Podcasts about Richard Feynman

Send us Fan MailThe title of today's podcast is “Uranium, a Rosetta Stone to Modern Physics.”  It is based on an old lecture by Richard Feynman.Uranium has revolutionized the energy business because it served as an experimental window into the energy potential associated with splitting atoms rather than merely oxidizing them. For example,  1 Kg (2.2 pounds) of coal will theoretically produce 30 million times more energy than if you had just burnt the coal in a furnace.  This of course is merely an example, as nuclear power plants never split atoms fully and they attempt to split coal.   Nevertheless,  life was about to change when the mystery of radioactivity was elucidated a little over a century ago.Enjoy!  Tom Neuhaus, Project Hope and FairnessPlease visit www.projecthopeandfairness.org and help us develop a chocolate brand that actually increases the sustainability of cocoa farming by donating to our cause.To listen to this podcast, click---> https://www.buzzsprout.com/1057903/episodes/19584642New Items for Sale!  Check out these five 100g bars featuring people involved in making our chocolate!  You can order them as Christmas presents.  I will be shipping starting October 1.  I will be selling them in packs of 5, tied together with red and green ribbons.  Go to www.chocolatdesvillages.fr and click la Boutique at the top, then on Big Bars for individual 100g bars or Seasons for Christmas presents.  This item will be active by mid-August.Support the showWrite to me at  twneuhaus@gmail.comTo learn more, visit  http://www.projecthopeandfairness.org

The Feynman Technique is a powerful learning strategy developed by physicist Richard Feynman to deeply understand complex concepts by simplifying them. It works on the principle that if you can't explain something simply, you don't truly understand it. The process involves four main steps: (1) choosing a topic you want to master, (2) explaining it in plain, simple language as if teaching a child, (3) identifying gaps in your understanding where the explanation falters, and (4) returning to the source material to fill those gaps before refining your explanation again. This active process transforms passive knowledge into clear, functional understanding, forcing the learner to rebuild the concept in their own words. By emphasizing simplicity and clarity, the Feynman Technique not only strengthens memory and comprehension but also exposes hidden misconceptions that traditional study methods might overlook.

