a point where it gets too small, and it runs too quickly and it's not as effective. So that's part of the research piece of this is that the students are learning at what point do we make adjustments to make this efficient versus to make it effective?  I have this idea in my head, and again, as anybody who listens to me knows I'm not an AI scientist or anything close, is that there is some pretty serious computing hardware, a big server room full of computers doing the work of the neural network, but it's sounding like you're saying this is just like a box?  Erica: Yeah, it can actually run on something as small as a raspberry pie, believe it or not. It doesn't run in the same frame rate that you'd want to run for an event, but we can run about 8-10 frames per second on a Raspberry PI. You don't need an entire room full of servers in order to process this in real-time, it's very doable. I don't pick it up and carry it around, but, but you certainly could if you needed to.  So this is not a million-dollar addition to a TV studio or something? It sounds pretty elemental in some respects.  Erica: Absolutely, you know, really when it comes down to it and Emma can probably speak on this better than I can, but really all an algorithm is a text file that you have to train, like the real meat of it on our end is training it and making it effective and making adjustments because it is in a new area that you can't just go and Google, “Hey, I'd like this algorithm that can do this.” We're actually doing it and modifying it as we go.  So for a Clemson football game, if you have, I don't know, 20-25 cameras, whatever it may be. Do you need a processing unit for each of those feeds or is a master feed funnel through one box? Erica: We only need one. Actually, the way it works is, you're right, they do have like 20 cameras and range from little tiny GoPro cameras up to, you know, high-end broadcast cameras with 4K, and so those are all processing that color so differently.  But it all comes into live, it's coming into a production studio. So if you watch a lot of athletics, like NFL or, even NCAA, sometimes they'll show you the trucks and inside of the truck, all of those feeds are coming in, and they are making those adjustments on the fly as the feed comes in. They choose which camera feed they want to show, and then it gets projected out and all of that's happening in real-time.  And so we actually talked about different places that ColorNet can live within the system and the place where we landed it is that if we have it right inside of that production suite, you only need one device or you can have it on the other end of that production suite, and you still only need one device, but then you're only color correcting the feed that's actually going to get put out there, versus correcting all the different feeds on all the different cameras. Is this a problem that's common to any live event broadcaster or is it defined by the quality of the equipment you're using, like would a local community cable operator have a much bigger problem than let's say Fox Sports? Erica: The problem is pervasive anytime you have brand colors. I'm gonna show my age on this, but I don't know if you remember when Reese's Pieces was the product that was advertised in E.T. when E.T. came out. And so, you know, even in a Hollywood film, you have a brand and that brand cares about their colors. And so it is pervasive everywhere, but the piece of equipment actually can run anywhere, it doesn't need a fancy studio, it doesn't need ESPN type quality. It could run at any small studio just as well as it runs here, because once you've trained it's really running on its own. It's capable of doing the work without a lot of manual input.  So in theory, is this a box, like I could order it, in theory, on Amazon, pull it out of the box, plug it in, plug the feed-in and plug the output in and give it power and off you go, or is this a whole bunch of tweaking and software and behind the scenes to make it all happen? Erica: To answer that really the box that we ordered, the box that this runs in, it was ordered off of Amazon. It is just like a plain old normal computer box, you know, like a desktop, but the magic happens inside of the training and inside of the algorithm and inside of the adjustment to the code, so it's not really the “special sauce,” so to speak really what happens, prior to receiving the box.  