Podcast appearances and mentions of Keith Brown

In this episode, Keith Brown, a San Francisco Bay Area real estate agent with more than two decades of experience, shares how he used REDX for more than a decade to build his business through consistent prospecting. After spending 18 years as a professor at Cal State East Bay and selling real estate during the summers, Keith eventually transitioned into real estate as a more systematic business. Today, he focuses primarily on expired and canceled listings, while also working with FSBOs, notices of default, and notices of trustee sales. His disciplined prospecting approach has helped him generate more than $10 million in sales volume in a single year. Keith breaks down what it takes to consistently prospect expired and canceled listings and turn conversations into appointments. He explains his daily calling routine, his “seven days of pain” follow-up strategy, and why he believes the key to successful prospecting is focusing on the seller, not yourself. Keith also shares how he moved from relying heavily on scripts to using them as a foundation for genuine conversations, why asking open-ended questions is critical to uncovering motivation, and how persistence over time creates opportunities. He also walks through the prequalification process he uses after setting an appointment, his emphasis on communication and over-communication, and why he strives to be a “realtor for life.” This episode is especially valuable for agents looking to improve their expired prospecting, become more confident on the phone, and build a consistent system for generating appointments and long-term clients.Here's What You'll Discover in This Episode...• Why Keith considers expired and canceled listings a strong source of business.• How he uses a daily calling routine to work through expired and canceled leads consistently.• What Keith means by his “seven days of pain” follow-up system.• How he overcame his early struggles with scripts and became more comfortable having real conversations.• Why asking open-ended questions is essential to discovering a seller's true motivation.• How persistence over time can lead to appointments even when many calls result in hang-ups.• Why agents should focus on the person they are speaking with rather than worrying about themselves.• How Keith prepares for listing appointments using a prequalification form and structured communication.• Why over-communicating with clients can make the real estate process calmer and easier.• What Keith believes agents should understand about asking for the appointment and finding motivation.JUMP TO THESE TOPICS00:01 –

Support the show

Hit play on Hitch to understand what real love looks like and how Christ shapes healthy, lasting relationships.Support the show

What do Unions stand for?  How and why do Unions work?  And how exactly have Unions made life better for millions of workers and their families? Host Timothy Regan welcomes 6 Union leaders to share from the heart about what Unions are all about.  We take a deep dive into Union principles, and hear several stories about successes of Union work. Hear from: Keith Brown, Educator and Executive Secretary/Treasurer of the Alameda Labor Council AFL-CIO. Vilma Serrano, Oakland Teacher and Lead Negotiator/Bargaining Chair of the Oakland Education Association Union. Tanzil Chowdhury, Graduate Student Research Assistant at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and the Unit Chair for the Berkeley Unit of UAW Unit 2865, representing 36000 student workers across the University of California. Sarah Arveson, PhD, Vice President of UAW 5810, union for post-doc and academic researchers across the University of California system. Doug Jones, Political Organizer for SEIU-UHW and health care worker of many years, representing 85,000 health care workers at Kaiser Permanente and across California Michael Sommers, Actor and union member of SAG-AFTRA, currently on strike. The participants ask that you visit these websites for more information: Unionize California Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions SAG-AFTRA Oakland Education Association United Auto Workers       The post The Union Episode: A Panel of Union Leaders on How and Why Unions Work appeared first on KPFA.

Support the show

What does it take to win after life has knocked you down? In David's story, we discover that losing doesn't make you a loser. Failing to learn from loss does. Even in his lowest moment, David learns that every setback can become a setup for growth, clarity, and renewed strength in God. Through loss, he finds friendship, wisdom, healing, and direction. When we allow God to teach us through our losses, He turns them into some of our greatest victories.Support the show

What does it take to get back up after life knocks you down? In Ruth's story, we discover that determination is more than mindset, it is a series of faithful actions that lead to restoration after failure and setback. Even in loss and bitterness, Ruth chooses to get up, show up, grow up, step up, and step into her God given destiny. Her journey reminds us that God is able to turn our deepest losses into unexpected victory when we stay determined.Support the show

What does it take to win God's way? In Philip's story, we discover that serving is the secret of a great team player. True victory is not about status but about stepping in to meet needs and move God's mission forward. Philip shows us that serving can look like blocking problems, tackling challenges, running ahead with good, and catching opportunities to help others. When we serve, we step into God's definition of winning.Support the show