Following the Challenger disaster, engineers grapple with guilt and the consequences of raising concerns about the space shuttle's flaws. Amidst public outcry, the Rogers Commission's inquiry, including Richard Feynman's stark demonstration of the O-Rings' vulnerability, uncovers what was known about the design failures and the economic pressures that led officials to move forward anyway. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A bestselling computer book and a mayor's office may seem worlds apart, but Dan Gookin's path connects them through curiosity, clear communication, and public service. I talk with the DOS for Dummies author and Coeur d'Alene mayor about making technical writing useful, challenging industries that resist new ideas, and finding success by improving work others do poorly. Dan also shares why he entered local politics, how transparency and community engagement built public trust, and why responsible leadership often means asking the questions others overlook. We close by exploring political division, religious freedom, social media algorithms, and the need to reduce online anger without losing the internet's benefits. Highlights: 00:06:48 - Why leaving your comfort zone creates growth. 00:11:07 - How doing something better can become a business. 00:12:39 - Why writing for beginners changed computer publishing. 00:27:06 - How transparency concerns led Dan into politics. 00:37:30 - Why responsiveness helped Dan earn public trust. 00:54:49 - How social media fuels anger and division. About the Guest: Dan Gookin is the mayor-elect of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, having won election in November 2025 after serving on the City Council since 2011. Known as a fiscal conservative, outspoken advocate for government transparency, and a committed budget hawk who asks tough questions, he is often described as “the lone voice of reason” on the council, consistently championing the public and the “little guy” against bureaucracy. Gookin views his public service as protecting individual rights. He prides himself on listening to all perspectives, welcoming alternative viewpoints, remaining open to new information, and never being a rubber-stamp vote. Professionally, Gookin is known as a writer and online trainer. He has been writing about technology since the early days of personal computing, combining his humor with a passion for gadgets to create informative and entertaining books. He authored the groundbreaking DOS For Dummies in 1991—the world's fastest-selling computer book at the time and the title that launched the iconic For Dummies series, now a publishing phenomenon. With more than 170 titles to his credit, over 12 million copies in print, and translations into more than 30 languages, his popular works include PCs and Laptops For Dummies, Android For Dummies, Word For Dummies, and C For Dummies. He maintains two helpful websites, wambooli.com and c-for-dummies.com. He creates online courses for LinkedIn Learning on diverse topics, and in 2020 published Running for Local Office For Dummies. Gookin graduated from the University of California, San Diego with a BA in Communications/Visual Arts and minors in cognitive psychology and theatrical design. He put his creative talents to work as artistic director of the Lake City Playhouse, where he designed sets, lighting, and directed many productions between 1997 and 2002. First and foremost, Dan considers himself a father who raised four boys in Idaho. Gookin resides in Coeur d'Alene with his wife, Brie, along with various children and pets. In his leisure time, he enjoys woodworking, playing the piano, riding his bike, cooking, gardening, and making lists of things he enjoys doing along with occasionally annoying those who think that they're important. Ways to connect with Dan**:** LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-gookin-46995713/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/dangookin About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson  00:04 What if the biggest thing holding you back isn't what's in front of you, but rather what you believe? Welcome to Unstoppable Mindset, where inclusion, diversity, and the unexpected meet. I'm your host, Michael Hingston, speaker, author, and advocate for inclusion and possibilities. This podcast explores how the beliefs we carry shape the way we live, lead, and connect with others. Each week, I talk with people who challenge assumptions, face adversity head-on, and show what's possible when we choose curiosity over fear. Together, we focus on mindset, resilience, and the small shifts that lead to meaningful change. Let's get started. Hello there, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Unstoppable Mindset. I am your host, Michael Hingston, and today we get to chat with Dan Gookin. Do you know who Dan Gookin is? Probably not, but you will by the time we're done. But I will tell you one thing about Dan. He was elected mayor of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, in November of 2025. I think Dan, you're the first political person as such that we have had on, which is kind of cool. I'm really honored to to have you here, and and we can spend the the whole time picking on on other politicians, but there's no need to do that. I mean, what good does it do? It's a waste of time. But I want to welcome you to Unstoppable Mindset, and Dan, thanks very much for being here. Dan Gookin  01:44 Thank you, Michael. Thank you for having me on. Michael Hingson  01:46 Well, this will, I think, really be a lot of fun. I'm sorry that you guys aren't getting a lot of snow up there. My brother-in-law has been keeping me posted on the lack of snow, so today here we're expecting a temperature at about 70 degrees. Last week it got up to 39. So I don't know. There's something going on with the climate. Dan Gookin  02:10 Something. Michael Hingson  02:11 Yeah, whatever it is. Speaker 1  02:13 Well, there was a name for that. Michael Hingson  02:15 Yeah, yeah. If if there were enough people, would only believe it. But that's another story. You are right. Well, thanks very much for being here. Why don't we start? Tell me about the early Dan growing up and all that. Speaker 1  02:31 So I grew up in San Diego, California. Good place. I still say San Michael Hingson  02:35 Diego has the best weather in the country. Speaker 1  02:38 They do. It's changed a little bit as everything has, but I escaped from there back in 1991. Went up to Washington State because I was doing some work with Microsoft, and then decided that that was Seattle was another big city. So we kept looking east and finally landed in Idaho in Coeur d'Alene because it's pretty. Michael Hingson  03:01 It's a nice area. So you you did your schooling and all that down in San Diego. Speaker 1  03:06 Yeah, I graduated from the University of California, San Diego with a degree in communication visual arts. That was in 1983. Michael Hingson  03:13 Cool, wow. I've spent many a a day down in San Diego. I lived in Vista for six years, so I'm familiar with the area. Yeah, I liked Vista. Vista was a nice place to be. You Speaker 1  03:24 did a radio show out of Vista. Did you for a while? Yeah, computer call-in show. So that was way back. Michael Hingson  03:32 What did you discuss, or just anything dealing with computers? I Speaker 1  03:36 was editing a magazine, a local computer magazine at the time, and we purchased an hour, and so I would drive from my home in Tierra Santa all the way up to Vista to be in this little tiny radio station, where we would do call-ins. And sometimes people would call in, and I would help them solve their computer problems. And sometimes I had to talk to myself for Michael Hingson  03:57 an hour. And and and did you get answers when you talk to yourself. Speaker 1  04:02 No, but I got really hoarse. Ah, okay. Michael Hingson  04:04 Well, you know, just just checking. Well, that's cool. Well, I guess we could tell everyone that, among other things, Dan is also the author of a number of books, including DOS for Dummies. I still like DOS. Thank you. I I like DOS. I've just always enjoyed it. Although, I have to admit, Windows has progressed a whole lot more. But I always liked DOS. Speaker 1  04:27 Yes, it was good, and and it was its complexity or its a rudeness, I shall say. Yeah, that's a good. Sold the book because you had to type. You had to know the commands in Windows. You can kind of look and point and do all this stuff, but in DOS, you had to know the commands and type the commands, and people wouldn't-they couldn't remember. There were all these options, and so we sold a lot of books doing that. It's still, like I said, I I like it too. I like the command line because it's faster if you know what you have to type. Yeah, it takes less time to type. Than it does to look around, point and shoot with the mouse. Michael Hingson  05:04 Yeah, there are a number of blind people on some list serves that I am part of that every so often something regarding DOS comes up, which is I think kind of cool. Speaker 1  05:15 Yep, hasn't gone away. It's it's still lurking in there somewhere. Michael Hingson  05:19 It is still a kind of the basic underpinning foundation of a lot of Windows, isn't it? Speaker 1  05:25 Well, Windows actually does run on top of it still. If you if you when you start a program in Windows, you're actually issuing a text command. So inside there is a long text command that is issued that gets everything running. It's just that you're configuring that from a graphical perspective, Michael Hingson  05:44 right? Yeah, but but it is still running. DOS essentially runs under Windows, which is which is something that is is relevant. So I guess we could blame that on Bill Gates, Speaker 1  05:57 or credit him. I don't know. Michael Hingson  05:58 Or yeah, yeah, one of the other. Well, so you you graduated, you moved to Seattle. As you said, it is a big city, although you know it's kind of hard to fight Pike's fish market. Speaker 1  06:11 Well, there's there's the fun and charming parts of of Seattle that I really enjoyed. So I mean, I can't say that you know it was a horrible city. The thing I admired about Seattle the most was that Seattle would occasionally not take itself seriously, and I liked that it had a sense of humor and that people there were generally good natured. San Diego was a little bit more uptight, you know, fair weather fans, that kind of stuff, where Seattle was more of a community, and I admired that greatly. Michael Hingson  06:43 And there used to be a lot of rain up there. Speaker 1  06:45 Not as much as people say. That's kind of their reputation. The Pacific Northwest we do have. So I moved from Southern California where you have 360 days of sun a year to Pacific Northwest where you have 180, so it was kind of a shock from that point of view. It's mostly like today; it's overcast. It's just there's no sun, so that's the big difference. Michael Hingson  07:10 And then you moved up to Idaho, and and how many days of sun or not sun are there a year? Speaker 1  07:16 Oh, still about 180. 180. Uh huh. But it's you know so you get used to it after a while, and when the sun comes out, you're all happy, and it's like, look, the sun's out, everything's pretty. Michael Hingson  07:27 Yeah, fair. Yeah. So when you were in San Diego and so on, what did you want to do or be when you grew up? Speaker 1  07:36 So originally, I wanted to be a doctor, and then I had the misfortune of being in a hospital, and I said I don't ever want to be back here, and changed my mind and figured I would be a writer. So for years I started writing and submitting things to magazines, trying to work on books and stuff. I mean I wrote a few books, and they say that you have to get about a million words of junk out before you actually are a good writer. So I I worked on that for a long time, and got to the point where I I actually had a reputation with some of the editors in the magazines who would write me back personal notes instead of the generic you know dismissal, and so that was working really well. But then what happened in 1984 was I wrote something for the local computer flyer, and they liked that, and it got published, and that was what really started the career for tech because tech wanted people who knew how to write, so that was good timing. Michael Hingson  08:35 Yeah, so many technical manuals are just so boring. I really wish people would learn how to write more interesting books. Of course, I say that about textbooks as well. I am of the opinion that having a master's degree in physics and having read many a physics book, the and there are so few of them. The best books are the ones where the authors have put some actual personal stories in to draw people in with human interest parts of the science, and I wish more people would do that. Speaker 1  09:03 And that was my point too. It was like these books are dull and boring. And the problem I had because I was writing computer books at the time, I had a computer book literary agent. There is such a thing, and it's it's backwards in that industry though, because the publisher says what they want a book on, and then they have you write the book on the topic, and so I was doing that for many years. But I did not like the fact that they would edit my books to make them dry, and the editors would actually complain to me and say, "There's too much personality in here. You can't have this. It was like it was like they thought that was a built-in feature of the book, and my protest was, "Well, no. Let's make them interesting. Let's use real life examples. Let's have some personality in there. Let's have some interaction with the with the reader. And they didn't like that until DOS for Dummies came around, and the publisher was willing to change the paradigm. Michael Hingson  09:55 Jeez, yeah, it's so unfortunate. They they think they know. Everything there is to know, and the reality is they don't. Speaker 1  10:04 That's the way it is with just about any industry. You know that I think the corporate mentality is kind of to resist innovation, even in the most innovative industries, until something crazy comes along. And I think that's why in Silicon Valley you had all these startups. You know, if you look, if you trace the lineage of a lot of the big companies, they started at other big companies that were unwilling to do the crazy ideas these guys had, and so they went off. I mean, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak left Hewlett Packard and started up Apple Computer, and I'm pretty sure there's probably been some engineers from Apple Computer who've left and started up their own company and becoming Michael Hingson  10:43 well. And Bill Gates is essentially the same way. It's it's he started out doing something, but he attracted people's attention by some of the other things that he did. Speaker 1  10:53 Yep. Michael Hingson  10:54 And that was was very relevant. But I I hear what you're saying. It makes perfect sense because people just don't like to be innovative and don't like change, and and that's unfortunate that we have so many people that just, as much as they talk about the fact that change is everywhere, they don't like it. Speaker 1  11:10 No, it's well, I think yeah, we we get in our comfort zone, and you don't grow out in the comfort zone. So I like to challenge myself and do interesting things like become mayor, and you know you leave your comfort zone. And what what can I do here, or how can I do this better? Michael Hingson  11:26 Yeah, well, and that makes makes perfect sense. Well, what got you started writing about technology? Just because you were writing that that one article there, or those articles that got interest on the part of a publisher, or what? Speaker 1  11:41 What got me started was that I got paid. Ah, Michael Hingson  11:44 good point. Speaker 1  11:45 You know, they they paid me, and then you know, as as someone who was you know using a computer at the time, and they were called microcomputers, and they were really primitive compared to what we have today. Oh yeah, I I used it to write. So, and the the problem with that was that the the documents, the manuals that we talk about, were so dry and boring, and eventually, all of a sudden, it would dawn on me: it's like, well, this is what it's trying to say. So why don't they just come out and say it this way, or why don't they use an analogy and try to explain it in that manner instead of coming at it from this hardcore technical? And that was what really turned off a lot of people, so it motivated me to want to do it better, and that's kind of what I tell the kids, like my kids. I say you should start up a business. That's really the best way to get successful is start up your own business and become famous like that. And they're well, what business should I start up? I said that the easiest way is to find something that you like, something that's being done poorly, and just do it better. Yeah, and that's really a lot of the the creative, insanely genius stuff that's happened throughout the world is just someone who does something routine but does it better. Michael Hingson  12:52 And that's really the operative part about it, and and the real key. I think you're you're absolutely right. Find something that people aren't doing well, and by the time you get creative enough to figure that out, you're well on your way. Speaker 1  13:05 Yep. So that's that's what I did. Michael Hingson  13:08 Yeah. And so you started going off and and writing a variety of things. What what actually got you to write Dos for Dummies? What specifically? That's first of all, I love the the title of all the Four Dummies books. I think it makes sense. But what got you started in writing DOS for Dummies directly? Speaker 1  13:27 Well, I I knew that there was an appetite out there for beginner computer books, but the publishing industry would not publish beginning computer books because they said beginners don't buy computer books. And I explained to them, well, your problem is you don't write beginner computer books. You write something and you call it, you know, the easy guide to whatever, but the content of it is not written for a beginner. Maybe the first chapter is very condescending and patronizing, and then the rest of it is just technical garbage. So I said you have to keep that tone throughout the entire text. You have to identify who it is you're writing to, as who's a smart person who may just not get it, and explain it to them, and just keep going. And that was the problem. So I I did originally called it the Idiots Guide for DOS, which was based after the Idiots Guide to Volkswagen Repair. My dad had a copy of that, and I thought, well, what a brilliant idea. Michael Hingson  14:20 Yeah. Speaker 1  14:21 And so the publisher saw me speak at a conference, and where I was bemoaning the fact that the books were so boring, and they kept editing out my personality. And then went to to him, and and he's like, "This is great. Your outline that you have for this book is perfect. Except we want to call it DOS for Dummies. I thought, like a lot of other people, that was condescending and patronizing, but that it's an alliteration, so that's what they go with. And then he said to make it a reference. Don't make it a tutorial because, and this is brilliant, these people don't want to learn anything; they just want to do their job. Yeah, that makes sense. So that was and that was it, and we put a lot of humor in it. You know, people would tell me that they'd read the book on the subway, and you know, you'd see someone laughing reading a computer book. That's weird, but there would just be enough humor, and I'd use Mad Magazine as my inspiration. So it was kind of like us versus the nerds, and and that was what really founded the whole thing, and I tell you what, it caught on. I did not think it would. There was no way we were planning on writing a book that would sell, you know, 8 million copies. We were just thinking, well, this is going to be fun. Let's just do this, get it out of our system, and then go back to writing boring books. Michael Hingson  15:36 Made the publisher very happy. Speaker 1  15:39 Oh yeah, they were printing Gold bricks, yeah. Michael Hingson  15:43 That, of course, was the real key. Well, that started a brand, didn't it? Speaker 1  15:47 Oh yeah, they did. There was no intention to do that, but then they they followed that up with Max for Dummies and a bunch of other titles that were just very popular at the time. AOL for Dummies, you know, Windows for Dummies eventually came out, and that was the King for Dummies book. But yeah, they have and they have it on all topics. I've even so as someone who is you know starting in government, I got Robert's Rules for Dummies, which you know you've been to a meeting, you know they follow Robert's Rules, which is very dry and boring, but it's it's important. And Robert's Rules for Dummies is a good example of a For Dummies book because it explains everything carefully. Lots of humor in there, and so there's a lot of them. Wine for Dummies was another one that I really liked. I thought they did a good job. Golf for Dummies. There's a there's on every topic. There's a For Dummies book. Michael Hingson  16:37 How many of them did you write? Speaker 1  16:40 Only wrote the ones with my names on them, but probably about 40 separate titles. So over the years, most of them have been rewrites. So technology changes. So there have been 16 editions of Word for Dummies, and 13 editions of PCs for Dummies. There were four editions of DOS for Dummies. So you're you're always writing new editions, so all totaled 180 separate titles. But individual titles, without not counting multiple editions, right? About 60. Michael Hingson  17:09 Wow. Speaker 1  17:10 Yeah. Yeah, Michael Hingson  17:10 and I can appreciate that that books like Word for Dummies or even iPhones for Dummies has to change over time. Speaker 1  17:19 Yeah. Well, some of them. I mean, I've been doing a kind of a review on on YouTube. I've been doing short videos highlighting some of the goofy images that I put in the books over the years. And way back about 20 years ago, I think I was updating these titles once a year. They would say, "We need a new version of this. We need a new version of this. And at the time, technology was just. I mean, they were cranking out new stuff all the time. Michael Hingson  17:44 So, who's written AI for Dummies? Speaker 1  17:47 I don't know, but that is a title, so I wouldn't be Michael Hingson  17:50 surprised. Speaker 1  17:51 It should write itself, though. You think about Michael Hingson  17:53 it. Yeah, you you know, they they really should do that. It should write itself. Speaker 1  17:56 Someone told me once that they they they wanted to do a manual in my style, so they directed AI to write something in the style of Dan Gukan, and apparently AI can do that. So, am I going to get paid? I don't know. Michael Hingson  18:10 Well, that's another story, of course. Yeah, but still, it it is a it's a it's a great franchise. It's a great brand all the way around, and I know different people have written different different kinds of books like that, but still, the the fact is we need that in the world, and and I agree with you, especially that it's good to put humor and personality into it. And I really wish more people would do that. I really wish that would go into the the textbook world, but it hasn't yet. Speaker 1  18:37 No, that's that, and that's a different planet. I tried to break into that world, and that academia is is it's different. It is weird. Michael Hingson  18:44 Yeah, there are just not that many people who can get away with it like Richard Feynman did with some of the things that he did in physics, and even there, his his books were a little boring at times. But still, Speaker 1  18:56 he was awesome. His of course, his his autobiography is a lot of fun. Michael Hingson  19:00 Yeah, surely you're joking, mr. Fineman. Speaker 1  19:03 Exactly. Michael Hingson  19:04 Adventures of yeah, it is. I I keep it around. I've got an audio copy of it, and every so often I will go back and read parts of it. It's a it's a great book. Speaker 1  19:14 He's kind of an inspiration to me, especially in the area of government. And one of the parts of his book where he was on the panel that was reviewing textbooks for, I think, the state of California, and he noticed that one of the books was blank; it was empty, and he was the only one on the panel who did it. And I kind of echo that often in government because I'm occasionally the only person who actually reads some of the material they provide. Yeah, and and those kind of moments are classic. I love those. You know, when you can say, "Well, as everyone notices, you know, page 14 is blank, and they all madly flip to page 14, like, "Oh my gosh, how did you find this? Well, I, I did my job. I read the thing. Michael Hingson  19:54 I had a roommate in college, and we at that time we were using the Berkeley Physics series. I don't know. Whether that even still exists anymore, but different professors from Berkeley wrote various books, and the guy who wrote the book on waves, I had a roommate who was reading that book, and he searched vigorously to try to find a single misspelling of a word in the whole book. Wow! He finally found one. He said there really was one in the book. Kind of makes you wonder if that was deliberate, but but he actually found one. But it took him most of the quarter we had the book to find it. But but he did. Speaker 1  20:33 Excellent. Yeah, I got to say that's that's an art form. I used to work in a publishing house, and we would pore over books looking for spelling errors and mistakes and punctuation and all this stuff and of course you don't find them until the book's actually printed. Michael Hingson  20:46 Of course not. Yeah, yeah. Now it's it should be easier, but it's not, and they still don't come out until the book is already published and it's out there, and then you find out what isn't right. Speaker 1  20:58 Right. Michael Hingson  21:00 I suppose that gives the publisher an excuse to republish the book and make more money. Speaker 1  21:05 Well, yeah, it depends. It's if it is selling. If it doesn't sell, then obviously the the mistake's going to linger out there. Of course, with digital copies, they can update it right away, but not with a print book. Michael Hingson  21:17 Yeah, nowadays there's so many print books that are done pretty much on demand, so that if you want a copy, unless it's just something where they're selling literally millions a month, the book is available on demand. Although there's a little bit of a lag time to get it, my book Thunderdog, which is the story of Roselle and me in the World Trade Center, is is still selling pretty well, but it is more printed on demand by Thomas Nelson than now Harper Collins. Speaker 1  21:46 Yeah, Michael Hingson  21:47 and I understand that as long as it's available, I'm not going to complain. Speaker 1  21:51 And they and they they prefer to sell it that way as opposed to printing out 5000 copies they have to store somewhere. So Michael Hingson  21:56 right, yeah, they don't have to pay for storage and they just print it, and so it takes an extra week to get somewhere. That's fine. We can cope with that as long as it's available, and then that's all that really matters. Speaker 1  22:08 Yeah. Michael Hingson  22:09 But you've written a lot of books. How come so many? Because they're not all for dummies. Ah, okay. Speaker 1  22:16 Well, it just you know that was my profession, and that's what I did. And so, and I had a good agent who would find me a lot of work, so yeah, they would come up and they would want me to write a book on this or that, and a lot of it was because at the time in that industry I had a name and a reputation. I'm also very fast, so and that that kind of surprises people. In fact, there's some someone who accuses me of having a ghostwriter, which I do not. It's just I've been doing it so long, and you know, when I started, my agent said that he said the more you do this, the faster you'll get, the better you'll get. So, whereas in the original book, the first book I wrote took about six months to to write. I've written books in less than a month. It really depends. It depends on the topic, how well I know the topic, but also I do a lot of organizing with an outline, and so I will will work with an outline almost until it's down to the paragraph level, and then that makes it really easy to write the book, especially a technology book where there's a lot of cross references, and this sequence, you know, assuming someone's reading it front to back is really important, so you got to make sure that you touch upon things and do it in the right order. And then that's so yeah. I just got really good at it, which annoyed a lot of my fellow authors because as I was writing and I would get faster and faster, the contracts would start demanding the books in a more expedient manner, so other authors would complain to me and say, "You know, I have to write this book, and they're only giving me three months to do it. They're blaming me because I can do it in three months, and they figure everyone can do it in three months. So that was fun. Michael Hingson  23:54 Have you had books that someone asked you to write where you really didn't know much of anything about the subject, and you had to spend more time researching it, or you just spend time researching it, but you still did that very quickly. Speaker 1  24:06 Yeah, when I first started, that was pretty much the case. In fact, I talked with a guy who he had written the like the best-selling DBase three book. So DBase was a database way back in DOS, and it was the most popular database program, and he wrote the number one best-selling DBase three book that everyone who used that that program would buy, and he told me that he knew nothing about it when he signed the contract. So the the process of writing the book involved this intense deep dive into finding out what it is the program does, and then working on that. Of course, in those days, the books, the software came with a manual, so it was possible to go through the manual and see what the thing was capable of, and maybe get a few hints about that. But the books were not just a rephrase. The manual; they were a little bit better, the project oriented, whatever. So there was one one book that I did on a program called Super Card for the Macintosh, and it was the it was the there was no documentation, and I could call up the developer and I could ask him. So that was that was a tool I could use if I had access to the developer. I could call them up and I could say, "Okay, so I'm I'm doing this. What can you tell me that's like a secret or that is not obvious? And they love to share that stuff. Sure, I just write it all down, and then that that'll make the book better. If you could get through the the gatekeepers and get into where the nerds were, then you could get a lot of good information, and they were happy to share it. I did a few books on OS two that were like that, where I finally was able to escape into the lab and ask them. And the the guy they were so friendly, and they're like, "Oh, you got to tell him this, this, this, this. You know, we we couldn't put this in the manual. You have to tell him this, and so you write a great book. But of course, OS two, no one used it, so no one bought the book. Michael Hingson  26:05 Yeah, yeah, OS two was not one of those things that everybody loved. If Speaker 2  26:13 you enjoy Unstoppable Mindset and would like to help us continue