Right. But do you train it? Let's say heavens forbid that another SEC school uses this, would that box have to be trained for the Crimson tide colors or whatever? Erica: Yeah, I think you understand a lot more about this than you're letting on, but that is a 100% the case. We would have to train it each time, as needed per color, is our current structure, but I'm actually gonna let Emma jump in on what we're thinking about moving forward. Emma: When we trained for Clemson orange and Clemson purple, the way our data was set up, it was that you're going to look for these ranges of colors around the brand color so that way, you know what kinds of areas you're going to be shifting to be correct. Our goal is to try and kind of generalize it. So the idea is, we can give some kind of hardware to deliver to the shader and painter with these corresponding teams. So that way they can change what color it is. So we're going to come up with the new approach to it, where instead of looking for this range of colors, to then shift, we're going to look for these areas. So we're hoping to train so it can pick out the jerseys where the fan colors are and it's very adjustable considering what those colors are. So that way you could pick up this technology and plug it in for a different team and it could work that way instead of just being limited to a specific brand's color palette. Right. Okay, so I'm a digital signage guy. This is a digital signage podcast. I wonder, of course, what the applications potentially are for the digital signage business.  You mentioned, early on Coca Cola and how across its a corporate campus and its many corporate campuses really, if it has a signage network with the Coca Cola brand on there, if the output PC or PCs or media players are outputting nominally incorrect colors, this could be put in the middle of it? Erica: Absolutely. So, that's one approach that we've considered. So let's say that let's use our Coca-Cola campus example.  They want to ensure that no matter what footage is going on what type of screens, they may have multiple brands, I don't even know, that the Coca Cola red is always correct. And so in that case, you actually would put ColorNet at the screen level, so we would want to pull it down to a much smaller device, more like that Raspberry PI size, so that you could actually just slap it right onto the back of each screen or each set of screens and have that screen Coca-Cola ready, you know? And so you can sell it that way to a brand owner versus having it at the live video remixed phase.  Do you sense the addressable market for this has a whole bunch of brands in particular, who are that color-conscious or is it a subset that really cares and others who, you know, “our brand color’s blue” and that's all they say. Erica: Actually, coming from my background, I was steeped in brand from a print perspective. And so from a print perspective, the tolerance of brand colors on your box or bottle or flexible packaging, is very small. It's measured in Delta Es and they say it's a 2 Delta Es. Most companies don't want you to be any further off the brand color specs than Delta E. And that's basically just a measurement saying, this is as close as we are willing to purchase the product. Like if it goes over 2 Delta E, we don't want your printed product. And so coming from that background, all of the big brands care, all of them want their color to be correct.  I know there's an argument going on right now, that might've stemmed out of that recent in AB and SID type conversation, from Display Week. But this idea that screens are actually changing our tolerance for brand colors and at some point, are we not going to care so much about brand colors? Because we are willing to accept them further apart, from the brand spec, because of the screen differences that we see.  I still think that brands are willing to put money, time, and effort behind their branding in general and that they are going to care if their product looks correct because it is as much a part of their identification as any other part of their business.  Yeah. That would make sense. I'm sure there'd be some reticence around spending thousands upon thousands of dollars per site to do that, but if it's, as you say, a Raspberry PI device that could just plugin via the HDMI feed or whatever into the display, then yeah, maybe they'd be happiest clients to do that.  Erica: Yeah, especially for those big brands, I bet you and I've never sat in the branding room for Coca Cola, but both Coca Cola and Pepsi use a color of red, right? I bet you that their branding teams would just go to battle over making sure that all of their products are the correct color of red so that there is no confusion on the customer level of which product you're actually looking at. Yeah, well, I've certainly heard those stories in the past when it comes to digital signage and Coca-Cola red and a few other colors that the Coca Cola people flip out if it's not right, and they had some big problems with early-stage video walls and things like that and there was a particular product that they really liked because of the saturation levels and everything that gave them as close to the print grant as they wanted to see, I don't know if it was that 2 Ease measurement or whatever you were talking about, but it was good.  Erica: Yeah, and you know, some companies will have different Pantone colors for their print products compared to their screens. So for instance, Clemson has two different oranges, and when it comes down to it, the Pantone that they've chosen for screen and the Pantone that they've chosen for print products, so the difference between CMYK and RGB, those two oranges look the same.  