What does it take to win in life when the battle feels personal? In this message from the story of Barnabas, we discover that victory is never meant to be a solo endeavor. God calls us onto His team where encouragement, generosity, and relationships help us grow stronger together. Barnabas shows us what it means to build others up and help people step into their God given purpose. When we live as God's team, we win together.Support the show

What does it take to truly win in life? In this message from Esther and Mordecai's story, we discover that faith and courage alone are not enough. Discipline is what focuses, strengthens, and activates our faith to operate at its highest level. Through prayer, fasting, and bold dependence on God, we learn that adversity can either break us or build in us the discipline that leads to lasting growth. When we choose disciplined, bold faith, God works powerfully in and through our lives.Support the show

Support the show

What does it take to live a victorious life? In Week 1 of Victory Beyond the Cup, we explore 1 John 5 and discover that true victory begins with faith in Jesus. Learn four characteristics of winning faith: the faith to dream, speak God's promises, forgive others, and take courageous next steps. When our faith is anchored in Christ, we can overcome life's challenges and live with confidence, joy, hope, and purpose.Support the show

Small acts of service make a big impact. Learn how serving others with a simple, generous heart can transform your life, your community, and bring eternal rewards.Support the show

Simplify your finances by giving, saving, spending wisely, and reducing debt. Biblical stewardship transforms stress into peace and empowers you to manage God's resources well.Support the show

Keith Brown is a professional paintball player for Tampa Bay Damage and the Finals MVP from the NXL Dover City Open. One of the most electric attackers in the game joins us to talk about how he prepares to go into tournaments both physically and mentally. JOIN THE DISCORD:https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=34554029SHOW SPONSORS:https://www.lonewolfpaintball.com/Support the showJoin the PTG community by clicking the orange

Support the show

Jesus not only heals our pain but re-creates our lives with purpose, sending us to impact others.Support the show

Support the show

In this episode of Referrals Done Right, Scott sits down with Keith Brown to break down what it really looks like to bring the Infinite Referral Advantage to life in the real world. Keith shares his experience stepping into a brand new role, learning how to build relationships, structure his days and create momentum from scratch. What started as uncertainty quickly turned into a system rooted in consistency, genuine connection, and showing up with a servant's heart. This is a behind the scenes look at how referral based growth actually happens day to dayThroughout the conversation, Scott and Keith highlight the shift from transactional thinking to relationship driven business. They dive into practical habits like journaling, asking better questions, staying top of mind, and leading with value before expecting anything in return. They also share real examples, including the Quotes for a Cause initiative, that show how aligning business with community impact creates stronger connections and better results. This episode is packed with real world insight for anyone looking to build a network that actually works.We Dive Into:• How to build a relationship driven system• Why consistency and daily connection matter more than perfection• The importance of journaling and tracking conversations for better follow up• How leading with value and service creates stronger, more natural referrals• A real example of how community initiatives can drive both impact and business growth---Episode Markers:(0:00) - Show Start & Introduction(1:45) - Bringing the System to Life(3:40) - One Blind Spot(5:30) - Day in the Life(7:45) - Top of Mind & Servant's Heart(9:00) - Breaking Old Beliefs & Approach(11:00) - Journaling & Logging(13:00) - Wins(15:10) - People Wait Years to Start(17:10) - Research & Social Recon(24:15) - Where's Jake Wednesday(26:55) - Quotes For a Cause---Keith Brown's Links:Personal FB - https://www.facebook.com/dobson.brown.7Community Lens FB - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61571775838582Personal IG - https://www.instagram.com/keithbrownn_Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/communitylensmedia---Scott Grates' Links:Referrals Done Right - https://www.referralsdoneright.orgReferrals Done Right FB Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/296359076662332Scott Grates Website - https://www.scottgrates.comLove Living Local  - https://www.instagram.com/lovelivinglocal315Scott's FB - https://www.facebook.com/scott.grates.1Scott's - https://www.instagram.com/scottgratesTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@scott.grates

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Er ist Schwarz und Dirigent: Brandon Keith Brown weiß, was es heißt, eine Ausnahme zu sein. Die Klassikszene ist ziemlich weiß. Unterschwelliger Rassismus sei weit verbreitet, so Brown. Er kämpft für Veränderung.