bringing these conversations to you each week, we've created a way for you to support the show. Your contribution helps us cover production costs and continue sharing stories, insights, and ideas that inspire people to live with purpose and possibility. If supporting the podcast feels right for you, you'll find the link in the show notes. Thank you for being part of the unstoppable mindset community. Michael Hingson  26:46 I remember when I was a student at UC Irvine. I wasn't an information computer science major. I was physics major, but several people took ICS one, two, and three, which was a three quarter course, or well, it was a year course, and the the book they used was Introduction to Computer Programming by Ken Ingram. And what was fun about that was that on the first day of class, the professor would come in and he'd say, "Okay, I want you to read chapter one of information of introduction to computer programming by Ken Ingram. It's the textbook we're going to use. I want you to read that before our next class. And of course, most everyone had not touched the book prior to that. And what he didn't say was that that first chapter took up half the book. Speaker 1  27:40 I like it. Michael Hingson  27:43 Yeah, I know. Wasn't that? And I, I, I heard about it. I, I never did get the book, and I didn't get it transcribed into Braille. But I thought that was cute. Chapter one was half the book. Speaker 1  27:53 No one would have suspected chapter one's an easy chapter. It's four pages. Right, supposed to be right. I think it was like Michael Hingson  28:00 180 pages. It was amazing. Michael Hingson  28:03 I'm not sure whether Ingram had a sense of humor or what, but anyway, there you go. But yeah, that that was kind of kind of amazing. So you you wrote all these books and you continue to do that, but somewhere along the line, you got interested in doing things in politics. What was that all about? Speaker 1  28:25 Well, that was frustrating. Not Michael Hingson  28:28 bad, Speaker 1  28:29 because I. So I think a lot of people are kind of interested. They follow politics. If I call up my mom in San Diego, she has to complain to me about you know the mayor of San Diego and what the city council is doing and and it's it's common it's just I think I think the most most people who are active in in their community know a little bit about politics or whatever and in my case I had just moved from the county here near Courtland and then I'd moved into the city, and I had heard that there was someone was buying up properties in my neighborhood, and I thought that was curious, and I wanted to see if this was something that you know are they going to tear down houses? What are they going to do? So I started researching using the the county website to see who was own who owned these properties, and it was a place called the Lake City Development Corporation, and I thought, well, I need to find out what that is, and it turned out that was an urban renewal agency that was formed by the city of Cortland, and I started reading the statutes and I started reading their minutes and finding out what it is they do, and while on the surface it sounded really fun, there were a lot of curious things that I didn't like. A lot of non-transparent things, a lot of things where you know they're spending public money on what I thought were frivolous things, and so I started asking questions. I started coming to meetings, and they're missing. Was that they pushed back, and so I just something triggered me, and I had a red flag, and I just started going after it. We started, we formed a group of people who were all interested in this, and we would meet regularly and go over what was going on with the government. We'd find issues regarding transparency and spending, and lots of interesting stuff. Never really anything nefarious. Never anything that would. But just a lot of stuff that, as we let the public know about what was going on, they would become outraged and they would say, "Wait a second! They're spending millions of dollars on this, and you know, with property taxes so high, and what is this, and why is it affecting me? And and so I went to the city council meetings here in Portland, and I was frustrated because no one else seemed to get it. And I would look at them, and they would have some issue that would come up, and everyone on the council-there were six members on the council-they would all vote in unison, and no one had asked a question. And I would say, "Well, wait a second, why aren't they asking a question about this, or why aren't they concerned about this, or what about the side effects of this? And so I started writing articles for the paper. I eventually did videos and to speak to various groups and such because I was like, we got to hold government accountable. So I ran for office in ran for the city council in 2007, and I lost. And then I ran in 2009, and I lost, but only by like 29 votes. And then I was done at that point. I really didn't want to do it again because running for office is a pain. Michael Hingson  31:33 Yeah. And Speaker 1  31:34 then they had this huge thing where all of a sudden they were going to redo a park without a public vote, and I wanted a public vote. Lots of people wanted to vote on it, but no, they were going to do it, and they didn't care what the public thought. So they made me run. They made me run a third time, and I won. And I've been on the city council ever since. And then, of course, well, since last November when I got kicked up to the mayor seat, which is where I'm sitting Right now, strange journey. Michael Hingson  32:04 Well, yeah, but on the other hand, there is something to be said for transparency, and there's somebody something to be said for somebody who really wants to look out for what what people want and what people are doing. I I got involved. Well, I've not run for public office, but I've been very much involved in political kinds of things because I've been involved in the blindness world since early 1970s, and the National Federation of the Blind has had for well now, gosh, more than 50 years or around 50 years, what used to be called the March on Washington. Now it's called the Washington Seminar, which is a an event that takes place every year, where several 100 blind people descend on Washington and go off and visit legislators. And the idea is to really get them to understand what the needs of blind people are and try to get them to vote on issues that directly relate to issues concerning us, and sometimes they do. Although it's gotten a lot harder to get things passed, especially in the last eight or nine years. But still, that it it has to be done. But I remember, among other things, I was living in Massachusetts when I first started going, and among other things, we we went and saw the Speaker of the House, who was Tip O'Neill at the time, which was kind of fun. And what an interesting, what a charismatic guy! Didn't matter what party he was with; it was a charismatic guy. And we also visited people like Senator at the time Paul Songis, and what was interesting about him was we we talked about our issues, and it was the end of the day, and then suddenly he said, you know, I'm not going anywhere for the next few minutes. Do you guys have time? And we ended up just talking for about an hour and a half about his view of of and our views of what Massachusetts needed to do, not only for blind people but just in general, it was just fascinating. There weren't very many politicians who would do that. Speaker 1  34:08 That's awesome. Yeah, I liked him. I liked Tungus a lot. Michael Hingson  34:12 Yeah, I wish he'd been able to run for president, but he got cancer, and that's that's unfortunate. Yeah, but because I think that he's one of those people who would do what really needed to be done and do it the right way. Speaker 1  34:26 In other words, the people who never win. Yeah, that's unfortunately Michael Hingson  34:31 really the case, isn't it? Speaker 2  34:33 Yeah, Speaker 1  34:33 yeah. Michael Hingson  34:34 But but you got to do that. Speaker 1  34:36 Yeah. Michael Hingson  34:38 So you you know, but you you hopefully you'll make a big difference, and maybe you'll be able to get people to believe in climate change. Oh, did I say that Speaker 1  34:48 this year? Nah, Michael Hingson  34:53 not unless you predict snow when it actually comes. Speaker 1  34:56 That and that and that's the key. Yeah, Michael Hingson  34:59 yeah. No, I understand, but it but it is fascinating. I you know I I enjoy the concept of politics. I enjoy people who really have a vested interest in making government go well, but it is so unfortunate that we don't see that much of it, which is just too bad. Speaker 1  35:18 There are a lot of good dedicated people out there. I think so. Of course, the the problem is is you know, like they say, politics is sports for the uncoordinated, and it's drama for the ugly. But the the thing is, the people who really do a good job, who are out there doing what you want them to do, they don't get the headlines. It's the noisemakers. It's the extremists. It's the people who are going to have some obnoxious opinion because that that gets everyone's attention. You know, the the guy out there who's doing the job, who's putting in the time, representing the citizens, and making his community a better place. You know, you're never going to read that guy in the paper, unfortunately. Michael Hingson  35:59 Yeah, and that's also part of the problem: is that the media looks for all the drama rather than really looking to to represent the the average citizen and what they truly want and need. Speaker 1  36:10 So those don't the actual the things don't make headlines. In fact, it was a it was really funny. There was a guy who was elected to the state house from this county, and one of his campaign platforms, he was going to repeal all the useless laws, all the things that are still on the books. That you know, just we don't need those laws anymore. They're old. They're outdated, and he did that for about a week, and it doesn't make headlines. So here he is, you know, doing this, doing the job that you think they they would want to do and making government more effective, no one cared. I remember there was one year where we actually we cut property taxes here in the city, and I thought, wow, everyone's going to come up and say thank you. No, no one did. So it's like, what's the motivation? If you go, they say, I want you to be I want you to be my mayor and I want you to work to cut that budget and so you cut the budget and then no one says thank you. Michael Hingson  37:08 We got Tom Steyer here in California who wants to become governor and he's talking about all these things that he's going to do. He's going to get electric utility rates lowered by a significant amount. He's going to encourage and bring competition to the electric grid industry, and he talks about lowering housing costs by building a million homes and doing so many things. And every time I hear his campaign commercials, the thing that I keep asking myself is, haven't we learned anything? And no offense to Donald Trump, but Donald Trump made a lot of promises that we're not seeing. Steyer is making a lot of promises that he has yet to say how he's going to pull any of them off. Speaker 1  37:56 Oh yeah, and that's and that's the thing is you got to. There's so much. There's only so much you can do. But you can you when you campaign, they can say anything. Of course, I know they might as well just say free ice cream and ponies for everyone. Michael Hingson  38:07 Yeah, and and that's almost essentially what's happening. And I'm not saying that he'd be a bad governor. I I haven't researched him enough, but the commercials just don't do anything to make me thrilled because he's not saying how he's going to do any of it, and and that's what I really want to know. Speaker 1  38:25 Yeah, I didn't when I when I ran this campaign, I didn't really promise anything that was sexy at all. I said, you know, I'm going to work on a policy manual. I'm going to increase the amount of information and transparency, and it was like nothing that you want to put on a bumper sticker, but I still won. I mean, there were people who were in the race who were promising this and that, and they were going to do this and all this stuff, and somehow I eked it out. Michael Hingson  38:51 Why do you think you won? Speaker 1  38:52 Name recognition, Michael Hingson  38:54 okay, Speaker 1  38:55 and that's and that's pretty much that's a lot of what politics is is is just the the name recognition. You can win on that. I also do have a reputation. I mean, being on council for 14 years and being often called the lone voice of reason, like I said earlier, I'm the one who asked that obvious question. Yeah, and people are in the audience are going, "Well, thank you. Someone's finally asking what what they wanted to ask, and so there was there was that, and and I also, you know, I I do return my emails. I answer the phone calls. I make sure that I'm I'm available. So you know, and I think that that reputation kind of spread itself around that that I would be responsive. It didn't mean that I actually did anything because the you know the powers are really limited. So if someone wanted you know they want to put in a stop sign somewhere, I'll go visit them, and we'll look at the thing, and we'll look at the traffic data, and all this stuff. But there may not be a stop sign there. Still, I showed enough time that I paid attention to them, and I responded to them, and you know, we'll see what we can do. That's the best you can say. Michael Hingson  39:55 And if it didn't happen that there was a stop sign, but there was a good reason for it. I would suspect that you would be the kind of person who would say, "Here's why it didn't happen. Speaker 1  40:03 Right, exactly, and and to explain that for and a lot of people don't understand things like that because it's easy to get defensive with government because sometimes it can be so colossally stupid. Yeah, but but it's just as long as you have that explanation, and sometimes it's it's really it's refreshing because then they hear the answer and they're good with it, so we have a problem here with there's noise on the freeway because they're expanding the freeway, and a lot of people are upset, so they call city hall, but it's not our project; it's the state highway district. So you know, it's like I can do only what I can do, but it's still you know, if you're the only elected official who bothered to reply to them and told them, you know, I hear what you're saying. I'm going to do whatever we can. Sometimes that makes people happy. They may not be happy in the big picture, but at least they got a response. Michael Hingson  40:48 And when you discover something that's relevant, I'll bet you are the kind of person who would then initiate another letter saying, "Here's why it didn't work, or "Here's why it will work. Speaker 1  40:59 Right, and I do follow up. So I did. In that case, I wrote a letter to the governor and said, "You know, is there anything you can do? And then I forwarded the letter on to the person who had contacted me and said, "Okay, this is the best I can do. Let's let's see what he can do. So yeah, Speaker 1  41:14 yeah. Michael Hingson  41:15 I'm I'm curious. You mentioned that property taxes did get lowered once in Cordellane, but nothing. No one ever did anything with that. How come? Speaker 1  41:23 Well, no. It's just we we did. We we kept them. You got you got them lowered. Michael Hingson  41:27 But but why didn't anybody pay attention to that? Speaker 1  41:30 No. Well, see, I'm sure they paid attention to it. We are only one entity on your property tax bill, so there's there's a few. Ah, good Michael Hingson  41:39 point. Speaker 1  41:39 We might have been the the one who kept it down, but the other ones may have kept it up. And then there's all the the formula is really complex, and so it could be that you know their assess property assessment went up, a lot of other things that would have happened that would have affected it. But like I said, I mean we made a big to do about it, saying hey look we worked, we cut the budget. We kept it flat for all you guys, and then no one said anything. But you know that that's it's discouraging, but it doesn't discourage me from continuing to try because I'll always try. Michael Hingson  42:12 You can only do what you can do, but at least at least you're doing it. Yeah. Now, if you want to live in a state where the taxes are very interesting, move to New Jersey, yeah, where we lived, the the taxes every town, every city had its own property taxes. You could live on a street, yeah, you could live on a street where you had a property tax of some amount, and if you walked across to the other side of the street, the property tax would be twice what yours was because the border runs right down the middle of the street. Speaker 1  42:45 That's crazy. Michael Hingson  42:47 We thought it was. Yeah, we thought it was kind of interesting, but we fortunately never had too horrible of property taxes in Westfield. But still, we heard about some other places that had some some horrible property taxes, but you know it's it's what what you have. Speaker 1  43:07 Yep. Michael Hingson  43:08 So you were in the city council for 14 years. What made you decide that you were going to run for mayor? Because you had to do that. You had to make that decision. Speaker 1  43:17 Yeah, didn't want to. You know, wasn't on my on my dance card to like, oh, next step up is going to be mayor. It was more of there was frustration that I had because the the past couple of mayors, good men, good people, but I always wanted to do more. I mean, being on the council, it was frustrating because I wanted a little more leadership out of the center seat wasn't seeing that, and then I worked earlier last year. I called up a bunch of people to see if they'd be willing to do the job. You know, good strong community members who would be provide the leadership and had the name recognition required to do the job, and no one wanted to do it. So I was like, okay, well, I'll I'll see if I can do it. I still have two years left on my council term, so if I lost, I'd still be part of the process. But there ended up being four people in that race, so it was pretty crowded. Which to me, you know, if if you're running if you run unopposed, it's pretty much a sign that people kind of like the way things are going. They're not they're not upset with you. Generally, if you have one opponent, you're considered that you know oh well good you know I get to compete for for the job or someone else is unhappy. But if you have a lot of opponents, it generally means that the public isn't happy with what's going on and they want to see some change. So there were four people in the race. I won with like 38% of the vote, so that's wow, Michael Hingson  44:45 yeah. Well, but clearly you're different than a lot of people. For example, you're a member of the Kootenay County Republican Central Committee, and yeah, and they sued you for defamation. What was all that about? Speaker 1  44:59 Well. So we had an episode here where the first of all the local Republican Party decided that running partisan races wasn't enough; that they wanted to get involved with nonpartisan races. And in Idaho, a lot of the local offices are nonpartisan. So city council is nonpartisan, school districts are nonpartisan. You know, water district, highway district, all these smaller local offices, and we have a community college here called North Idaho College. And the Senate committee decided that they would start to what they call rating and vetting candidates to determine who was the most conservative. And while a lot of Republicans appreciate that and they want to know who the real conservative is. The central committee realized that it was a way for them to exercise political power, because when people would get their recommendations, that would be the person who would win. And so they got power mad, and in my opinion, they hijacked the trustees of our local community college, and pretty much almost ran the thing into a ground. It was the it's the only college a community college in the history of the country that's ever been put on probation for disaccreditation due to board governance. Normally, when you disaccredit a college, you're disaccrediting it because of financial reasons, or something else, but or academics. Never, never has it happened that the board has been so crazy that the the ACL ACCU whatever it is the accreditation agency for community colleges has said, "What we're gonna we're gonna pull away your credentials, and all your students will not be receiving college credit. So, I mean, what what this board did that was endorsed by the local Republican Party, the extremists on the party, they they fired the president for no reason. They they started running up the bills, increasing the athletics budget. The board meetings were just pure chaos. Employees would leave. The local high schools stopped their their co education programs. It was just crazy. Wow! And and a lot of people didn't really understand what was going on. So I did a YouTube channel called Kootenay Rants, and Kootenay is the name of our county. Michael Hingson  47:20 Kootenay, yeah. I said Kootenay. Sorry about that. Speaker 1  47:22 It's no, it's okay. It's it could be either way. Who knows? Up north, they do say Kootenai, so we don't know. But anyway, this really got under the skin of the central committee because I pinned the blame on what was going on at the college on them, which is was justified, and I would not make anything up. Instead, I would just put in highlights from the meetings and say, "Here's what's happening, and here's the crazy stuff. You know, trustees yelling at members of the audience, making fun of them. You know, interrupting people, saying just weird, strange things. I mean, it just-it was odd. It was so bizarre, and so it was easy for me to make these videos. My background is in communications, and I know video production, so I was able to put together these videos on a YouTube channel, and you know, hundreds of people in the county would start watching them, including the central committee that did not like that I was exposing what I consider to be their corruption and their the the fact that I think they were responsible for this and they didn't like that so they accused me of defamation basically mean tweets because I would tweet about them and their nonsense and it was like they they made a big to do out of it because I was running for re-election for city council, so they came to a city council meeting to serve me, and you know recorded it and put it up on the internet and all this other stuff that that was just crazy. But my insurance company fortunately decided to represent me, and they just they thought the the suit was without merit. They don't say frivolous. They say without merit. Without Michael Hingson  49:04 merit. No, yeah. Speaker 1  49:05 And so yeah. And so eventually, now the suit is over, and I figured I would either win in court or it would be dismissed. But the insurance company settled, and I it was against my wishes. I said no. I said don't settle with these people. But the insurance company did settle, and I made sure that, as part of the settlement, that they would not say that I agreed to it, or that I said I was wrong, or I apologized, or anything. No, the insurance company just didn't want to waste any more money, so they decided to settle. They wrote a check. I don't know what it cost the central committee. As a member of the central committee, it has never been reported to the committee how much money they spent on that? Because it's it's pretty much the the Republican Central Committee of Kootenay County is pretty much a tyranny run by one guy and a personality cult, and there are members of the committee. There are some good Republicans such as myself on the committee who do believe in transparency and limited government and all those Ronald Reagan things. But there are these extremists on there who are just nutballs, and so there's a group of us here called North Idaho Republicans who are working to counter their insanity. And we've done a good job, but we need to do more work, and that's the story of the KCRCC. And they sued me for defamation. Michael Hingson  50:21 That's kind of crazy, though. Nevertheless, Speaker 3  50:23 of course. Michael Hingson  50:24 And it's only kind Speaker 1  50:26 of that. I wasn't laying awake. I mean, occasionally someone would call me up and they would say, "So what's the case? What's the what's happening with a lawsuit? And I'd say, "Well, a lawsuit. I said, "Oh yeah, that's right. They're suing me. I mean, it was never really. I was never obligated for it. Michael Hingson  50:39 Yeah. Well, so just out of curiosity, since the Republicans were doing this, where were the Democrats in all of that? Speaker 1  50:47 Well, we don't really have a lot of Democrats. That's Michael Hingson  50:49 what I was wondering. Yeah, Speaker 1  50:51 and so and and I always used to joke. I would say that the the Democrats, the Kootenai County Democrats, are looking for a new meeting location, and if anyone has a spare closet, got it. You let them know. No, they're they're all they're all very nice people. Michael Hingson  51:05 Yeah, Speaker 1  51:05 but they're they are in an extreme minority, and unfortunately, they they do try. So last time they had a body for every seat up for election, but they don't really come close. And it's a lot of it comes down to name recognition, but you also have a lot of red blue state refugees who come here. You have a lot of COVID refugees who came here, and so Idaho is very red. Kootenay County is very red, and it would take a tremendous amount of effort to to have a Democrat win here. We do have Democrats in the legislature, not a lot, but we do have them, and the the National Democratic Party is unwilling to spend a lot of money here because they know they're going to lose. So that's what I hear from them. But they are they are generally nice people. I mean, like you said, you if you wanted to vote for me here and you're a Democrat, I'd happily accept the vote. It's a nonpartisan position. We don't deal with those big divisive issues that you know that you you see on the news. Yeah, we're pretty much community-minded people, and I appreciate anyone who is. I do fight the KCRCC because I don't see them as community-minded, and that's one of the issues. Michael Hingson  52:18 Yeah. Well, it's it's unfortunate that that people are that way, but I I see it all too often in so many different ways. I mean, we face it with even in the blindness world with so many things where there ought to be major improvements and there ought to be defenses of the civil rights of blind people. For example, some of the rideshare programs don't do a lot to train their drivers about the fact that in reality they're obligated to take blind people with guide dogs, and oh, there's there is a fair amount of that, and it's and and the companies aren't willing to do anything about it, and we have to keep fighting it, which is just too bad. But there's just so many stuff, and there are so many people who just have these hidden agendas, or they just what it really comes down to is we don't want anybody telling us what to do, Speaker 1  53:09 right? Michael Hingson  53:11 And that's what it really comes down to. So, do you find that that religion gets into any of it at all, like with the conservative Christian movement or any of that, Speaker 1  53:24 there well, there's I do not like the politicization of the church. Michael Hingson  53:29 Yeah, Speaker 1  53:30 my favorite quote on that is that politics poisons the purity of the church. So I think we should keep the separation of church and state as much as possible, but there are you know politically motivated, politically active pastors, and I just I I think that's that's not the proper role of religion. I know that that there's kind of a battle going on in the far right about you know how much religion or how much that should should should be involved in politics in the public arena. In fact, there's a little across from the Costco up here. There is a little yard sign in front of some business that says "Vote Bible, and I always think that's kind of. I mean, I understand what the sentiment is, and I would always want to think that the people who we elect are good moral people. You know, Adam said that our Constitution is best suited for a moral people. I don't believe that means that there's morality in the Constitution. I believe there's morality in people, Michael Hingson  54:32 right? Speaker 1  54:33 And we do want people who have good ethics and good morals in public office, and it's very obvious when that doesn't happen. But I do not think. I think the purpose of our Constitution and the First Amendment is to ensure that we all have the the right to enjoy whatever religion we want, and we don't want to pick favorites. And so, what I see with a lot of these people is that they want to pick a favorite. Michael Hingson  54:55 Yeah, Speaker 1  54:56 they they not only want to pick the first religion, but they want. Everyone to go to the same church and the same service and sit in the same pew. Yeah, and that's not going to happen in any church. It's not going to happen in any denomination of any church. And then, and see, that's the other question: is if you know if you're going to insist that this is a Christian nation, it's like okay, but which denomination is it? Catholic? Is it Protestant? Is it Mormon? I mean, I you know you tell me because it's just going to be this incredible knot of worms, which is why I think the genius of the founders was that you know the the clause about religion is is two things: it gives you the freedom to exercise your own religion, and it also restricts the government from declaring that there's a religion. Yeah, and I think the far right kind of misses that when they when they take the message of we like moral people in office, but to dictate the morals to someone else is wrong. Michael Hingson  55:52 You know, I and it was Tolstoy who once said the biggest problem with Christianity is that people don't practice it, and I I see that so often. It's it is so unfortunate, but it is Speaker 1  56:03 there. Yeah. So that is a tough one. Michael Hingson  56:07 So if you could change one thing in the world, what would it be? I'd Speaker 1  56:12 get rid of the internet in a heartbeat. Specifically, social media. I think the the problem with social media is it amplifies our immaturities, and that is a huge issue. the The solution to that is to make the the publishers responsible for the content. So, in other words, Facebook could be sued for anything that someone puts on Facebook, and that would terrify Facebook, but it would terrify them to the point that they would actually regulate themselves and and start dialing back. I mean, I can say 20 years ago or so, when I whenever I was first on Facebook, I would go on there and I would see my kids, and they'd be playing a ball game or they'd be over at a friend's house. You'd see birthdays, vacations. It was just kind of like it was a social thing. You go on there now, and it's politics, and it's like this person deserved to be shot, and it's just-it's so-it's so extreme, and it's so rude. And you know, some of the stuff they said about me is not very nice, but I think that if we're going to solve one problem in the world, we really need to dial back all the animosity that's on the inter