So it comes down to this perceptual thing. So it's not always about hitting the same Pantone and it's about the perceptual brand recognition of that orange, whether it's on a car, whether it's on a screen, whether it's on a Jersey, and so on. Okay. So this is a combination product or initiative of a couple of professors, and I think four students, is that accurate?  Erica: Yeah, that's correct. We had four students, and then we actually just added a new student this semester. So obviously the great part about students is that they have wonderful, fresh ideas coming into a project. The sad part is that they do graduate and go away, like Emma graduates in December.  And so, there is kind of this rotation of students who have worked on the project over time.  So where does it go from here at some point Does this become a company or does it get licensed or was that just so far off that it's hard to really kind of rationalize?  Erica: Certainly from our perspective, our goals align a lot more with the research end and sharing what we find, but from a university level, we are involved with the university research foundation and their job is to help connect us with potential manufacturers or companies or lines of products that would benefit from us. And so from the university level, they have a lot of interest in that. I'm not opposed to a company or partnering with an existing company. But certainly, you know, the students getting experience out of this and our personal research goals, our primary.  In the conversations with the companies provide a lot of opportunities to, have funding and to expand, and to come up with new ideas of how this technology could perhaps be implemented.  Is there an application as well for things like medical imaging and seismic imaging where life and death decisions or very expensive decisions are made based on the color of some high-resolution image? Erica: Absolutely. We've been looking at expanding this out into some different applications and you really hit the nail on the head as one of the ideas that our team had bounced around is, what if this could be used to emphasize a lifeboat or something like that is lost at sea, you know, how could we make it really fast and really easy, despite all the reflections that waves make? And we've looked at it as an agricultural thing again, where it's emphasizing, if there are healthy plants or if there are weeds, so it really could be modified and used in a lot of different contexts, just like you're saying. So what came out of SID in that presentation that you did? Did you have companies or other really smart people coming up or contacting you? Erica: Yeah, exactly, but not so many from virtual conferences we've found, but when we've done some presentations in person and unfortunately, SID was not one of them this year, which I was super excited about that audience. But when we have presented in person, it has led to lots of conversations with different companies and ideas of how it could benefit them and their customers.  Okay, so if there are people listening to this who actually understand it fully, how would they track you down and how do they sort of get involved in this in some way, or get some questions answered? Erica: We would love to hear from people. Again, it's so exploratory still at this phase, and so hearing what real companies with real customers, what they need, what is their pain point and how could we consider ColorNet as a potential solver of that pain point, just reach out to us. My email is at eblackor@clemson.edu.  Okay, and you guys have a football team, right?  Erica: (Laughter) We hope we have a good one again, fingers crossed.  Is it a challenge because people think so much about Clemson as, you know, a big sports school, football school, when this is a totally gearhead kind of science project with AI coming out of Clemson, do they go, “Oh really, you guys do that too?”  Erica: Well, we're hoping that we actually solve a problem for our athletic department. So fingers crossed, we've proved it out that it can be done. And right now we're just kind of taking a back seat to whatever Coronavirus brings for this coming season. But our original intent was to be up and operational for our athletic department this fall, which we're capable of doing, but again, we're just kind of taking a back seat to all the decisions that they're having to make to keep their student-athletes safe and the fans and all of that.  Which is a moving target right now. That's broadcast may be more important than ever for the next few months.  Erica: I agree. There's no telling where all this is going to go, but we have our first football game on Saturday, and so fingers crossed, everybody stays healthy and well, and we can get that type of normalcy back for Saturdays.  All right, Erica and Emma, thank you so much for spending some time with me. I really appreciate  Erica: This was a lot of fun. Thanks for inviting us.