Support the show

When neuroscientists scanned the brains of people going along with a group, they expected to find lying. What they found instead was something far stranger. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. We'll get to that study in a minute. But first, I want you to remember the last time you were in a meeting, and you knew something was wrong. The numbers didn't add up. The risk was being underestimated. And someone needed to say it. Then the most senior person in the room spoke first: "I think this is exactly what we need." Heads nodded. Finance agreed. Marketing agreed. The consultant agreed. And by the time it was your turn, you heard yourself saying, "I have some minor concerns, but overall I think it's solid." You're not alone. Research shows that roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern. And among those who stayed quiet, 40% estimated they wasted 2 weeks or more replaying what they didn't say. Two weeks. Mentally rehearsing the point they should have made in a meeting that's already over. That silence isn't a character flaw. It's your neurology working against you. And today I'm going to show you exactly why it happens and how to stop it.  It starts with what was happening inside your head during that meeting you just remembered. Why Your Brain Surrenders to the Group Most people know about the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s. People were asked to match line lengths, and seventy-five percent went along with answers that were obviously wrong. That result gets cited everywhere. But the more important study came fifty years later, and it revealed something the Asch experiment never could. In 2005, neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine and ran a similar conformity task, this time with three-dimensional shape rotation. Like Asch, he planted actors who gave wrong answers. But unlike Asch, he could watch what was happening inside people's brains while the conformity was occurring. Berns expected the MRI to show activity in the prefrontal cortex, the brain's decision-making center, when people went along with wrong answers. That would mean they were knowingly lying to fit in. Just a social calculation. That's not what the scans showed. People who conformed showed no increased activity in decision-making regions. Instead, the activity showed up in the parts of the brain that handle visual and spatial perception, the occipital and parietal areas. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. Their brains were rewriting their experience to match the room. And the people who resisted the group? Their scans told a different story. Heightened activity in the amygdala, the brain's threat detection center. The same circuitry that fires when you encounter physical danger lit up when someone disagreed with the group. Berns put it plainly. The fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival. When you caved in that meeting, your neurology wasn't malfunctioning. It was doing exactly what it was designed to do. Keep you safe inside the tribe. This is why what I call mindjacking works so well. Algorithms manufacture social proof by showing you what's trending, what your friends liked, and what similar people chose. Your wiring responds the same way it does at the conference table. You're fighting your own threat-detection system every time you try to hold an independent position within a group. You can't turn off the wiring. But you can learn to catch it in the act. And that starts with one critical distinction. The First Skill: Separating Updating from Caving Sometimes the people around you know something you don't. Changing your mind in a group isn't always a surrender. Sometimes it's the smartest move in the room. The real skill is knowing which one just happened. You can test this in real time. When you feel your position shifting in a group, ask yourself three questions. First: Did someone introduce information I didn't have before? If the CFO reveals a data point that genuinely changes the calculus, updating your view isn't a weakness. It's intelligence. That's new evidence. Second: Can I articulate why I changed my mind, in specific terms? If you can say, "I shifted because of the margin data in Q3 that I hadn't seen," that's a real update. If you can only say, "I don't know, everyone seemed to think it was fine," that's capitulation. Third: Would I have reached this same conclusion alone, with the same information? This is the killer question. If the answer is no, and you only arrived at this position because others were already there, you haven't updated. You've surrendered. Getting this wrong is costly. And not just the one time. When you capitulate and call it updating, you train yourself to stop trusting your own analysis. Do it enough times, and you won't even bother preparing, because you already know you're going to defer. That's how capable people slowly become passengers in rooms where they should be driving. Capture those three questions somewhere you'll see them. They're your real-time check on whether you're being open-minded or spineless. Those questions work when you're already in the meeting and the pressure is live. But what if you could protect your thinking before the pressure even starts? The Pre-Meeting Lock-In The most important thing you can do to protect your independent thinking doesn't happen during the meeting. It happens before. I call it the Pre-Meeting Lock-In, and it takes less than two minutes. Before any meeting where a decision will be made, write down three things:  Your position  Two or three key reasons supporting it What would it take to change your mind Put it on paper. Put it in a note on your phone. Just get it out of your head and into a form you can reference. Why does this work? Because once the discussion starts, your mind is going to quietly edit your memories of what you believed. You'll start thinking, "Well, I wasn't really sure about that point anyway." Your pre-meeting notes are an anchor against that self-deception. They're a record of what you actually thought before the social pressure arrived. You want to see what happens when someone has the analysis but doesn't lock it in?  The night before the Challenger launch in January 1986, engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data. They knew the O-ring seals were dangerous in cold weather. They'd written memos. They'd run the numbers. They recommended against launching. But when NASA pushed back hard on the teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus and excluded the engineers from the room. When the call resumed, management reversed the recommendation. Boisjoly had the analysis. His managers had heard it. But under pressure from their biggest customer, the conclusion got edited in real time. Boisjoly later described it as an unethical forum driven by what he called "intense customer intimidation." He fought like hell, but the room won. That's the most extreme version of the problem. Life and death. But the mechanics are the same in every conference room. The analysis exists. The pressure arrives. And without something anchoring you to what you actually concluded, the room rewrites the story. There's a bonus effect to the Lock-In, too. When you've documented what it would take to change your mind, you've given yourself permission to be genuinely open. You're not being stubborn for the sake of it. You're saying, "Show me evidence that meets this threshold, and I'll update." That's intellectual honesty with a backbone. But you can know exactly what you think and still fail if you can't get anyone else to hear it. How to Dissent and Actually Be Heard Most dissent fails not because it's wrong, but because it's delivered badly.  