News of the Bogus: 0:55 – X and Music Publishers Settle Three-Year Copyright Clash After SpaceX IPO https://torrentfreak.com/x-and-music-publishers-settle-three-year-copyright-clash-after-spacex-ipo/ 4:50 – OpenAI and Hugging Face partner to address security incident during model evaluation https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/ Lyra Intheflesh on X: https://x.com/LyraInTheFlesh/status/2080050154321653943 12:10 – ‘VPNs are lawful technical tools,’ says EU Court in landmark Anne Frank copyright ruling https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpns-are-lawful-technical-tools-says-eu-court-in-landmark-anne-frank-copyright-ruling 15:33 – Biggest Bogon Emitter: Anthony Fauci Pentagon asked for research projects that could have caused COVID, top scientist says https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/4661064/pentagon-asked-for-research-projects-that-could-have-caused-covid-top-scientist-says/ Rand Paul on X: https://x.com/RandPaul/status/2080399219693642238 https://x.com/RandPaul/status/2080372947286364268 https://x.com/RandPaul/status/2080427235975008293 https://x.com/RandPaul/status/2080358245449785361 The Reading Room – Senator Rand Paul https://www.paul.senate.gov/readingroom/ 22:50 – Idiot Extraordinaire: AOC AOC Speaks At Memphis GOTV Rally for Justin J. Pearson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_omTcUS6bg This Week’s Quote: “Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.” —Richard Feynman 🔊Pᴏᴅᴄᴀꜱᴛ: https://podcast.bogosity.tv/💬Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/▶️YᴏᴜTᴜʙᴇ: https://www.youtube.com/shanedk▶️Oᴅʏsᴇᴇ: https://odysee.com/%24/invite/@shanedk:4▶️Rᴜᴍʙʟᴇ https://rumble.com/c/shanedk💰Dᴏɴᴀᴛᴇ ᴏʀ ꜱᴜʙꜱᴄʀɪʙᴇ: https://donate.bogosity.tv

In this episode, we explore the creative paradox that sometimes the best work begins when we stop trying to produce our "best work." We revisit the story of Richard Feynman, who rediscovered his passion for physics by indulging in what seemed like trivial curiosity—with world-changing consequences.We're joined first by Ian Bogost, author of The Small Stuff, professor, writer, and game designer, who unpacks the idea of “gratification”—the sensory enchantment of everyday life—and why chasing only the "big stuff" means missing the moments that actually comprise our experience . We examine the relentless march toward efficiency and abstraction, the threat of dematerialization, and practical strategies for reclaiming a more embodied, present approach to work and life.After the break, Jia Jiang, author of Easy Discipline, explains why enduring endless grind isn't the recipe for lasting success—or personal satisfaction. Drawing on his own journey from ambition-driven burnout to a more sustainable, enjoyable approach, Jia Jiang reveals his E.A.S.Y. framework (Enjoyment, Artistry, Systems, Yourself) for building discipline that doesn't feel like drudgery.We unpack why presence—not just productivity—fuels creative brilliance, how seeking “orthogonal” experiences can reawaken genuine engagement, and why you'll go further by learning to love the process rather than trying to force yourself through it.Five Key LearningsGratification Overrides Big Goals: The richest experiences come from moment-to-moment sensory engagement, not from deferred, infrequent milestones (Ian Bogost at 04:42).Dematerialization Is Draining: Our digital conveniences come at a cost: They strip away physicality, leading to a disconnect from what's most enjoyable in the work itself (Ian Bogost at 08:39).Presence Is the Antidote: Simply allowing ourselves to fully experience sensory details—rather than obsessively planning or optimizing—can restore lost gratification (Ian Bogost at 11:02).Enjoyment Enables Sustained Effort: Lasting discipline isn't about brute force; it's about making the journey itself rewarding so that you can do hard things for longer (Jia Jiang at 25:42).Everyone's Discipline Is Individual: Advice from others is often based on their optimization, not yours; embracing your own strengths, rhythms, and sources of enjoyment is critical to building sustainable creative practices (Jia Jiang at 36:16).Get full interviews and bonus content for free! Just join the list at DailyCreativePlus.com.Mentioned in this episode:To listen to the full interviews from today's episode, as well as receive bonus content and deep dive insights from the episode, visit DailyCreativePlus.com and join Daily Creative+.The Brave Habit is available nowMy new book will help you make bravery a habit in your life, your leadership, and your work. Discover how to develop the two qualities that lead to brave action: Optimistic Vision and Agency. Buy The Brave Habit wherever books are sold, or learn more at TheBraveHabit.com.