I’m PUMPED to hear what you think of today’s episode because today we’re diving into how we think about our relationship with our FUTURE SELF.  & real talk-- this episode is BASICALLY like a PEAK inside my BRAIN of how I THINK that helps me stay CONSISTENT toward making progress toward my goals and BIG VISION despite curveballs or doubts that are OH SO HUMAN-- & I think you’re going to vibe with this!!   This episode is full of QUESTIONS to ask, perspective of how I actually map out my vision so you can do it too if it resonates!  CANT WAIT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK!  QUOTES:  “Every action you take is a VOTE for the person you want to become”. - James Clear  “I don’t actually think the point of setting a vision is to make that EXACT vision a reality but more so to get us going in the RIGHT DIRECTION so we can LESSEN OUR ANXIETY or that HORRIBLE FEELING OF FEELING “LOST” but ALSO….SO we can get excited about the future and understand that what you are doing TODAY  is either getting you CLOSER to that vision of where you want to be or FURTHER FROM IT”  “It’s the TINY LITTLE THINGS that are so easy TO DO but are so easy NOT TO DO as well compounded overtime that make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN WHO WE BECOME isn’t it?!!”  OOH & ALL THE FUN STUFF:  The COLLECTIVE is CURRENTLY CLOSED for REGISTRATION!  But if you text “OCTOBER” to  +1 512-548-2728  you can jump on the waitlist for when we re-open  ALL the deets: www.kaciafitzgerald.com/thecollective Also where can we CONNECT MORE?  DID YOU know I have a TOTALLY free TEXT list you can join to get PUMP UP texts from me and all the JUICY news and fun perks?!   Text “HI” or anything you want to +1 512-548-2728 to subscribe! www.kaciafitzgerald.com/texts  Come hang  with me on Instagram:  @kacia.fitzgerald and @shegoes.company  Topic or speaker suggestions?  Shoot us an email: hello@kaciafitzgerald.com  FOR ALL THE  other JUICE?  To join my email list: Click here to Subscribe now & all the funsies at kaciafitzgerald.com  Follow our EMPOWERHER PUMP-UP JAMS playlist on Spotify!  

On today's episode, enjoy the following: Story Spotlight: “Most of What I Know About True Love” by Dolores Hydock on In-Laws and Outlaws: Family Stories Storytime Pieces: “Jack and the Cat Girl” by Tim Lowry on Mostly Jack Tales “Colorin Colorado” by Pam Faro on Why Didn't I Think of That?: Seeking Solutions- Some Sassy, Some Silly, Some Smart “The Lute Player” by Heather Forest on Ghostly Gals & Spirited Women

Title: Elk Hunting Scenarios with Corey Jacobsen, part 1 Show Notes:Over the next few weeks, I’ve invited a couple of different guys to talk about how they hunt elk. Ithink this is a neat perspective and a cool way to learn from others when you see the differentways other hunters react to different scenarios.With some research beforehand, Corey knows what kind of elk he’s going to see. That meanshe’s not in a hurry to shoot the first elk he sees. The temperature and the water conditions willimpact the behavior of the elk, so you’ll need to be aware of that. Corey shares his strategy forhunting elk when the hunt doesn’t go the way he pictured.The desert states seem to have an on/off switch for the ruts, says Corey. How well managed astate is seems to have some impact on this. Nevada, Arizona, and Utah have a much differentconcentration of elk, demographics, and the bull-to-cow ratio are all different than Idaho andOregon, so your hunting approach may need to change.It’s rainy and you haven’t heard an elk in hours, so what would you do? This is a very realconcern if you’re in an area like Oregon. Depending on the camping conditions, Corey mighttake the day off or just keep going. His approach depends on a number of different factors.Corey thinks that creating opportunities within the hunt will change your ability to find success.He applies this idea to midday hunting, which is one of his favorite times to hunt. The averagehunter goes out before daylight and hunts for two or three hours before they head back to campfor lunch and a nap. Corey hunts all day long for a lot of different reasons.What’s Inside:● The early season in the desert states is very different from the early season in themountain states.● If you’re an elk addict like Corey, you can never really stop thinking about hunting elk.● In the desert states, water is going to be your friend.● Corey adjusts his elk hunting strategy based on the full moon and the weather. Mentioned in this Episode:Days in the Wild on itunesDays in the Wild on PodbeanPhoenix Shooting Bags Short Description: When factors like the weather, a drought, or a full moon can all affect elk hunting, how can youchange your strategy to compensate for that? Corey Jacobsen, a self-proclaimed “elk addict”talks about how he’d adjust his plans based on different scenarios. No elk hunt goes perfectly,so being ready to adapt your game plan will help you come away with the animal you set out toget.Tags:elk hunting, bugling for elk, elk demographics, elk hunting in Idaho, weather and elk hunting, elkhunting and full moon, elk hunting strategies, hunting elk midday