Blurting out "I think this is a mistake" when the group is already aligned feels like an attack. People get defensive. Your point gets ignored, not because it lacked merit, but because your delivery threatened the group's cohesion. You triggered the same threat response in them that you've been learning to manage in yourself. Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, has studied dissent for decades. You'd expect her research to show that dissent helps groups when the dissenter is right. When someone spots a flaw that everyone else missed. That makes intuitive sense. But that's not what she found. Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully. They consider more information, examine more alternatives, and reach better conclusions. And the group benefits even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong. Even when you're wrong, the act of dissenting makes the group smarter. Your disagreement forces everyone out of autopilot. Decades of research by Moscovici supports this. Minority voices don't just influence people in the moment. They shift perception afterward, in private, long after the meeting ends. That's the good news. The catch is in how the dissent happens. Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic, when someone plays devil's advocate because they were told to. It doesn't produce the same effect. Groups can tell when disagreement is performative. The cognitive benefits only show up when the dissent is authentic. When someone actually believes what they're saying. That means the goal isn't just to voice disagreement. It's to voice it in a way that people can actually receive. And the hardest version of this isn't when you have a minor concern about an otherwise good plan. It's when the whole direction is wrong, and finding something to praise would be dishonest. In those moments, the move is to separate the people from the position. "I respect the work that went into this, and I know this isn't what anyone wants to hear, but I think we're solving the wrong problem." You're honoring the effort while challenging the direction. You're not attacking the tribe. You're trying to save it from a bad bet. When the stakes are lower, and you do see genuine merit, you can lead with that. "The market timing argument is strong, and I want to make sure we've stress-tested one thing before we commit." Same principle. You're working with their wiring instead of against it. Either way, your dissent has value beyond being right. Remember that. It's worth holding onto when your amygdala is screaming at you to stay quiet. Everything so far has assumed you're in a room with other people. Your amygdala can't tell the difference between a conference table and a phone screen. The Rooms You Can't See You're not just in meetings. You're in invisible rooms all day long. And most of the time, you don't even know you've walked into one. Every time you scroll past a post with ten thousand likes and think, "I guess that's the right take." Every time you read three articles with the same conclusion and stop questioning it. Every time an algorithm shows you what similar people chose, and you choose it too. Those are rooms full of nodding heads. And your amygdala responds to them the same way it responds to the conference table. Think about the last time you researched a major purchase. You probably started with some idea of what you wanted. Then you read reviews. Then you checked what was trending. Then you asked friends. By the time you decided, how much of that decision was yours? How much of it was the room? Or think about how you form opinions on topics you haven't studied deeply. You read a few articles. They mostly agree. You adopt the consensus. That feels like research. But Berns' scans tell us what's actually happening. Your brain isn't independently weighing the evidence. It's detecting a consensus and rewriting your perception to match. The same process that happens at the conference table is happening every time you open your phone. Mindjacking doesn't need to override your thinking. It just needs to make sure you never finish thinking for yourself before the crowd's answer arrives. And once it arrives, your neurology does the rest. The group doesn't just influence your answer; it shapes it. It rewrites your perception. The Lock-In works for these invisible rooms, too. Before you research a major purchase, write down what you actually want and what you're willing to pay. Before you dive into reviews and opinions, commit your criteria to paper. Before you ask friends what they think about a decision you've already analyzed, record your conclusion. Give yourself the same protection from algorithmic conformity that you'd want before walking into a boardroom. The skill isn't being contrarian. It's being first. First, to your own conclusion, before the room, any room, gets a vote. This is your challenge for the week. Think of one meeting you have coming up where a decision will be made. Before you walk in, open your notes app and type three lines. Line one: what you think. Line two: why. Line three: what would change your mind. That's it. Then sit in that meeting and watch what happens to your thinking when the room pushes back. I think you'll surprise yourself. What if the person you can't resist isn't your boss, your colleagues, or the algorithm? What if it's you? What happens when the decision you need to make threatens something deeper, when being wrong would mean something unbearable about who you are? That's where we're headed next. Closing If this episode gave you something useful, hit that subscribe button. I'm building a complete thinking toolkit here in the Thinking 101 series. If you got value today, share it with someone who could use it, especially anyone heading into a big meeting this week. Drop a comment and tell me: what's the hardest group you've ever had to disagree with? I read every comment and reply. Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next episode. Endnotes/References "roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern" / "forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more": VitalSmarts, Costly Conversations: Why The Way Employees Communicate Will Make or Break Your Bottom Line (Provo, UT: VitalSmarts, December 2016). In a study of 1,025 employees, 70 percent reported instances where they or others failed to speak up effectively when a peer did not pull their weight. Half wasted seven days or more avoiding crucial conversations. Forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more ruminating about the problem. A 2021 follow-up study by Crucial Learning (formerly VitalSmarts) of 1,100 people found the rumination figure had risen to 43 percent. The script's "roughly half" is drawn from the VitalSmarts finding that the majority of the workforce reported conversation failures, with half losing seven or more days to avoidance behaviors. Primary source: https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/2016/12/costly-conversations-why-the-way-employees-communicate-will-make-or-break-your-bottom-line/. Follow-up study: https://cruciallearning.com/press/costly-conversations-how-lack-of-communication-is-costing-organizations-thousands-in-revenue/ "the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s": Solomon E. Asch, "Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Groups, Leadership and Men, ed. Harold Guetzkow (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951), 177–190. The expanded report was published as Solomon E. Asch, "Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority," Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70, no. 9 (1956): 1–70. Asch conducted the line-judgment experiments at Swarthmore College. Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, with confederates unanimously giving incorrect answers on critical trials. Across conditions, approximately 75 percent of participants conformed at least once, and the mean conformity rate was approximately one-third of critical trials. Group sizes varied across experiments, typically with 6–8 confederates and one real participant. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00803-001 "neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging with a mental rotation task. Participants (n=32, ages 19–41) judged whether three-dimensional shapes were rotated versions of each other while four confederates provided answers. Conformity was associated with functional changes in the occipital-parietal network (visual and spatial perception regions), not the prefrontal cortex. Independence was associated with heightened activity in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus, regions linked to emotional salience and threat detection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. The researchers isolated the specifically social element of conformity by comparing brain activation when wrong answers came from a group of people versus when they came from computers. Conformity to group-sourced wrong answers produced greater activation bilaterally in visual cortex and right intraparietal sulcus, overlapping the baseline mental rotation network. Berns interpreted this as evidence that social conformity operates at a perceptual level rather than merely at a decision-making level. Full text PDF: https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/files/papers/others/2005/berns2005.pdf "Heightened activity in the amygdala": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. Participants who gave independent (correct) answers when the group was wrong showed significantly increased activation in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus. The amygdala is associated with processing emotionally salient stimuli and threats. Berns described these findings as "consistent with the assumptions of social norm theory about the behavioral saliency of standing alone." The script's characterization that "the fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival" is an accessible paraphrase of this finding, consistent with the broader social pain literature (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), though Berns' paper does not use that exact language. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data": Roger M. Boisjoly, "Ethical Decisions — Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" (paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meeting, December 13–18, 1987). First presented as a talk at MIT in January 1987. Boisjoly, a specialist in O-ring seals and rocket joints at Morton Thiokol, documented how engineers recommended against the January 28, 1986 launch based on concerns about O-ring performance in cold temperatures. During the pre-launch teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus, excluded the engineers, and reversed the no-launch recommendation under pressure from NASA. Boisjoly described the forum as constituting "the unethical decision-making forum" driven by customer pressure. He was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Online Ethics Center at the National Academy of Engineering hosts Boisjoly's full account: https://onlineethics.org/cases/ethical-decisions-morton-thiokol-and-space-shuttle-challenger-disaster-introduction. See also Russell P. Boisjoly, Ellen Foster Curtis, and Eugene Mellican, "Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions," Journal of Business Ethics 8, no. 4 (April 1989): 217–230. doi:10.1007/BF00383335. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00383335 "Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully": Charlan J. Nemeth, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (New York: Basic Books, 2018). Nemeth's research program at UC Berkeley, spanning four decades, demonstrated that exposure to minority dissent stimulates divergent thinking, broader information search, consideration of more alternatives, and higher-quality group decisions. The finding that dissent improves group performance even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong is documented across multiple studies. See also Charlan J. Nemeth, "Minority Influence Theory," IRLE Working Paper No. 218-10 (Berkeley: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, May 2010). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pz676t7 "Decades of research by Moscovici": Serge Moscovici, Elisabeth Lage, and Martine Naffrechoux, "Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task," Sociometry 32, no. 4 (December 1969): 365–380. In the original experiment, participants viewed blue slides while two confederates consistently called them green. The consistent minority condition produced a shift in approximately 8 percent of majority judgments toward the minority position, and roughly one-third of participants conformed at least once. In the inconsistent minority condition, the effect was negligible (approximately 1.25 percent). The script's claim that "minority voices don't just influence people in the moment — they shift perception afterward, in private" draws on Moscovici's subsequent conversion theory and research on the delayed and private effects of minority influence, including afterimage studies showing genuine perceptual shifts. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786541 "Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic": Charlan J. Nemeth, Joanie B. Connell, John D. Rogers, and Keith S. Brown, "Improving Decision Making by Means of Dissent," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, no. 1 (2001): 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. Groups deliberated a personal injury case under three conditions: authentic dissent (a genuine minority viewpoint), assigned devil's advocate (a member told to argue the opposing side), and no dissent. Authentic dissent was superior in stimulating consideration of opposing positions, original thought, and direct attitude change. The devil's advocate condition did not produce the same cognitive benefits, suggesting that groups detect and discount performative disagreement. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. See also Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown, and John Rogers, "Devil's Advocate versus Authentic Dissent: Stimulating Quantity and Quality," European Journal of Social Psychology 31, no. 6 (2001): 707–720. doi:10.1002/ejsp.58.