What if the purpose of life isn't to figure everything out—but to fully participate in the mystery? In this delightfully unconventional Dead Talk, Richard Feynman and P.G. Wodehouse dismantle our obsession with certainty, control, and seriousness, revealing that true wisdom is found in curiosity, laughter, and wholehearted engagement with the present moment. Discover why confusion signals expansion, gratitude is a consequence of presence, and freedom begins when you stop trying to win the game and start enjoying enjoying it fully. Read about The Freedom Project 7-day Boosts here Schedule a call with Christy to learn about The Freedom Project here Schedule a call with Gary to learn about The Freedom Project here  

durée : 00:05:10 - Les Matins de France Culture - par : Alexandra Delbot - Ce problème, imaginé par Richard Feynman il y a près de 50 ans, est au cœur de nombreuses décisions humaines. À partir des notes du physicien, une nouvelle étude dévoile une solution optimale et montre que des volontaires s'en approchent naturellement, sans résoudre aucune équation. - invités : Stefano Palminteri Chercheur en neurosciences cognitives. Chargé de recherche inserm dans l'équipe “Apprentissage par renforcement” du laboratoire de Neurosciences cognitives et computationnelles de l'Ecole normale supérieure de Paris. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Human Entities 2026: culture in the age of artificial intelligenceTenth editionWed 27 May 2026, 6.30pmBeyond the senses: science and the mystery of psychic phenomenaPeter BancelSenior Researcher at the Institut Métapsychique International, Paris (France) and Fellow at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, California (US)Anomalies – the things that don't fit our view of the world – are often the starting point of discoveries. As physicist Richard Feynman put it, “It's the thing that doesn't fit that is the most interesting.” A major challenge for science today is to understand consciousness. Theories abound, progress is being made, yet there is no consensus or even a clear path forward. In situations like this, anomalies can provide crucial direction for research. In this talk, we will look at the anomaly of psi phenomena – apparent capacities of consciousness such as telepathy and precognition – and explore the scientific evidence. If the reality of psychic phenomena is established, it may serve as a signpost toward understanding how and why we experience experience at all – the core of human consciousness. We will also consider what this would imply for science more broadly and how it invites us to understand the world.Peter BancelPeter Bancel is a senior researcher at the Institut Métapsychique International (IMI) in Paris and a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in California. In the early 2000s, he collaborated with the Global Consciousness Project based in Princeton (US) before joining the IMI in 2010. Alongside his scientific work, he is a long-time Buddhist practitioner and meditation teacher, with a longstanding interest in consciousness that bridges contemplative traditions and empirical research. Since joining the IMI, he has focused on how psychic phenomena – often called “psi” – can be studied using the methods of mainstream science. His work explores precognition, experimental design in psi studies, and possible connections with quantum physics. He holds a PhD in Experimental Physics from the University of Pennsylvania. After postdoctoral research at IBM, he moved to France, where he worked at the CNRS in Paris and later at the Institut des Matériaux Jean Rouxel at the University of Nantes.https://www.imiresearch.frThis event is part ofHuman Entities 2026: culture in the age of artificial intelligenceTenth editionPublic talks, May – June 2026Ficha Técnica/CreditsOrganised by CADA in partnership with Lisbon Architecture TriennaleProgrammed by Jared Hawkey/Sofia Oliveira with guest programmers: Andrea Pavoni, Kaitlyn Davies, Zagalo Pereira.CADA is funded by: República Portuguesa – Cultura, Juventude e Desporto / Direção-Geral das ArtesApoiosSupport: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia – NOVA LINCS, Instituto Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa; DINAMIA'CET (ISCTE-IUL), Faculdade de Belas Artes, Universidade de Lisboa, Departamentos de Design de Comunicação e Arte MultimédiaArt direction + graphic design: Emir KaryoPhotography: Joana LindaSound: Diogo Melo, Fernando Fadigas

This episode of Jewish Voices, American Stories explores how Jewish-American scientists and doctors helped change the course of history—bringing healing, hope, and life to millions.We begin with Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, two brilliant scientists whose breakthroughs in the fight against polio transformed one of America's greatest fears into one of its greatest public health victories. At a time when families lived in dread of the disease, their vaccines brought relief, protection, and a future free from fear—and they chose to share their discoveries not for profit, but for the good of humanity.Next, we meet Dr. Henry Heimlich, whose simple yet lifesaving maneuver empowered ordinary people to act in moments of crisis. His work reminds us that sometimes the difference between life and death comes down to knowledge—shared, practical, and ready in an instant.Finally, we turn to two of the most influential scientific minds of the modern era: Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman. Their discoveries reshaped how we understand the universe, while also raising profound questions about responsibility, ethics, and the power of knowledge. From the atomic age to the space age, their work helped define the modern world.These stories reflect a deeply rooted value in Jewish tradition: the call to pursue knowledge, to ask questions, and to use what we learn to better the world. And through these individuals, we see how science—guided by purpose and responsibility—can truly help heal the world.To learn more about God's people—from the days of the Bible through the present—visit The Fellowship's Learn Center.

# TEMA Una IA respondiendo como Richard FeynmanNueva xTALKS.AI con Emilio Soria-Olivas# PRESENTA Y DIRIGE 

I think this was one of my most enjoyable dialogues in our What's new series. Maybe Sabine and I are getting more used to each other's cadence and interests or maybe it was the subject matter. Either way, I think you will find this to be a fascinating and provocative discussion of science at the forefront, and at the not-so-forefront, because that science is interesting too!We began our discussion describing a new finding of a Giant Ring of galaxies billions of light years across in the sky. The key questions are: Is it real? And is it surprising? We both have slightly different takes on this.Next we described a new measurement of the strength of gravity on scales from 80 to 800 million light years in distance. And guess what? Gravity falls off just like Newton predicted! This may seem like a big yawn, but one of the most popular models that claims to do away with dark matter would imply that Gravity would fall off differently on these scales. Does this new result kill that idea? Stay tuned.Microsoft, which has cried wolf a number of times so far when it comes to something called Majorana qubits as the basis of a new viable quantum computer just published a new paper claiming they finally have it. Sabine and I discuss why we are both still skeptical, but why the effort is worth it.Next, CERN, the large European particle physics laboratory, and the world particle physics community seem to have converged on plans for building a huge new accelerator in the current CERN site.. this time involving an underground ring 91 km in circumference, in which electrons and positrons would collide to explore the detailed properties of the Higgs particle. Is the effort worth it? Again, Sabine and I have slightly different takes on this.Fusion power, which we have talked about in a number of earlier episodes, continues to tempt humanity with the promise of unlimited energy. Many people, myself included, have tended to argue that fusion seems to be 25 years in the future, and may always be 25 years in the future. But many new efforts are underway, so who knows. Unfortunately, a group of economists has analyzed fusion in the context of other large energy programs and have argued that even if we can achieve it, it may not be as economically viable as many claim. Finally, one day Richard Feynman went to a Thai restaurant with his young companion Ralph Leighton, and wondered what he should order. Should it be the same old dish he loved or something new. An equation filled napkin later, and he had the answer. Fifty years later some cognitive scientists resurrected Feynman's napkin and explained it, and argued it might have important implications in other social situations. Such is the power of science.As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

En 1986, el físico Richard Feynman fue convocado para investigar el desastre del transbordador Challenger ante una comisión presidencial. En medio de expertos intimidantes y presión institucional enorme, tomó un pedazo de goma O-ring, lo sumergió en agua helada y demostró en directo, con sencillez absoluta, la causa del accidente. La presencia de quien realmente sabe cambia toda la dinámica de una sala. Cuando los discípulos vieron al Señor Jesús caminar sobre el agua en medio de la tormenta, gritaron de miedo. Su primera respuesta no fue una instrucción ni una corrección. Fue identificación. Soy yo. No teman. Dios no llega a las tormentas de la vida con un manual de instrucciones. Él llega con Su presencia. Esa presencia es suficiente para transformar el pánico en paz. En tu tormenta de hoy, escucha primero: “Él dice, no temas, soy yo”. La Biblia dice en Isaías 41:10: "No temas, porque yo estoy contigo; no desmayes, porque yo soy tu Dios que te esfuerzo; siempre te ayudaré, siempre te sustentaré con la diestra de mi justicia". (RV1960).

En 1986, el físico Richard Feynman fue convocado para investigar el desastre del transbordador Challenger ante una comisión presidencial. En medio de expertos intimidantes y presión institucional enorme, tomó un pedazo de goma O-ring, lo sumergió en agua helada y demostró en directo, con sencillez absoluta, la causa del accidente. La presencia de quien realmente sabe cambia toda la dinámica de una sala.Cuando los discípulos vieron al Señor Jesús caminar sobre el agua en medio de la tormenta, gritaron de miedo. Su primera respuesta no fue una instrucción ni una corrección. Fue identificación. Soy yo. No teman. Dios no llega a las tormentas de la vida con un manual de instrucciones. Él llega con Su presencia. Esa presencia es suficiente para transformar el pánico en paz.En tu tormenta de hoy, escucha primero: “Él dice, no temas, soy yo”. La Biblia dice en Isaías 41:10: "No temas, porque yo estoy contigo; no desmayes, porque yo soy tu Dios que te esfuerzo; siempre te ayudaré, siempre te sustentaré con la diestra de mi justicia". (RV1960).

This episode of the New Books Network's Entrepreneurship and Leadership channel features Richard Lucas in conversation with entrepreneur and community builder Ben Brabyn about Walkabout, a global movement that brings people together for monthly walks and open conversations. Walkabout began in Green Park, London, in June 2023 as a low‑friction alternative to venue‑based events and now runs in about 37 locations worldwide, welcoming anyone who wants to join a friendly, curiosity‑driven walking group. Ben explains how Walkabout's simplicity—free, open, lightly structured—attracts a high proportion of multidisciplinary participants, many with PhDs, and how emergent collaborations have led to startups, investment, hiring, and pro bono work on “thorny” challenges like non‑compressible haemorrhage and electric vehicle battery fires. Inspired by Richard Feynman's habit of carrying a dozen long‑term problems in his back pocket, Walkabout offers participants an evolving set of shared challenges they can keep in mind and revisit whenever they learn something new, effectively serving as a living, collective version of “Feynman's 12 problems. A recurring theme is serendipity: Richard and Ben discuss how Walkabout exemplifies the kind of designed chance encounters that David Cleevely describes in his book “Serendipity: It Doesn't Happen By Accident,” and how Cleevely himself both influenced and later joined Walkabout events. Lessons learned include the power of radical welcome, the importance of not over‑optimizing for scale or vanity metrics, and the value of formats where multidisciplinary dialogue and unexpected connections can flourish. Ben and Richard also touch on Walkabout's business structure within Amitypath Limited, its use of platforms like Mighty Networks and LinkedIn, and Ben's broader journey from the Royal Marines and JP Morgan to founding crowdfunding platform BmyCharity and leading Level39.Links Ben Brabyn Linkedin Amitypath Interview with David Cleevely on the NBN about his book Serendipity About Richard Feynman's 12 problems Walkabout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This episode of the New Books Network's Entrepreneurship and Leadership channel features Richard Lucas in conversation with entrepreneur and community builder Ben Brabyn about Walkabout, a global movement that brings people together for monthly walks and open conversations. Walkabout began in Green Park, London, in June 2023 as a low‑friction alternative to venue‑based events and now runs in about 37 locations worldwide, welcoming anyone who wants to join a friendly, curiosity‑driven walking group. Ben explains how Walkabout's simplicity—free, open, lightly structured—attracts a high proportion of multidisciplinary participants, many with PhDs, and how emergent collaborations have led to startups, investment, hiring, and pro bono work on “thorny” challenges like non‑compressible haemorrhage and electric vehicle battery fires. Inspired by Richard Feynman's habit of carrying a dozen long‑term problems in his back pocket, Walkabout offers participants an evolving set of shared challenges they can keep in mind and revisit whenever they learn something new, effectively serving as a living, collective version of “Feynman's 12 problems. A recurring theme is serendipity: Richard and Ben discuss how Walkabout exemplifies the kind of designed chance encounters that David Cleevely describes in his book “Serendipity: It Doesn't Happen By Accident,” and how Cleevely himself both influenced and later joined Walkabout events. Lessons learned include the power of radical welcome, the importance of not over‑optimizing for scale or vanity metrics, and the value of formats where multidisciplinary dialogue and unexpected connections can flourish. Ben and Richard also touch on Walkabout's business structure within Amitypath Limited, its use of platforms like Mighty Networks and LinkedIn, and Ben's broader journey from the Royal Marines and JP Morgan to founding crowdfunding platform BmyCharity and leading Level39.Links Ben Brabyn Linkedin Amitypath Interview with David Cleevely on the NBN about his book Serendipity About Richard Feynman's 12 problems Walkabout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Diesmal: Ötzi-Sauerteig, der ifo-Geschäftsklima-Index, der Global Justice Report, Reichtum und Armut, Vermögenssteuer in Ungarn, Feynmans Restaurant-Problem, Trump "Entschädigungs-Fonds", EU-Kommission für Open Source. Mit einem Faktencheck von Nándor Hulverscheidt und einem Limerick von Jens Ohrenblicker.

The Prime Minister unveils a new AI strategy that he says will help Canada catch up with the rest of the world. Our guest says it's a start, but it could use some fine-tuning. Hezbollah has rejected a ceasefire deal brokered between Israel and Lebanon; our guest in Beirut tells us people there were already referring to it as a "less-fire" anyway. A protestor in Albania tells us a crucial stopover for migrating birds is in danger of being destroyed — because Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump want to build a resort. Trixie and Nacho have been busy getting busy — which is great, because the prolific parakeet couple are almost singlehandedly rebuilding New Zealand's kākāriki karaka population.A scientist explains how the late Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman devised a mathematical solution to the eternal question: stick with your favourite restaurant, or risk trying somewhere new?Blanket forts aren't just a quilt draped over some stuffed animals on the couch anymore — now that some students in Las Vegas have definitively shattered the world record for building the biggest one ever."As It Happens", the Thursday Edition. Radio that's usually suspicious of blanket statements.