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

In this Thursday riff, Scott Grates is joined by surprise guest Keith Brown for a spontaneous but powerful conversation on value—what it really means, how to communicate it, and why price should never be your leading pitch. Through the analogy of flying coach vs. first class, Scott breaks down the “value equation” in a way that's impossible to forget, challenging listeners to stop selling themselves short and start delivering standout experiences.Whether you're talking to a new lead or a longtime referral partner, this episode drives home the point that value is what gets remembered—and referred. It's not about price. It's about how you make people feel. This one is fast, fun, and packed with truth for anyone trying to build a business rooted in relationships.✈️ What you'll learn:• Why price only matters in the absence of value• How to use the “first class flight” analogy to frame your client experience• Why referring someone is a risk—and how to protect that trust• How to flip the script when someone asks, “What do I get for a referral?”• The real reason you should never want to be “the cheapest option”---Episode Markers:---Scott Grates' Links:Referrals Done Right - https://www.referralsdoneright.orgReferrals Done Right FB Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/296359076662332Scott Grates Website - https://www.scottgrates.comLove Living Local  - https://www.instagram.com/lovelivinglocal315Scott's FB - https://www.facebook.com/scott.grates.1Scott's - https://www.instagram.com/scottgratesTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@scott.gratesKeith Brown's Links:FB - https://www.facebook.com/dobson.brown.7IG - https://www.instagram.com/keithbrownn_