In his final years, Richard Feynman's curiosity took him to some surprising places. We hear from his companions on the trips he took — and one he wasn't able to. (Part three of a three-part series originally published in 2024.)    SOURCES:  Alan Alda, actor and screenwriter. Barbara Berg, friend of Richard Feynman. Helen Czerski, physicist and oceanographer at University College London. Michelle Feynman, photographer and daughter of Richard Feynman. Cheryl Haley, friend of Richard Feynman. Debby Harlow, friend of Richard Feynman. Ralph Leighton, biographer and film producer. Charles Mann, science journalist and author. John Preskill, professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology. Lisa Randall, professor of theoretical particle physics and cosmology at Harvard University. Christopher Sykes, documentary filmmaker. Stephen Wolfram, founder and C.E.O. of Wolfram Research; creator of Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha, and the Wolfram Language.   RESOURCES:  I Love My Wife..., directed by Ian Tierney (2020). Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science, by Lawrence M. Krauss (2011). Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From the Beaten Track: Selected Letters of Richard P. Feynman, edited by Michelle Feynman (2005). The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, by Richard Feynman (1999). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan (1995). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, by James Gleick (1992). The Quest for Tannu Tuva, by Christopher Sykes (1988) “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” by Richard Feynman and Ralph Leighton (1988). The Second Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Twentieth-century Physics, by Robert Crease and Charles Mann (1986). Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, by Richard Feynman and Ralph Leighton (1985). Fun to Imagine, BBC docuseries (1983).   EXTRAS:  “The Curious, Brilliant, Vanishing Mr. Feynman,” series by Freakonomics Radio (2024). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What happens when an existentially depressed and recently widowed young physicist from Queens gets a fresh start in California? We follow Richard Feynman out west, to explore his long and extremely fruitful second act. (Part two of a three-part series originally published in 2024.)   SOURCES: Seamus Blackley, video game designer and creator of the Xbox. Carl Feynman, computer scientist and son of Richard Feynman. Michelle Feynman, photographer and daughter of Richard Feynman. Ralph Leighton, biographer and film producer. Charles Mann, science journalist and author. John Preskill, professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology. Lisa Randall, professor of theoretical particle physics and cosmology at Harvard University. Christopher Sykes, documentary filmmaker. Stephen Wolfram, founder and C.E.O. of Wolfram Research; creator of Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha, and the Wolfram Language. Alan Zorthian, architect.   RESOURCES: "Love After Life: Nobel-Winning Physicist Richard Feynman's Extraordinary Letter to His Departed Wife," by Maria Popova (The Marginalian, 2017). Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science, by Lawrence M. Krauss (2011). The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, by Richard Feynman (1999). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, by James Gleick (1992). "G. Feynman; Landscape Expert, Physicist's Widow," (Los Angeles Times, 1990). "Nobel Physicist R. P. Feynman of Caltech Dies," by Lee Dye (Los Angeles Times, 1988). The Second Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Twentieth-century Physics, by Robert Crease and Charles Mann (1986). Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, by Richard Feynman and Ralph Leighton (1985). Fun to Imagine, BBC docuseries (1983). "Richard P. Feynman: Nobel Prize Winner," by Tim Hendrickson, Stuart Galley, and Fred Lamb (Engineering and Science, 1965). F.B.I. files on Richard Feynman.   EXTRAS: "The Curious Mr. Feynman," by Freakonomics Radio (2024). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode was a particular joy for me. I had the honor to talk with Jacob Howland. We start with LSD—talking about it, that is — go back to the steam engine in ancient Greece to return to the 20th century's nuclear bomb and today's artificial intelligence. What is the interplay of the human condition with ever more potent technology? What constitutes progress, education, and how can we deal with the challenges of our time? Jacob Howland served as Provost and Dean of the Intellectual Foundations Program at the University of Austin from 2022 to 2025, and before that, as McFarlin Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tulsa. He is the author of five books on Plato, Kierkegaard, and the Talmud, and over sixty articles on literature, politics, and the academy for general readers. He will be a Distinguished Visiting Professor in the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas during the academic year 2026-27. I was intrigued by a conversation Jacob had with Jordan Peterson talking about the CIA gets its hands on LSD. Jacob described the situation as “This is potent stuff, what can we do with it?” Was this a special case or is this our general approach to innovation? Is innovation thus simply reasoning backwards? What is technology? Since when do we speak of technology? “The marshalling or harnessing of significant social resources for the explicit purpose of advancing and applying science.” Mastering and possession of nature, as Descartes put it, is a core aspect of that. During that process, is the focus put too much on the means, while the ends might get lost? “The means justify the end? […] We can do this, therefore we should do it.” Innovation and the mindset of the time — do people even understand what was just invented? Example: the steam engine in antiquity. How does the world appear to people in antiquity, in the Christian tradition, and later in the modern age? Or in other words: when did transforming the world become an objective? Descartes already understands that: “Desire is implicitly infinite.” This shifts the relationship between man and world. In what way specifically? “When we take away the limits of desire, we open up an infinite and unlimited desire for wealth, an unlimited desire for new devices, conveniences and so forth.” Descartes already expresses that if we become the masters of nature, we might be able to find a way to limit the infirmities of old age and to extend life. What was the role of Francis Bacon in The New Atlantis? What role did he play for science? Contemplating the history of technology and science, it appears we are treating new inventions and innovations like children — even those with extraordinary potential. How could we have survived this attitude? “Technology contains its own fatality.” What changed between the nuclear bomb and the advent of artificial intelligence? “We are going to have to trust AI more and more, but we don't actually know if it is trustworthy.” What can we learn from Greek mythology about these complexities of technology? What is Pandora's box? “We exchange one kind of fatality for another.” Technology can be transgressive and totalising. How? “If the idea is to remove all limits, which would be a way of being like God, then, because we are human beings, we will just descend into chaos. […] You can take human beings out of chaos, but you cannot take the chaos out of human beings.” Is it true that interesting things happen at the edge of chaos, as Stuart Kauffman expressed it? “When you just have order without the vitality that comes from transgression, you have decay, you have fossilised formalism.” Henry Adams stated, about 100 years ago: Can the speed of change become too fast for human societies and thus fundamentally destabilising? “We have a hard time holding two opposing thoughts in our mind.” But this seems to be increasingly important — a fundamental human skill, in fact. How is this important to assess progress? What changed in the attitude towards progress, especially with young people? “Moderns and late moderns (us) believe that we can solve problems.” The way we address complex problems was discussed in other episodes. Noteworthy seems a quotation by Thomas Sowell: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs” Can we actually solve a problem in a complex “wicked” environment? How does this help us to understand how technology works? Why is maintenance at the centre of a complex techno-social society? What does that mean specifically? How does politics work, and why will we never arrive at morally perfect situations? Why is impatience rising and creating unreasonable expectations? Why is humility of huge importance in dealing with complex problems, for instance in science? On the other hand, why is it a bad idea to be afraid of your own shadow? “I am more concerned by what the bomb is doing already to young people,” C. S. Lewis. So, how do we go along, surrounded by radical uncertainty? What does this mean for science? “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” Richard Feynman. “You are dealing with a real scientist when that scientist says: here is what we don't know.” In contrast to this, remember Anthony Fauci: “I am Science.” What is the role of generalists versus specialists to resolve or manage some of these issues? What about different perspectives of time? “The emphasis in our lives today is on the present. What is happening right now.” Where is expertise, what is the interplay between specialist knowledge and generalist “connecting tissue”? “I have never let my ignorance interfere with anything I wanted to study.” How is this relevant to living a decent and flourishing human life? But to make it even bolder: Do we have such stagnation in science and society because we have so few generalists? As a closing question: If the mission is to save (American) education, what are we supposed to do, and do we even have a chance still? “Harvard College taught little, and that little, ill. But it left the mind open, supple, and ready to receive knowledge,” Henry Adams. Could we at least get back to this situation again? “How many universities can we say that about? We have not succeeded in that. […] At the end of the day, we are suffering from a crisis of meaning. Any way we give people more meaning is significant.” How can we do that? In company with other people, ideally. There is hope, as Jacob states at the end of the conversation. We are at the start of a reconstruction, as Douglas Murray put it: “We should be the reconstructionists. The deconstructionists knew something about how to take things apart but, like children with bicycles, had no idea how to put them back together. […] We have the choice either to live in the wastelands or to rebuild them.” Other Episodes Episode 148: Künstliche Vernunft? Ein Gespräch mit Jan Juhani Steinmann Episode 145: Reflexion und Rekonstruktion! Episode 137: Alles Leben ist Problemlösen Episode 134: Das Werdende, das ewig wirkt und lebt? Transzendent oder Transient Episode 129: Rules, A Conversation with Prof. Lorraine Daston Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 110: The Shock of the Old, a conversation with David Edgerton Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 74: Apocalype Always References Homepage of Jacob Howland Jordan Peterson & Jacob Howland, Ancient Stories That Bridge The Heavens & The Earth (2025) René Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences (1637) Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis (1627, posthum) Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity(Oxford University Press, 1995) Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1918) Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (1987) F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) Horst Rittel, Melvin Webber, Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences 4 (1973) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (ca. 350 BC) C. S. Lewis, “Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State” (Essay, 1958) Richard Feynman, “What is Science?” (presentation 1966, published inThe Physics Teacher, 1969) Erwin Schrödinger, What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell (Cambridge University Press, 1944) Plato, Timaeus (ca. 360 BC) H. J. Paton, The Good Will: A Study in the Coherence Theory of Goodness (1927) Bryan Caplan, The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money (Princeton University Press, 2018) Douglas Murray - "The Age of Reconstruction Has Begun!" | ARC 2025

As always there are spoilers ahead! You can follow the podcast on social media on Threads, Instagram and Bluesky. If you would like to be a patron of the podcast and help an indie podcaster out, you can join Patreon and for £3 or $3 a month you can get ad free version of the show. https://www.patreon.com/everyscififilm An extra huge thank you to my wonderful guests as this episode had to be re-recorded due to a major problem with the audio file the first time. You can find the synopsis of the film on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage#Plot In 1966 20th Century Fox chose a steady pair of hands in Richard Fleischer (the son of animation superstar Max Fleischer) to helm what at the time was both the tiniest and the biggest science fiction adventure. Tiny because of the nano science storyline and biggest because of it being the most expensive science fiction film ever made (at that time) costing over five million dollars.   I talk to two top tier guests about the film. Jay Telotte is Professor Emeritus of film and media studies at Georgia Tech. He has written/edited numerous books and articles about science fiction film including his upcoming books Before Trek: Building American Science Fiction Television. Lisa Yaszek is Regents' Professor of Science Fiction Studies at Georgia Tech and has written/edited multiple books on science fiction including her upcoming book Mothership Rising: Afrofuturism in the Radium Age. Chapters 00:00 Introduction 01:40 Big budget scifi 05:45 Richard Fleischer 09:10 The history of Nanotech sci-fi 16:41 Sci-fi and scale in cinema 19:42 Richard Feynman and small science 22:55 1950s influences 25:53 James Bond and Spy-fi 27:05 Psychedelic scifi 31:22 Harper Goff, Disney and design 33:36 1960s crew dynamics 42:48 Asimov's novelisation 44:24 Secularism vs religion 46:52 Legacy 52:57 Recommendations   Recommendations: The Diamond Lens by Fitz-James O'Brien (which can be found here) Surface Tension by James Blish Microcosmic God by Theodore Sturgeon   Dr Cyclops (1940) The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989)   NEXT EPISODE! Next episode I will be speaking with Oscar winning Special Effects Supervisor Paul Franklin to discuss his favourite sci-fi film Blade Runner (1982). Paul has worked on an array of blockbusters including The Batman Begins trilogy, Venom (2018), Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014).

From the Manhattan Project to the Challenger investigation, the physicist Richard Feynman loved to shoot down what he called “lousy ideas.” Today, the world is awash in lousy ideas — so maybe it's time to get some more Feynman in our lives? (Part one of a three-part series originally published in 2024.)   SOURCES: Helen Czerski, physicist and oceanographer at University College London. Michelle Feynman, photographer and daughter of Richard Feynman. Ralph Leighton, biographer and film producer. Charles Mann, science journalist and author. John Preskill, professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology. Stephen Wolfram, founder and C.E.O. of Wolfram Research; creator of Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha, and the Wolfram Language.   RESOURCES: "How Legendary Physicist Richard Feynman Helped Crack the Case on the Challenger Disaster," by Kevin Cook (Literary Hub, 2021). Challenger: The Final Flight, docuseries (2020). Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From the Beaten Track: Selected Letters of Richard P. Feynman, edited by Michelle Feynman (2005). The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, by Richard Feynman (1999). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, by James Gleick (1992). “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” by Richard Feynman and Ralph Leighton (1988). "Mr. Feynman Goes to Washington," by Richard Feynman and Ralph Leighton (Engineering & Science, 1987). The Second Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Twentieth-century Physics, by Robert Crease and Charles Mann (1986). Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, by Richard Feynman and Ralph Leighton (1985). "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out," (Horizon S18.E9, 1981). "Los Alamos From Below," by Richard Feynman (UC Santa Barbara lecture, 1975).   EXTRAS: "Exploring Physics, from Eggshells to Oceans," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2023). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Pat Walsh Show continues with Kendog now in studio which of course means- it's movie time! They also talk about Richard Feynman a bit.

Welcome! and Thank you for listening.   Dr. Richard Feynman, the Nobel Laureate Physicist said, "You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest to fool" Well then let's get down to business.  The Badwater virtual 267mile race is almost completed and I feel great running an average of 16.7 miles a day on a mere 4 grams of carbohydrate.  I would never of guessed, but I am quite happy about it. Today I will review in a much different view, The China Study.  It was first published in 2006 and I have read and referenced it several times to justify my plant based dairy free diet.  I read the book but did not dig deeper until now.  I will share the concerns with you on the episode.  It is enough to dismiss all of the findings? No.  What good came out is that we should eat real food.  No processed.  Avoid sugar and seed oils. However, the protection from plant proteins are certainly suspect versus animal protein.  Listen, learn, read and make your own conclusions.   Thank you for listening.  doctordulaney.com email: jami@doctordulaney.com   water distillers: https://mypurewater.com/?sld=jdulaney. discount code: cleanwaterforsophie Review of China study with references :https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/the-china-study-myth/#gsc.tab=0  

Doing a new little mini-series called a "History Dump" where I offer stories, ideas, and things I've found interesting from books, documentaries, and anything I've researched recently.This episode focuses on three individuals: Richard Feynman, Henry Ford, and Chris Hadfield. -----SourcesMy Life and Work - Henry FordAn Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth - Chris HadfieldSurely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman-----Check out my books below:Daily Greatness: Short Stories and Essays on the Act of Becoming Chasing Greatness 2nd Edition - Timeless Stories on the Pursuit of ExcellenceStay connected and check out more on our website:Chasegreatness.net

Vic and I were watching a Richard Feynman lecture on YouTube recently, one of those deep dives into time, space, and quantum physics that makes your brain hurt in the best way. What struck me wasn't the physics. It was something underneath it, about how much we love certainty, how hard our minds work to manufacture it even where it doesn't exist, and how that love of certainty quietly limits what we allow ourselves to imagine as possible. That's what today's episode is about. Most of us spend a lot of energy trying to get one life right. The perfect career, the right relationship, the path that doesn't disappoint anyone. And underneath all that effort is anxiety, because if there's only one right choice, the margin for error feels very small. The Odyssey Plan, which comes out of the Designing Your Life program at Stanford University, starts from an entirely different premise. There isn't just one life that's right for you. There are multiple versions that could make you happy, fulfilled, and aligned. The exercise doesn't ask you to blow up your life or make any decisions at all. It asks you to expand what you allow yourself to see as possible. That's it. Just that. Read the show notes for today's episode at terricole.com/821

In this video, we explore the differences between INTPs and ENTPs by analyzing how Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein approach math and physics. ☆Check out what I'm up to!☆Hi there! I'm Joyce, a certified MBTI® Master Practitioner, Enneagram Coach, Jungian Typology Expert, Master NLP Practitioner, and Gallup® CliftonStrengths Coach.WONDERING WHICH ONE OF THE 16 PERSONALITY TYPES YOU ARE?Book a session to get my take on your type. I'd love to help guide you on your type-discovery journey!Here is my scheduling link to arrange a time with me:https://calendly.com/joycemengcoachingI charge $85 for a typing session. Another colleague of mine certified by Personality Hacker will work alongside me and we will give you our independent assessments of you.Want to go deeper? For $97, you can purchase a typing session with 1 hour of additional coaching with me.Or maybe you know your personality type already and are seeking some type-based coaching? As a trained coach, I can help you apply type concepts to all areas of your life for lasting change. The coaching session rate is $75 per hour for a bundle of 3. :)By purchasing a session, you will help support the Type Talks channel and gain personalized mentorship and guidance from an experienced industry expert with over 12 years of experience.If you'd like to get in touch, you can email me at joycemeng22@gmail.comFor those of you who are interested, I am also launching a website and releasing a typology book next year! Here's a link to my coaching website if you'd like to learn more about me and the services I offer: https://www.joycemengcoaching.com/Connect with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JoyceMeng22Like the show? Buy me a coffee! (it means the world to me): https://ko-fi.com/joycemengShow your support by becoming a monthly patron! https://ko-fi.com/joycemeng/tiersWant to know when the next Type Talks video is premiering? Join our Discord community for the latest updates! (Inactive now, looking for moderators) https://discord.gg/ksHb7fmMcm#ENTP #INTP #16types #mbti #infj #richardfeynman #alberteinstein

# Episode #4_30 – Where Your Mind Is **Empowering Story Podcast** --- ## Show Notes In this profound episode, Nia and Jean invite listeners to explore the true nature of the mind and its role in healing from trauma. Drawing inspiration from Richard Feynman's sensory deprivation experiments, the conversation challenges the ingrained belief that the self is located "behind the eyes," revealing how neuroscience demonstrates this sense of location is an active construction of the brain, not a physical fact [00:01:08](/timestamps/68). Key themes include: - **The Constructed Sense of Self:** Discover how the mind creates the compelling illusion of being centralized, and how experiences in sensory deprivation reveal this as a brain-driven process [00:03:40](/timestamps/220). - **The Mind as a Process, Not a Place:** Understand the "homunculus fallacy"—the myth of a "little person" inside the mind—and the science behind distributed neural patterns [00:06:06](/timestamps/366). - **Trauma and the "Pattern" of Mind:** Learn why intellectual clarity about trauma doesn't always lead to emotional healing & see how coping strategies like emotional distance are vital adaptive responses [00:10:12](/timestamps/612). - **Gentle Reorganization and Safety:** Explore the TES (The Empowering Story) approach, using structured writing and "embedded awareness" to safely reorganize patterns of thought and feeling—without forcing breakthroughs or overwhelming survivors [00:15:02](/timestamps/902). - **The Extended Mind Hypothesis:** The mind doesn't end at the skull—writing, objects, and environment become part of mental processing, with concrete tips on changing your environment to support healing [00:19:01](/timestamps/1141). Throughout the episode, listeners are encouraged to notice their own reactions, embrace slow change, and respect the intelligent survival adaptations built into their minds [00:20:30](/timestamps/1230). **Notable Quote:**   "You are not broken. You are a system that adapted. You are not defective. You are a brilliant, dynamic system that adapted to survive the unimaginable." [00:18:30](/timestamps/1110) --- **Resources & References:** - Richard Feynman's sensory deprivation experiments - Homunculus fallacy & neuroscience of self-location - The Empowering Story (TES) methodology **Next episode:** More insights into the process of healing and self-exploration. --- *Thank you for joining the Empowering Story Podcast. Change begins with noticing—even for just a moment [00:20:54](/timestamps/1254).*

Nesse ep vamos descobrir porque o tempo está passando tão rápido. Porque o tempo tem velocidades diferentes em momentos diversos de nossas vidas. E como recuperar a nossa experiência de viver… prepare-se para um encontro incrível entre a física de Richard Feynman e a teoria psicanalítica de Jacques Lacan.

In today's episode, Dr. Killeen shares a simple learning strategy inspired by Richard Feynman that can level up your clinical skills, leadership, and systems. The idea is straightforward. If you really want to understand something, try explaining it in plain language like you are teaching a sixth grader. By choosing a concept, simplifying it, identifying gaps, and refining your explanation, you quickly uncover what you truly know and where you need to grow. Real learning happens when you can explain it clearly and simply.