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Keith Brown, Cult survivor and author of Counterfeit Culture, about her escape from what she believes is a cult and how it's affected her and her family's lives. We get some great music from Robby Abel, and a new Act Locally Waco with Elizabeth Riley. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Tampa Bay Damage won the NXL World Cup in Orlando Florida. This episode brings a host of guests such as Jason Edwards, the World Cup MVP, Keith brown and Joey Blute to discuss the path towards winning the 2025 World Cup/ JOIN THE DISCORD:https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=34554029SHOW SPONSORS:https://www.lonewolfpaintball.com/Support the showJoin the PTG community by clicking the orange

As we, at WGN Radio, prepare to welcome the Chicago Blackhawks into the “Century Club,” we are celebrating Chicago's Original 6 hockey organization by highlighting over 100 players, coaches, executives, broadcasters and personalities that have been a part of Blackhawks' 100-year history. Every weekday leading up to and through the 2025-26 season, you will hear […]

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Chart a course to The Little Fleet this Wednesday for a Classical Happy Hour with Matthew Cochran, Laura Osgood Brown and Keith Brown. They'll present a program sea shanties and storytelling at The Little Fleet with music from the high seas to the Great Lakes. Music performed in Studio A "The Maid on the Shore" "The Flying Dutchman" "The Mermaid"

Send us a text 

Send us a text

Send us a text 

Send us a text

Send us a text 

Send us a textThe Keith Brown Show – Monday MotivationEpisode: Turning Setbacks Into ComebacksEpisode Summary:In this Monday Motivation episode, Keith Brown dives into the power of resilience with the Japanese proverb: “Fall seven times, stand up eight.” Life's setbacks can feel overwhelming, but they don't have to define you. Learn how to turn failures into fuel for your next success with three simple steps: reflect on the lesson, take one small step forward, and celebrate your resilience. If you've been feeling stuck, this episode will give you the inspiration and tools to rise again.What You'll Learn:✔ How to shift your mindset from failure to growth✔ A simple three-step process to turn setbacks into comebacks✔ The importance of celebrating progress, no matter how smallAction Steps:1️⃣ Recall a recent setback and write down what you learned from it.2️⃣ Develop a simple plan to take the next step forward.3️⃣ Celebrate the resilience you're building every time you push forward.Closing Thought:“Fall seven times, stand up eight.” No matter what you're facing, keep rising.Heal your hurts, move your mountains, and may God bless you.This is a perfect time to grab a single clarity coaching session with me. For a limited time only, I am offering a one-time, 25% off coupon for this session. At checkout, you will simply use the coupon code: PODCAST25 to receive the discount. Don't wait. This won't last long.Learn more and apply Here.Support the showAdditional Links: Free .pdf: 5 Signs You May be Suffering with Religious Trauma Free Facebook Group-"Keith Brown Coaching" https://www.facebook.com/groups/keithbrowncoaching Digital Products-"Towardations" Flash Cards & Digital Courses https://keithbrowncoaching.com/products/ Author- Keith's Books https://keithbrowncoaching.com/books/ FREE Resources (Includes smaller collections of "Towardations.") https://www.keithbrowncoaching.com/free/Disclaimers: I am not a licensed therapist nor medical professional and do not diagnose. Also, the views expressed on this podcast are either those of myself or my guests and should be consider as such. The views expressed by the guest may or may not reflect my own. This podcast is for information only. Music by https://pixabay.com/users/makesoundmusic-36114089/

On this weeks Cougs Corner, host Jason “Puck” Puckett is joined by Washington State linebacker Keith Brown.  Brown talks about his journey from Lebanon, Oregon to Eugene to Louisville and now to Pullman. Brown details his upbringing in Lebanon and why it has shaped him to be the player and person he is today.  Keith told Puck that when he transferred to Louisville he felt lost, but coming to Pullman he once again found his love for football and he credits Jack Dickert for that love. The Cougs have three games left in the season, how difficult is to stay focused on the one game at a time mentality? Keith does acknowledge the difficulties with that perspective but says it's been their mindset all season long.