How do you run an offsite that actually changes performance — not just conversations? In this episode, Travis Timmons and Kelly Allan share with Andrew Stotz what happened during the Fitness Matters off-site. They discuss how a Deming-inspired approach helped their team tackle a critical business aim, align around system improvement, and turn employee engagement into measurable competitive advantage. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Travis Timmons, who is the founder and owner of Fitness Matters, an Ohio based practice specializing in the integration of physical therapy and personalized wellness. For 13 years, he's built his business on Dr. Deming's teaching. His hope is simple. The more companies that bring joy to work through Deming's principles, the more likely his kids will one day work at one of those companies. And we also have a special guest, Kelly Allan, who is a long term practitioner of the teachings of Dr. Deming. And he's also been instrumental in bringing the teachings of Dr. Deming to Travis and Fitness Matters, and particularly to this offsite. So the topic for today is how a Deming style offsite can strengthen your company's competitive advantage. Travis, take it away.   0:01:01.4 Travis Timmons: Hey Andrew, thanks again for having us and super excited to share with Kelly and your audience how our offsite went a couple of weeks ago. The short answer, kind of the upfront, is it was amazing. We had fun, number one, which is always important, but engagement from the team was through the roof. For four and a half hours straight. We worked on the work together and had Kelly there to make sure we were appropriately following Dr. Deming's teachings. Had Kelly there to facilitate and a couple of fun things we did. One was the red bead experiment, which I'm sure we'll talk about as we go through the conversation here. The short answer is I know in the last podcast we talked about the preparation that Kelly worked with myself and our leadership team on in preparing for a Deming focused and led offsite. We did that and it was just amazing. What were your thoughts, Kelly?   0:02:06.4 Andrew Stotz: I'm curious, Kelly, as an outsider helping them, observing, what are your observations of how it went?   0:02:14.2 Kelly Allan: I think there was just incredible energy and interest in figuring out some of the challenges ahead for the company. People came in well prepared and it showed. The interactions in the breakout groups, interactions in the full groups. Often when you're in a full group of 60, 70 people, folks are often, especially new folks, and the company's been growing and adding new people, new folks are often somewhat hesitant to speak up. But the culture of the people in that room, the culture of the organization is bring it on, let's have a conversation, let's hear what people have to say. Let's share theories, let's get down and debate and wrestle with some of these things that are not easy. There's no low hanging fruit here. It's complex stuff in a complex and highly competitive industry.   0:03:28.9 Travis Timmons: Some of the feedback we received, I think I shared last time, Andrew. As Kelly said, we've hired several new team members and they've all shared with me just a breath of fresh air from where they came from before. The power of this offsite with it being focused on some of the core teachings of Dr. Deming allowed them to see how is this different? They know they like it, they know the culture is different. They know they can provide care the way they want to. They know they can have a voice, have an impact on the system. But they didn't really know why they just liked it. Having a Deming focused offsite to explain a little bit, you can't fully explain Dr. Deming in four and a half hours, but we covered quite a bit. Make the system visible, operational definitions. What are a couple other ones with the red bead, Kelly? We did some tampering.   0:04:28.8 Kelly Allan: Making sure that we're not being confused by visible numbers alone. That what's important is how we work on the system so that we're not doing special efforts all the time to get great results. It's built into how we do things.   0:04:43.8 Travis Timmons: To Kelly's point, part of why our team, for four and a half hours we had over 50 people all in, sharing thoughts without hesitation because one of the things we talk about in the very beginning of the meeting, one of Dr. Deming's core philosophies, if that's the right way to put it, Kelly, correct me if I'm off base here, but 96% of issues within an organization are system issues, not people issues. When you put that out there, we're here to talk about the system and improve it and make it visible. We're talking about problems with systems and processes, not people. Then the gloves are off and let's dive in and we're gonna say whatever's on our mind and there's no drama, there's no feeling of any backstabbing or throwing under the bus. We just get to work on making the system work better for everybody. That's where it's fun and fast.   0:05:41.9 Andrew Stotz: What I'm hearing is that Dr. Deming, my favorite quote is "people are entitled to joy in work." And part of the key to joy in work is contributing. People want to contribute in life. I love that word because I think everybody wants to feel like they're contributing to a mission, to an aim, to a goal, to a team. And one of the biggest problems we have these days is siloing off people and getting them focused on this little area and missing the whole bigger picture. And so to some extent, you've proven through what you've done that people really do want to contribute. Throughout this discussion, what we're gonna be talking about is this concept of Deming style offsite. And I'm gonna push back at times to try to make sure that we're clear on what's a Deming style offsite. Because it's not to say that Dr. Deming said this is how you do an offsite. But what we're talking about is your interpretations of how do we apply this thinking to this particular meeting style and offsite and ensure that we're true to that.   0:06:56.6 Andrew Stotz: One of the first questions I would discuss is just the idea that maybe you just had a really open, caring environment. And so is that Deming or was that just that? Or maybe you did a lot of prep. You guys have done a tremendous amount of prep. That's what I was impressed about in our prior discussions. Maybe you prepped, maybe you focused on the one thing. Those types of things is what could go through people's minds. Why is it that you're calling this a Deming styled offsite?   0:07:34.9 Kelly Allan: Well, I think in part it starts with Deming's teachings and continued Deming's teachings. I think it might be useful to start with the aim, to have Travis talk about the time that he spent researching and thinking and what's going on in the industry. And even though we can talk later about their industry leading statistics and data and recognition etc, it's off the charts. It starts with the aim. And Dr. Deming said let's be focused on the aim. And so there are a couple, Travis, you wanna just talk about the content aim and then we can talk about even a more cultural Deming cultural aim.   0:08:21.1 Travis Timmons: That was one of my early learnings years ago, Andrew, was the difference of an aim versus a goal. And so from the perspective of this offsite through the Dr. Deming lens, our aim as an organization is to maintain one to one care because we believe that results in optimal outcomes. And it's very rare in our industry to have one to one care. Part of how we do that is we have to be industry leading in everything we do. And the thing that we are industry leading in, but I feel it was the one thing that we could improve upon was our arrival rate. Patients get better if they show up, team members are happy, they don't want holes on their schedules. Referring physicians are happy. Everybody wins. So that aim of a higher arrival rate was our aim of this offsite and conversation.   0:09:17.6 Andrew Stotz: Can you back up just for a second and define arrival rate for those that didn't listen to prior discussions on it?   0:09:23.9 Travis Timmons: Sure. Arrival rate is a visit we have on the calendar. Do they show up or do they cancel? And part of what we worked on and a little bit of an aside here is operational definition of what's a cancellation on our schedule to make sure we're measuring what we want to measure. A funny aside, competitors, we hired several new team members came from other organizations and they tout an arrival rate that is high, like 92% arrival rate. Right.   0:09:55.9 Travis Timmons: And I asked them in the meeting and Kelly will remember this, I said, I know your institutions claim a 90 plus percent arrival rate. Did you have a 92% arrival rate? And they said, absolutely not. But they had people on their team, for example, the front desk might have been bonused based on arrival rate. So how they would take visits off of the calendar would not negatively impact arrival rate. So we talked a lot about operational definition and our aim is to study what we want to study, not to tamper or. Kelly, you share your favorite saying. There's only three ways to get better numbers, and those are   0:10:39.6 Kelly Allan: Manipulate the numbers which you were referring to from another company. Manipulate the system that gives you the numbers. So that also kind of fits with, well, we're not gonna call that a late arrival or a late cancel or a non arrival. We're gonna call that something else so we can manipulate the numbers. And then the third way, which was Deming's way, which is how do we figure out how to improve the system so that late arrivals go down. So that they're a natural part of what we do when people show up, the patients show up when they need to.   0:11:14.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah. And I think that's one of the things to your point earlier, Andrew, is was it just a happy go lucky meeting because Travis and Kelly have great personalities. Well, we know that's not true.   0:11:26.9 Kelly Allan: Speak for yourself.   0:11:29.3 Travis Timmons: But no, I think anymore people know when they're working on something meaningful that's gonna have an impact on their lives or where you're just there to drink coffee and have snacks. People don't suffer fools, right? They want to be there. To have a team of 50 plus people leaning in for almost five hours doesn't happen just because it's a fun environment. To your point, it's the right question to ask. I appreciate you asking that. It comes down to they understand that we're a Deming organization. They understand that what we're talking about is gonna be implemented in a Deming way. We'll talk about that more as we go on, but that, to Kelly's point, was starting with the aim. Our aim is improving arrival rate. How do we do that? That's where the Deming offsite comes into play. Kelly and I and our leadership team worked on, okay, how do we best convey this problem and this aim to our entire team rather than just five or six leadership people working with Kelly and just coming up with our own ideas and then spitting it out to the team at a monthly meeting?   0:12:47.8 Travis Timmons: The power of them owning and seeing the problem and then working on system improvement is the power of that is unmeasurable, as Dr. Deming would say.   0:13:03.1 Kelly Allan: Yeah. I think we talked about the aim to be able to continue to do the one-on-one care with patients because most companies are doing two patients, one physical therapist, three patients. Locally here in Columbus, Ohio, where Travis and I are at, we sometimes hear about classes of five patients with one physical therapist. Physicians and insurance companies, these people are not getting better. Right? These people are... Or if they get discharged, 'cause that's a way to get a better number. "Oh, we got them out." But they come back because they're not really healed. They don't really know how to take care of themselves the way they do when they come out of Fitness Matters. One of those overarching aims has to do with building the culture even further so everybody understands the why behind the what. We could say the what is how do we increase those arrival rates, and then the meeting was about the how we're gonna figure that out, how to do that. But the overarching piece had to do with the why. Why does this matter?   0:14:16.9 Kelly Allan: How do we see...If we see the organization as a system and we use a fishbone chart as a way to visualize some of that, everybody can see handoffs. Everybody can see how different parts of the system, of that patient journey, that patient story, intersect and how what happens upstream affects downstream and how the feedback loop from the discharge point of a physical therapist discharging the patient, how that can wrap back into the understanding of the customer care coordinators and how they can work with that at the very beginning of that relationship with the patient. It's all a part of a system, all a part of continuous flow. We wanted to make sure that everybody, especially the new people, really had a visual, a view of the organization as a system and how they interact. Part of those weeks of planning, it wasn't every day all day long. You start with some ideas, you refine them, you get some research, you refine them, you refine further. Travis spent a lot of time on that. Part of that value is time for reflection, time to have the others on the leadership team weigh in, give their points of view so that we're really seeing this from a fishbone perspective as well.   0:15:44.5 Kelly Allan: So now we can go into that meeting with everybody, and their homework was in part the fishbone with some instructions on how to do that and some examples of how to do that. And that was pre-work. So people came into the meeting already successful. They had already figured some things out. This just gave launch, just gave liftoff to the energy. They'd done this work, to your point, Andrew, they're making a difference, and it just fed on itself. The output was stunning.   0:16:21.0 Andrew Stotz: Travis, I'm gonna write your company aim as I heard it from you, and that is, or from both of you, is maintain one-to-one care. It's best, it's rare, it works. And the off-site aim was different from the company aim. It was the number one thing that we can do to improve that company aim is improve our arrival rates. Correct?   0:16:51.4 Travis Timmons: 100% correct. And you talk, I think you used the term silos earlier, Andrew. Part of the aha moments and making the system visible and working on this and building culture and teamwork, when everybody sees the complexity within your organization and understands that, there's a lot more willingness to support, like, "Hey, we need to change this process at the front desk," even though it may not be optimal for the physical therapist, as long as it achieves our overarching aim and improves joy in work for the front or less friction for a client coming in. Now the team starts to see and understand, all right, that's a system win rather than silos or turf wars. The amount of energy that is spent on that in organizations is... I couldn't do it.   0:17:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Another thing I think that would be difficult for many people with an off-site is you just had one aim. If we were doing prep in the companies that I know and I own and others, we're gonna list out 17 things we want to talk about in that four-and-a-half-hour off-site. From your perspective, why is it so important to get this one focus, one aim? And then I want you also to tell us more about how it went. We've set it up now, so just one last thing on the setup is this idea of focusing on one thing when you've got 17 different problems in our company and we got everybody together and you're telling me just one thing.   0:18:40.5 Travis Timmons: Well, and Kelly can chime in here because he was instrumental in getting us from pre-work to meeting day. But part of it, that's why it's two-and-a-half, three months of work leading up to this. We had the aim of arrival rate. All right, what are we gonna do? A lot of different ways we could have tackled that. We landed on fishbone and making the entire system visible. And that turned out to be the right move. I think Kelly can correct me if I'm wrong.   0:19:15.0 Kelly Allan: I would agree.   0:19:16.0 Travis Timmons: So we started with the aim and it's like, okay, how do we get 50 people to work on this together? Dr. Deming says make the system visible. And so we chose to do that via a couple different breakouts of a fishbone. And to your point, Andrew, when we did that, now there's understanding of complexity and then where are the biggest opportunities? Because we have seven things we're working on to achieve that aim. There's gonna be three or four large PDSAs. We're doing a software upgrade, which in and of itself... And a funny aside, so our organization's been doing the Deming approach for 13 years. Right, Kelly? We announced that we're changing softwares at this meeting. Right.   0:20:13.7 Travis Timmons: Everybody was like, "Okay, let's do it."   0:20:17.4 Kelly Allan: Unheard of. I see a lot of companies, that's usually panic time.   0:20:23.5 Travis Timmons: And it was announced at the beginning of the meeting. Any questions? "Nope, sounds like the right move for our aim."   0:20:32.3 Kelly Allan: Well, Travis, you provided the why behind the what. The what was that we have to change the software. You provided the rationale from all points of view, including from internal people who deal with the software to making it even less friction for customers and for physicians and for insurance companies, etc. People understood the why behind that what, and now they're ready to work on the how.   0:21:06.4 Travis Timmons: And I would even argue, because I agree with that, and because we've done Dr. Deming and have had success and accomplished so many things that people don't believe we've been able to accomplish as an independent organization, having lenses to look through and "by what method?" That's one of my favorite Kelly Allan-isms. By what method?   0:21:33.5 Kelly Allan: That's a quote from Dr. Deming.   0:21:36.0 Travis Timmons: Oh, okay. We're good.   0:21:38.9 Andrew Stotz: We stand on the shoulders of giants.   0:21:41.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah. There's a high level of trust in our organization that we can implement change. I think that...   0:21:51.3 Kelly Allan: I agree.   0:21:51.8 Travis Timmons: I don't want to undersell that in terms of how powerful that is that I announce we're changing our entire operating software in a few months and the entire team was... And we told them why, to Kelly's point. But to make that announcement and then just have everybody say, "Okay. Cool." I think that's crazy to me. I believe it because of everything else I've seen happen over 13 years. But to have a way, by what method, using Dr. Deming's principles, PDSAs, operational definitions, system view, we're gonna diagram it. Everybody left there confident that, "All right, we can do this and we're gonna do it." Anyway, what would you add to that, Kelly?   0:22:40.9 Kelly Allan: Yeah. I would say that fulfilling the promises that have been made at previous offsites just builds the credibility that this leadership team gets it, understands it, and is interested in engaging people and making things happen and getting things done in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people, it doesn't beat up on people, it doesn't cause harm, but people work together because they wanna figure it out. It's fun to figure it out. Yeah.   0:23:17.5 Kelly Allan: It can be at times a little too much fun, a little too exhausting to figure it out. But we're born wanting to make a difference and people can come to work there and know that they have a voice, they're heard.   0:23:33.1 Travis Timmons: And I think that's our superpower that I've learned from Dr. Deming is if I'm the only one figuring stuff out, we're in trouble. We're in trouble. So the team knows that we're gonna bring stuff, we're gonna talk about it, and we're gonna solve problems collectively through the Dr. Deming philosophy. That's something that just popped in my brain, Andrew, because it was such a non-event. But in most instances, that would have been the entire meeting would have been about that, the side conversations, people coming up to me...   0:24:15.0 Kelly Allan: And Travis, there would have been a lot of discussions at a non-Deming company about, "How do we get buy-in?"   0:24:22.4 Travis Timmons: Right.   0:24:22.8 Kelly Allan: "How do we manipulate people into saying this is okay?" We didn't have any...We didn't spend a minute on that.   0:24:30.5 Travis Timmons: Not one person asked me about the software the entire evening at dinner. It was just like, "We're gonna do it." It just struck me because it was a non-event in the meeting, but I think that would have been rare had we not had our history of Dr. Deming's approach and how we presented it in the meeting.   0:24:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Kelly, you said something that made me think of a book that I read in the past by Richard Feynman called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Great scientist. You talked about contribution and the desire for contribution and you talked about how people were figuring things out. And that's fun, that's exciting. That's what people want to get out of their management team and out of their employees. In some ways, I feel like you're talking about recess, a playground. Put all that stuff aside, let's go out and let's build this thing. All the joy that we did have when we were young. Think about, "Let's make a sandcastle! Yeah, you do that, I'll do this." That excitement...   0:25:45.0 Kelly Allan: That's what it was in the room that day. Different breakout groups working on different parts of the fishbone and then bringing them together and debriefing around it. It was very exciting. The energy was high. Andrew, you mentioned something, I think in part you were channeling Dr. Deming there because he also pointed out about how we're born wanting to make a difference, to make a contribution. Then we go to school and that gets beaten out of us with grades and command-and-control teaching, et cetera, et cetera. But to your earlier question about what makes this unique, special in regard to Deming, Travis mentioned the complexity. And so we go right back to the core of Deming: understanding variation and special cause, common cause, the important few things versus the trivial many, and how do you sort through those? That makes it very Deming. It makes it very Deming. The other thing that you won't see, and I've been in a lot of them through the years, in most offsites is those conversations about the why. It's usually, "Competitor's doing this," or, "We gotta make more money," or whatever.   0:27:01.0 Kelly Allan: No, the why for Fitness Matters is to achieve those aims. Right.   0:27:07.1 Andrew Stotz: Some of the things that you mentioned: have an aim, what makes this a Deming style, have an aim, think system, not individual focus, understand variation and how that can help you think system, not individual focus. You talked about pre-work, taking it seriously, and I would say that kind of responsibility for your employees and the environment. I was blown away with the amount of pre-work that we talked about previously. You talked about some tools like fishbone as an example. You've talked about the why. Travis, why don't you give us a very high level... We arrived at this time, this was then, we did this first, then we did that, then that. So we can just understand the structure of this meeting a little bit.   0:27:59.5 Travis Timmons: Sure. We've been big on operational definitions. So the operational definition of start time is Travis will start talking at 12:30 to start the meeting. Learned that one over the years. And I...   0:28:18.2 Travis Timmons: It was at a new location, so we had a couple people go to the wrong place. We put the map inside of the homework, swim upstream, try to make this as easy as possible. But to answer your question, we had an operational definition of the meeting starts at 12:30, and that means the meeting begins at 12:30. Operational definition, we had name tags. From an efficiency standpoint, we had six tables when we were going to do breakouts. People picked up their name tags, it had number one through six on it, so they know what table they would be going to at breakouts. We did a quick intro of every team member and what location they work at because we have had a lot of growth. Put names with faces, introduced Kelly so that everybody knew who he was. There's probably 11 people that didn't know who he was in person introduction and how that was going to be diving more into Dr. Deming. I made it very clear up front that this meeting, we're going to celebrate wins from 2025, but I made it very clear we're going to go through those quickly, not because they weren't huge wins, but because we had a lot of work to do to make sure we stay on that growth and excellence trajectory.   0:29:38.2 Travis Timmons: So we went through all of our wins for 2025. We reviewed our BHAGs, and then we got into the aim. In 30 minutes, we introduced everybody, we went over our wins for 2025, we reviewed our BHAGs, one of which is to be the best, leverage technology better than any physical therapy practice in the country was one of our BHAGs. Then I dovetailed that into, and we're switching softwares in a few months. Any questions? No. We go right into, here's what we're going to be working on today, referenced they're going to be using their homework, so they brought their homework booklets with them. We had PowerPoint slides so they knew what the directions were for the first breakout group. Kelly and I got there early and some of the leadership team got there early. We had the table set. We had the, I call it newsprint, up on tripods ready to go. You want to be prepared. They hit their tables because of the name tag. We had leaders assigned for each table.   0:30:50.1 Kelly Allan: And they were trained in advance. Yeah. Facilitators. Yeah.   0:30:53.5 Travis Timmons: We had leadership.   0:30:54.7 Andrew Stotz: So there was an intro period and then you said, "This is our aim and now go to your tables," or how did that... What were you telling them to do at the tables?   0:31:06.0 Travis Timmons: We told them the aim, reviewed the aim. To your point earlier, Andrew, overarching aim is maintaining our one-to-one care model.   0:31:14.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:31:14.7 Travis Timmons: Our aim of the meeting is how do we improve our arrival rate as an organization to greater than 85%? One of the ways we're going to accomplish that is making the entire system visible. We're going to go to our tables and we're going to work on... We had the fishbones drawn at each table, but we wanted them to fill in the fishbone as groups from their homework because everybody brought different ideas to the table. We wanted some conversation around that.   0:31:44.2 Andrew Stotz: That was a general fishbone. I think I remember later you talked about then breaking it down into separate fishbones, but that was just a general one to review what they'd done.   0:31:54.8 Travis Timmons: General one, work on the work together. To Kelly's point earlier, just the energy around working on ideas or, "Hey, I hadn't thought about that," or, "I didn't even know we did that in our system." Right.   0:32:07.0 Travis Timmons: Just understanding the complexity and really just getting the juices flowing on, here's what we're going to be working on because the next layer is going to be diving deeper into each one of those.   0:32:18.5 Andrew Stotz: How long was that period of going through the first fishbone and looking at their homework, discussing it together? How long did that last?   0:32:27.7 Travis Timmons: That one was a half hour because they'd already done the pre-work, so we assumed most of it was already going to be done. It was just kind of...   0:32:38.4 Andrew Stotz: Did you have them present any of that or that's just, "Go through that and that'll prep you for the next thing"?   0:32:46.0 Travis Timmons: We had them spend 25 minutes on that and then we saved room for five minutes for them to have kind of sharings or learnings or ahas. What did this experience teach you? Do you have anything to share?   0:33:01.9 Andrew Stotz: They're doing that within their group or they're doing that...   0:33:05.1 Travis Timmons: We went table by table and had them share with the entire team. Table by table, we had the team lead or anybody at the table, "Hey, what'd you think? What'd you learn?"   0:33:14.3 Andrew Stotz: Someone may say, "I didn't even realize that this impacts that and I just realized that now after seeing it." Okay.   0:33:24.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah. What are some of the things you heard, Kelly? I heard, "Oh, this is complex."   0:33:29.8 Kelly Allan: I also heard things like, "Well, I know how to handle this, but I need to define a process so that if I'm out, someone else can do it." Right? It's those kinds of little aha moments. Others were just, "Oh, is there a way for us to systematize that even further?" Again, it was that thinking about the system coming out in their comments. I think another part of the appreciation was really recognizing that a lot of people have to win. Deming talked about win-win being very stable and win-lose is not. They wanted to make sure the patients and the clients win, the physicians win, that the insurance companies are getting what they need, that the PTs and the Pilates people and the MAT people, etc., and the customer care coordinators are also having joy in their work. Because when you have a joyful staff, customers, clients really appreciate that. They just know there's something different. There's something different.   0:34:42.0 Andrew Stotz: And one question is, did you have any drift at that point where people started talking about other things that were unrelated but were key problems they're facing, or was setting your aim and doing the pre-work really kept them on track?   0:34:56.8 Kelly Allan: Great question. Yeah.   0:34:58.5 Travis Timmons: They were focused. They were focused the entire meeting. One of the things I learned it from Kelly or Ray, or maybe you taught Ray, I don't know, but we have a piece of paper we put up at every off-site, Andrew, we call it the parking lot. So that if somebody does have an idea that's outside of what we're there to tackle, we just have them go up and write it down so that they're heard, and it could be important, for sure, but we're not working on that today. We gotta stay laser-focused on what we're here for. So we have a parking lot, which has been super powerful, but nobody went to the parking lot the first half of the day at all.   0:35:39.2 Andrew Stotz: That's good. That's better than the woodshed. Excellent.   0:35:43.5 Travis Timmons: Speaking of the woodshed, this is one of my... I think this is one of the critical learnings, one of the many critical learnings I've had with Dr. Deming and the approach to leadership's responsibility. For me as the owner, at the end of the day, the buck stops with me, is to create joy in work, to create engaged teams where they can do fulfilling work. So you talked about the woodshed. It reminds me another one of my favorite quotes. A lot of owners or leaders talk about, "We have a lot of dead wood around here. Have a lot of dead wood on our team." The first Deming off-site I went to, Kelly said, "Well, there's only two ways that could have happened. Either one, you hired dead wood, and if you did, that's on you with your hiring process. Or number two, you hired live wood and you killed it. Either way, it's on the owner and leadership."   0:36:52.4 Kelly Allan: And I stole that from Peter Scholtes.   0:36:55.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay, got it.   0:36:57.0 Travis Timmons: But that struck me in terms of, okay, responsibility's on Travis to ensure we don't have that. Can't point fingers anywhere else. It's not people coming in with bad attitudes. So anyway.   0:37:15.8 Andrew Stotz: Okay, excellent. So now you've had the general fishbone discussion, you've had people present what were their key learnings from it. What happened next?   0:37:26.6 Travis Timmons: Just some quick aha's, anything from the homework, stuff like that. And then from there we did a couple-minute break and then we went right into the...   0:37:37.9 Andrew Stotz: It sounds like a HIIT, like a high-intensity interval training here. We did a couple-minute break.   0:37:44.6 Travis Timmons: We had work to do, man. People were there to get work done and get on to dinner. We had snacks and water in there they could grab real quick. Restrooms were close. And then agenda, we've gotta stay... And the team understands we have to do what we're doing, we have to be excellent in all categories. So the next thing we did, we came back together as a team, the entire team, and Kelly did the red bead experiment in preparation for the next breakout. Super powerful. For those that have seen the red bead experiment and how Dr. Deming used that to show how the willing worker shows up wanting to get all white beads, right? And the white bead, it's the white bead company, but there's red beads intermixed. No matter how hard they try, or Kelly offered a hundred-dollar bonus to somebody if they would just only bring out white beads the next time they put their paddle in, and it just had that visceral, in-the-moment realization that people show up wanting to do a good job. And issues, so the red beads were what we called cancellations impacting our arrival rate. Therapists want their patients to show up. Front desk wants, the client care coordinators want their patients to show up. Physicians want their patients to show up. So what do we need to do? It can't be bonus them if they show up or just try harder. What's not working? So that was a great...   0:39:23.4 Andrew Stotz: Why don't we go to that for a second. We're gonna have Kelly, maybe you can tell us a little bit about what you observed from that, and then we'll continue on with the rest of the structure.   0:39:36.2 Kelly Allan: Well, the way we set up the red bead experiment was very much focused on the real challenges and real issues that everybody at Fitness Matters faces in terms of this topic of increasing the arrival rate and how complex that is. I think the red bead experiment demonstrates for not only the people who are the willing workers and the people who are the inspectors and the person who is the scribe who keeps the spreadsheet, they realize that the numbers alone are not telling us what's going on. They realize that unless there's a system improvement, process improvement, and people working together to make those happen, you can bribe people, you can incent people, you can threaten people, you can send them home, you can give them a performance appraisal, you can do every kind of command-and-control management, but you haven't improved the system in which people work. There's still red beads. There's still red beads. We have to reduce the friction, we have to change the paddle. We have to figure out how it is we can help make it possible and easier for clients to want to show up so that they can get healthy and so that they can really appreciate what happens when they don't show up, how they are a part of the system. Once they become a patient, they're a part of the system of Fitness Matters.   0:41:18.3 Andrew Stotz: I'm just curious if there was also anything different. You've done the red bead experiment a lot of times with a lot of different types of companies. Were there any observations you had of the way they interpreted that that was either the same or different? What were some of your observations there?   0:41:37.7 Kelly Allan: Well, we planned it so that Travis and his leadership team could really do more of the debriefing so that they would have the context for the people in the audience as well as for the people on the stage, versus just a more generic, which is still powerful, to talk about how the system's in control and is this a common cause system or a special cause, what's really going on. Travis and his folks were able to then bring that context to the red beads, which I think made it especially powerful for this audience, for this group.   0:42:16.2 Andrew Stotz: Excellent. Travis, why don't you continue?   0:42:22.0 Travis Timmons: As Kelly shared, the leadership team debriefed after the red beads of the learnings and how that might be. The red beads were the cancellations that we currently have. Then we introduced, "Okay, now what we're gonna do is go do a deeper dive into the fishbones." There's five primary parts of our system, five bones. Each bone we're now gonna break out and work on the granular details. We did a fishbone for each of the larger bones.   0:43:01.8 Kelly Allan: Why don't you give a couple examples of the bones if you have it handy?   0:43:07.3 Travis Timmons: First bone is what we call initial contact. The first time a client has an interaction with Fitness Matters. Could be website, could be a physician referral, could be a neighbor talking to them, could be driving by. Initial contact, that's bone number one. How does that entire process work at Fitness Matters? Where's the friction point? Are there people that we don't even get into our door efficiently? They're not coming in set up for success, for example. Next bone would be setting them up for the evaluation. Third bone is evaluation day. Fourth bone is every subsequent visit up until discharge. And the fifth and final bone is discharge to ongoing wellness and how do we continue to stay connected? Those are the five bones as you flow through as a client at Fitness Matters, and the five major gates, if you will, is how we looked at it.   0:44:07.8 Kelly Allan: Every one of those is filled with complexity. There are a lot of little details to reduce the friction for the clients and for the system, for the patients in the system. I think that was an aha moment for people as well because a lot of them are in the quadrant four of unconscious competence. They've been doing this job well for a long time and they tend to forget the complexity. We have to identify the complexity so we can work on it and make it less complex, more streamlined, and so new people coming in can appreciate why Fitness Matters makes informed, thoughtful decisions about how they do things. It didn't just happen. These have been thoughtful things that have been worked on for years, but they can still be improved further and we can document them and make them more visible. When people saw all those little bones coming off the main bones, it's like, "Wow, there's a lot of little things that happen and we can impact almost all of those."   0:45:18.1 Travis Timmons: In some of the work we've already done on the bones to already have industry-leading arrival rate, but I think we can do better. We're one of the few, maybe one of the few medical appointments people have in their lives, not just physical therapy, but in general, that you go to do a medical appointment, do you know what it's gonna cost you out of pocket before you show up? Generally, you don't. We've swam upstream to make that visible to clients, so they already are coming in knowing what the cost is gonna be and are we providing that value? Just an example of, okay, can we swim further upstream with that and make it easier to pay and make it visible on their insurance deductible and all of that?   0:46:05.9 Kelly Allan: Well, and also, Travis, I think... I was just gonna say in terms of how many times have people been to a doctor's office, they've had to fill out a whole bunch of forms either online or in the office and then nobody ever looks at it. Something that Fitness Matters has been a leader on for a long time, which is how many of these questions are really required? How are we really gonna use that information? Let's not have seven pages. Can we get it down to four? Can we get it down to three? And increase... Because remember Deming's teachings are quality goes up as costs go down. Quality goes up as we have to commit less time. Quality goes up as joy in work goes up. Right? So that's that Deming structure of, no, quality does not have to cost more. In fact, Deming said if you're doing it this way, quality will cost less. And that's in part how Fitness Matters can compete against these big, big companies and win. I think, Travis, you've gotta share some of the statistics about what makes Fitness Matters an industry leader. What kinds of things are measured that you and others look at in the industry?   0:47:17.8 Travis Timmons: One of the big things in the physical therapy industry, Andrew, is what they call outcomes. They're measurable questionnaire by body part that you have a patient fill out at evaluation day and at discharge day, and it gives you a percentage of... In our industry, they call it functional ability. Are you 100% able with your shoulder or do you have a 60% disability with your shoulder? For example, across all body parts, we're 30 to 40% above national average on our outcomes. Not even close. Because of the efficiency, our patients show up. Again, the one-to-one care model is why it's our true north, and everything we do has to support that because of those industry-leading outcomes. Our no-show rate is one of the other things we define. Again, something we're working to improve upon, but we're already nation-leading. Our definition of a no-show is 24 hours notice up into a no-show. Most companies in our industry only call it a no-show if the patient just doesn't show up. With our definition of 24 hours notice or less, we're at 4% to 5%. National average of true no-shows, just not showing up, is 15%.   0:48:45.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I can imagine even probably higher than that, but 15, yeah.   0:48:49.7 Travis Timmons: 15 to 20% depending on the research. Just two examples there. The Deming approach to system thinking, team engagement, getting rid of silos, operational definitions. To Kelly's point, we worked years ago on that initial client intake. I used an example several years ago around the time we were working on that project. My one son, got him an Apple iPad for Christmas. Other son got an Xbox 360. One product we got out of the box and turned it on, it was fully charged and ready to go in about 37 seconds. The other product took all kinds of unpacking, had to plug it in, and as soon as it came up, it said software upgrade required, and it proceeded to spend the entire day of Christmas downloading the update. We just use that as an example of how hard is this? We want that same experience for our clients. How do we make it an unbelievable healthcare experience for our clients?   0:50:10.1 Kelly Allan: Well, and Travis is being way too modest here, so I have to jump in. I don't know if I have the numbers exactly right, but Travis will correct me. Let's say you have an injury or you're recovering from surgery or whatever it happens to be, and the industry average is it's going to take 17 visits with a physical therapist for you to be at some level of functionality. At Fitness Matters, it might be 13 visits. Travis, is that too high?   0:50:42.3 Travis Timmons: 10.   0:50:43.1 Kelly Allan: 10 visits. 10 visits. So cut it in half. They're getting better in half the time. That's Deming.   0:50:52.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah.   0:50:53.3 Kelly Allan: Quality goes up, costs go down. Which is why Travis then can... Insurance companies also love them, right? It's like, wow, these people are getting better and they don't circle back just because they were... Operational definition is they're well. Discharged by somebody else, oh yeah, they had their 17, 18 visits, 19 visits, they're well. No, they're not. They come back or they go somewhere else and they're claiming insurance again. Fitness Matters, they learn how to stay well.   0:51:22.4 Travis Timmons: And that brings in another important thing that we've learned over the years, Andrew, with the Deming approach. Our data is industry leading, and we've worked hard at that. And we've got a great team that works within the construct that we've created through Deming. To get back to the unknown or unknowable quote that Dr. Deming would use, our marketing costs are low because patients go back to their physicians and say, "Hey, this is the best PT experience I've ever had." And after they hear that four or five times with us and they get complaints when they send them elsewhere, all of a sudden we start getting referrals from these doctors we've not even heard of before.   0:52:07.6 Kelly Allan: Yeah. Yep.   0:52:08.9 Travis Timmons: How do you measure that? What amount of marketing dollars would have to be spent to get in front of... Like, we doubled the number of physicians that referred to us in the last year.   0:52:23.6 Kelly Allan: Yes. That's a double, Andrew. Unheard of.   0:52:27.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:52:28.1 Kelly Allan: Unheard of.   0:52:28.5 Andrew Stotz: Incredible. So you got amazing outcomes. Let's now wrap up about where did you get to at the end of this? What did you personally and the management team end up with?   0:52:45.9 Travis Timmons: So we had some do-outs. Our closing PowerPoint slide was within two weeks we would report back with one to two updated operational definitions and probably three PDSAs that we were going to tackle. That was kind of our promise back to the team, that we would look at all the work. We have paper everywhere. People got to vote. We had a one-page paper on potential PDSAs, and we gave them little stickers to vote on where they think we should put our time and energy and resources. Our takeaway, our product, if you will, three PDSAs. One that has two under it is the new software. We're gonna start doing online scheduling, automated waitlists. I won't get into all the details, but PDSA one has software change. PDSA two, there was a lot of feedback on, "Hey, it would be great if we had kind of a scripted conversation point for the client care coordinators for these four scenarios: first phone call, first in-visit, how we take payment and make their benefits visible to them, how do we take a phone call and handle a cancellation when they do happen to ensure that it's a positive experience."   0:54:12.4 Travis Timmons: And then how do we handle kind of a no-show? Another PDSA is we're gonna have those client care coordinators create their first version of what they think the best script would be, 'cause they're the ones that do it all day. Why would I try to come up with that? And then have them send it to us and do some feedback there. Then we updated our operational definition of canceled visits so that there was clarity across the system to make sure we're measuring what we want to measure, which is how many people show up to their visits each day. We reported that back to the team last Friday, actually, to make sure we hit the deadline we promised to them. And then we let them know we're also gonna be working on kind of a third or fourth PDSA—I kind of lost track there of how we're counting it under the software—but training the entire team on what does it mean to have client engagement and what is our operational definition of client connection and client engagement. So they know we're gonna be doing that on a location-by-location basis at the March monthly meeting.   0:55:26.4 Travis Timmons: That was our takeaway. A lot of product to come away with, and they're gonna have all of the context from the team off-site to understand what we're getting ready to tackle, especially with the software change.   0:55:40.1 Andrew Stotz: My first reaction to that is, oh, those seem like kind of things that you could have figured out some other way, or there's not that many things, or there wasn't some stunning breakthrough. Explain why you're happy with what you got versus you prepared, you did a lot of work, you got those things. Some of it may be that, hey, we need to go through a process. I may have known some of those conclusions, but if we don't have a process of going through that, first we have the risk of maybe I'm wrong in what I think. And the second thing we have is that we have the risk that it's just a business run by dictate rather than getting real buy-in. I'm just curious if you could explain a little bit about that.   0:56:30.7 Kelly Allan: You said the bad word. You said the B-word.   0:56:34.5 Andrew Stotz: Buy-in.   0:56:35.4 Travis Timmons: Understanding, Andrew. Not buy-in.   0:56:38.4 Andrew Stotz: We're looking for buy-in. No. Okay.   0:56:40.8 Kelly Allan: We change it. How do we get... The conversation changes when you say, "How do we get understanding?" Now it's about the why behind the what that leads to the how, versus buy-in, which means, "How are we gonna sell this to somebody?" Sorry, Travis, I couldn't resist.   0:57:02.8 Travis Timmons: No, it's 100% true. And to answer your question, Andrew, my first answer and probably the most powerful answer we already talked about earlier, but it's very important to reiterate and maybe close with, is because of our approach and the time and investment we spent preparing for the meeting, doing the meeting, the fact that there was zero concern or stress around us switching our software system. The amount of engagement that there's gonna be, 'cause there's gonna be work to be done by all team members in preparation for that software change. I am confident I'm not gonna have to do any motivational speeches leading up to that. I'm not gonna have to bribe people. They want this to work because they understand why we're doing it, they understand the value it's gonna provide, and they understand, now that they have deep understanding of our system, they understand why we need to do this to continue to excel.   0:58:13.9 Travis Timmons: I don't know what that's worth. That's unmeasurable. But I know had I just announced this and not had any process, not a Deming approach, just, "Hey, guys, Travis thinks we need to do a new software and we're gonna change how you document, how you schedule," I feel fairly confident how well that would've gone. That would be my answer, Andrew, is the power of being able to present that to a team. They're already asking me questions about, "Have you thought about this in our system?" We have a shared Word document across the team. What questions are coming up in your system thinking? "How are we gonna message this to all of our clients so that they know they're gonna get new emails for their home program?" Great question. I had not thought of that. That is unmeasurable, but I know we're gonna be successful when we switch softwares because of our approach via Deming. What would you add to that, Kelly?   0:59:14.7 Kelly Allan: I think that's the essential nature of what happens. When you set out with a clear, healthy, thoughtful aim, you have conversations around that with your leadership team and what they can do then to filter that and start to talk about that with their teams at their locations, and then you have time to reflect and continually improve that, you're really creating a racehorse. Most off-sites, and Andrew, you've been to these, I know, they start... It's the 17 things. I thought of this when you mentioned it earlier. We start out, we have a racetrack and we want to have a racehorse. But by the time most companies get to their off-site, they've put so much stuff on that horse that it's now a pack mule. It will eventually make it around the track, but if you're competing with Travis, his racehorse, that team's racehorse has been around that track past you many, many times. You may get there, but they're already onto another track by the time you get to the finish line. You're finished.   1:00:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. You may even be releasing kittens and he's got a horse.   1:00:42.0 Travis Timmons: Kelly brings up another great point there. The other thing that gives our team confidence, because of our system view, 96% of issues are due to systems and processes, not people, the Fitness Matters team is confident that there's gonna be hiccups with a software change. They're confident they're gonna be able to talk about it in a system view quickly, and they're confident we're gonna implement change to rectify that. That goes into one of the reasons why I got zero shocked looks or zero sidebar conversations the entire day. The only feedback I've gotten is, "Hey, we're excited about it. We think we need to do this. And have you considered this as part of our system change?" I don't know what else as a business you could want.   1:01:40.4 Andrew Stotz: Kelly, I was thinking about a good wrap-up from you is to help the listener and the viewer think about how can they apply this into their business. Let's step back a little bit from Travis and think about the work you do and give us some hope, give us some guidance about, can we do this? How?   1:02:04.6 Kelly Allan: Yeah. Several things come to mind. One is that when you first start to learn about the Deming lens, the System of Profound Knowledge, his approach, it seems, it's different. It is different and it can seem to be, oh my gosh, that's so different. We'll never be able to do that. But the point is, the Deming Institute offers a two-day seminar workshop and they can learn not to be incredibly proficient or masterful in two days of how to go back and do Deming, but they know how to get started and they do get started. And then it just becomes part of, again, the Deming magic is as you start to work on these things, your costs go down, your quality goes up, and sometimes you can raise your prices because of the quality and sometimes you just are more competitive at the existing price, but you're taking work and rework and waste out of the system through the Deming approach, which allows you the time. That's the big constraint in most companies. I don't have time to work on improvement. I gotta fix this.   1:03:29.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Right.   1:03:30.9 Kelly Allan: So that's a fix that's gonna fail. That's a fix that's gonna fail. So I think the message is you just want to read The New Economics. If you get the third edition, start with the new chapter. It's like 40 pages and it sums up a whole lot of what we've been talking about. Then there's DemingNext videos through the Deming Institute. You can get your feet wet there. You can then, if you want, attend a seminar or read more things or reach out and have conversations with people. But you just have to try it so that you can see that the payback is there, that the joy in work is there. And in a war for talent, they wanna work for Deming. People wanna work for Deming-based companies because they're not about manipulating people. They're about joy in work. They're about reducing the friction. So you just gotta get started and don't be just because it's so different doesn't mean you can't learn it quickly. You can.   1:04:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep. And Travis is a great example of that. In our prior episodes, he talked about the journey, about the pain and all that. I think that's exciting. I'm gonna wrap it up. I just have to laugh because I've been out of the corporate world for a while, just doing my own thing. But I was thinking, you mentioned about buy-in and then you said it means you're selling something. And I thought that's funny. I remember my father used to say, he used to get so annoyed because he'd say, "Yeah, let's talk around this," which was a common thing back in those days. But then I was also thinking another thing that we were saying was onboard. Let's get people onboard with this. What if you're onboard? It pretty much means you're drowning. And I just thought about those types of things that when we talk about fear and work or fear in what we're trying to remove fear and stuff, part of it is the way we speak and the way we communicate.   1:05:41.1 Andrew Stotz: Travis, I feel like I want to leave you with the last word. So why don't you bring us home?   1:05:48.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I think I would follow on what Kelly said is I would just the amount of joy, the amount of stress this took off of me as a business owner and as a parent thinking about things differently. And the first time you start learning about Deming's teachings and the System of Profound Knowledge, it seems a little off. Seems a little like this just doesn't seem possible. I've had several people I've talked to about that. It just doesn't work that way. To Kelly's point, I would encourage just try a couple things, whether it be do you have clear operational definitions? Have you done a PDSA? Do you know how to do a PDSA? But the two-day seminars is where you kind of do the deep dive into like, oh, okay, I need to think about things differently. So anyone struggling with a business trying the latest and greatest book that's been out or the latest and greatest compensation model to create ownership thinking within your organization or whatever the buzzwords are, this is a long-term path to clarity and to just an understanding of how you can make your organization a place that has a positive impact on the lives of your employees and your clients.   1:07:17.7 Travis Timmons: And man, if you get that right, everything else follows. Sales, profit, all the stuff that a lot of metrics look at. If you get the point of your job is to have a positive place for your team to work and how do you do that? Deming is the way to do that. Everything else follows after that, in my opinion.   1:07:38.6 Andrew Stotz: And on that note, Travis and Kelly, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember, as Kelly and Travis have both said, go to deming.org, go to DemingNEXT. There's resources there so you can continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I constantly repeat it because I love it, and that is: "People are entitled to joy in work."

Listen to Full Audio at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scientist-vs-storyteller-benchmarking-gpt-5-2-claude/id1684415169?i=1000752001078

Ako tento nekonvenčný a talentovaný mladík z New Yorku prepracoval základy kvantovej mechaniky a prečo sa na jeho prvé semináre chodil pozerať sám Albert Einstein? Ako jeho vizuálne diagramy skrotili matematické nekonečna a akým spôsobom pred celým svetom odhalil príčinu katastrofy raketoplánu Challenger pomocou obyčajného pohára ľadovej vody. O tom všetkom diskutujú Jozef a Samuel. Podcast vzniká v spolupráci so SME.  Na stránke stubaeuba.sk nájdete celý zoznam nových programov, ktoré spomíname v úvode.   Bonusové epizódy a extra obsah k podcastom nájdete na https://herohero.co/vedator Samuelova nová kniha už je v predaji https://www.martinus.sk/3600333-limity-poznania/kniha   Otázky nám môžete nahrávať tu https://www.speakpipe.com/vedator Podcastové hrnčeky a ponožky nájdete na stránke https://vedator.space/vedastore/ Vedátora môžete podporiť cez stránku Patreon https://www.patreon.com/Vedator_sk   Všetko ostatné nájdete tu https://linktr.ee/vedatorsk Vedátorský newsletter http://eepurl.com/gIm1y5

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with Markus Buehler, the McAfee Professor of Engineering at MIT, to explore how seemingly different systems—from proteins and music to knowledge structures and AI reasoning—share underlying patterns through hierarchy, self-organization, and scale-free networks. The conversation ranges from the limits of current AI interpolation versus true discovery (using the fire-to-fusion example), to the emergence of agent swarms and their non-linear effects, to practical questions about ontologies, knowledge graphs, and whether humans will remain necessary in the creative discovery process. Markus discusses his lab's work automating scientific discovery through AI agents that can generate hypotheses, run simulations, and even retrain themselves, while Stewart shares his own experiences building applications with AI coding agents and grapples with questions about intellectual property, material science constraints, and the future of human creativity in an AI-abundant world.Timestamps00:00 - Introduction to Marcus Buehler's work on knowledge graphs, structural grammar across proteins, music, and AI reasoning05:00 - Discussion of AI discovery versus interpolation, using fire and fusion as examples of fundamental versus incremental innovation10:00 - Language models as connective glue between agents, enabling communication despite imperfect outputs and canonical averaging15:00 - Embodiment and agency in AI systems, creating adversarial agents that challenge theories and expand world models20:00 - Emergent properties in materials and AI, comparing dislocations in metals to behaviors in agent swarms25:00 - Human role-playing and phase separation in society, parallels to composite materials and heterogeneity30:00 - Physical world challenges, atom-by-atom manufacturing at MIT.nano, limitations of lithography machines35:00 - Synthetic biology as alternative to nanotechnology, programming microorganisms for materials discovery40:00 - Intellectual property debates, commodification of AI models, control layers more valuable than model architecture45:00 - Automation of ontologies, agent self-testing, daughter's coding success at age 1150:00 - Graph theory for knowledge compression, neurosymbolic approaches combining symbolic and neural methods55:00 - Nonlinear acceleration in AI, emergence from accumulated innovations, restaurant owner embracing AI01:00:00 - Future generations possibly rejecting AI, democratization of knowledge, social media as real-time scientific discourseKey Insights1. Universal Patterns Across Disciplines: Seemingly different systems in nature—proteins, music, social networks, and knowledge itself—share fundamental structural patterns including hierarchy, self-organization, and scale-free networks. This commonality allows creative thinkers to draw insights across disciplines, applying principles from one domain to solve problems in another. As an engineer and materials scientist, Buehler has leveraged these isomorphisms to advance scientific understanding by mapping the "plumbing" of different systems onto each other, revealing hidden relationships that enable extrapolation beyond what's observable in any single domain.2. The Discovery Versus Interpolation Problem: Current AI systems, particularly large language models, excel at interpolation—recombining existing knowledge in new ways—but struggle with genuine discovery that requires fundamental rewiring of world models. Using the example of fire versus fusion, Buehler explains that an AI trained on combustion chemistry would propose bigger fires or new fuels, but couldn't conceive of fusion because that requires stepping back to more fundamental physics. True discovery demands the ability to recognize when existing theories have boundaries and to develop entirely new frameworks, something current AI architectures aren't designed to achieve due to their training objective of predicting the most likely outcome.3. The Role of Ontologies and Knowledge Graphs: While some AI researchers argue that ontologies are unnecessary because models form internal representations, Buehler advocates for explicit knowledge graphs as essential discovery tools. External ontologies provide sharp, analytical, symbolic representations that complement the fuzzy internal representations of neural networks. They enable verification of rare connections—like obscure papers that might hold key insights—which would be averaged away in standard AI training. This neurosymbolic approach combines the generalization capabilities of neural networks with the precision of formal knowledge structures, creating more powerful discovery systems.4. Emergent Properties and Agent Swarms: Just as materials science shows that collections of atoms exhibit properties impossible to predict from individual components, AI agent swarms demonstrate emergent behaviors beyond single models. When agents are incentivized not just to answer questions but to challenge each other adversarially, propose theories, and test hypotheses, they can spawn new copies of themselves and evolve understanding beyond their initial programming. This emergence isn't surprising from a materials science perspective—dislocations, grain boundaries, and other collective phenomena only appear at scale, fundamentally determining material behavior in ways unpredictable from studying just a few atoms.5. The Commoditization of Intelligence: The fundamental AI models themselves are becoming commodities, as evidenced by events like the Moldbug phenomenon where people built agents using various providers interchangeably. The real value is shifting from who has the smartest model to how models are orchestrated, integrated, and deployed. This parallels historical technology adoption patterns—just as we moved past debating who makes the best electricity to focusing on applications, AI is transitioning from a horse race over model capabilities to questions of infrastructure, energy, access speed, and agent coordination at the systems level.6. Human-AI Collaboration and Creative Control: Rather than wholesale replacement, AI enables humans to operate in an intensely creative space as orchestrators sampling from vast possibility spaces. Similar to how Buehler's 11-year-old daughter now builds sophisticated applications that would have required professional developers years ago, AI democratizes access to capabilities while humans retain the creative judgment about direction and meaning. The human role becomes curating emergence, finding rare connections, playing at the edges of knowledge, and exercising the kind of curiosity-driven exploration that AI systems lack without embodied stakes in their own survival and continuation.7. Technology as Evolutionary Inevitability: The development of AI represents not an unnatural threat but the next stage of human evolution—an extension of our innate drive to build models of ourselves and our world. From cave paintings to partial differential equations to artificial intelligence, humans continuously create increasingly sophisticated representations and tools. Attempting to stop this technological evolution is futile; instead, the focus should be on steering it ...

Thanks to our Partners, Pico Technology, Autel, and Independent Wrench JobsWatch Full Video EpisodeMinnesota's been a pressure cooker lately—and watching people process the same event in completely opposite ways has been… a lot. Matt sits down again with Margaret Light (LMFT, Equilibrium Therapy Services) to talk about why we're so reactive, how cognitive distortions hijack conversations, and why “how we fight” matters more than the topic. Then we drag all of it into the repair shop—because if you've ever tried to explain “it's not the same problem” to a stressed-out customer, you've already lived this episode.Key Topics CoveredWhy two people can watch the same event and walk away with 180° different realitiesThe collapse of shared “ground rules” and the rise of contempt-as-a-personalityCognitive distortions in the wild: all-or-nothing thinking, “shoulds,” rationalization, deflection, confirmation biasHolding multiple truths at once (without your brain blue-screening)Professional standards vs. personal judgment (“should” vs. conduct)Grandiosity: why it feels good and why it burns relationships downHow online reactivity becomes practice—and then leaks into work and homeRepair shop translation: The “same problem / not the same problem” infinite loop. De-escalation without admitting guilt. Curiosity as a tool: “Help me understand what you're seeing.” Perspective-taking as a discipline (yes, Richard Feynman makes a cameo)Star Wars logic traps: “If you're not with me, you're my enemy”… uh… that's a Sith problemMemorable Quotes (for the description or socials)“If you're not with me, then you are my enemy.” (and yes, we know… Sith energy)“The first thing I assess isn't what couples are fighting about—it's how they're fighting.”“You do what you practice.” (online included)“One of the hardest things to do is maintain a moderate position in response to something extreme.”“Someone has to do something different—or you'll just repeat the same statement forever.”The Shop Takeaway (listener-facing)If you work with people—customers, coworkers, leadership—you're going to deal with different realities. The fix isn't “win the argument.” The fix is:Clarify the goal of the conversation (support? facts? policy? emotion?)Validate emotion without surrendering standardsReplace “No you're wrong” with curiosity + explanationKeep integrity: don't...

Andrew Humberman BioSnap a weekly updated Biography.Andrew Huberman, the Stanford neuroscientist behind the blockbuster Huberman Lab podcast, just landed a high-profile gig as one of 19 new contributors to CBS News, announced January 27 by CBS News itself. This move cements his star power, blending his brain science cred with mainstream media reach, potentially amplifying his influence on public health chats for years to come. Around the same time, Word on Fire published a buzzy piece on God, science, and Huberman, hailing him as one of the most famous scientists alive for his neuroscience breakthroughs that snagged him tenure at Stanford. No public appearances popped up in the last few days, but his podcast stayed hot with the January 29 release of Huberman Lab Essentials episode Using Play to Rewire and Improve Your Brain, posted on hubermanlab.com and YouTube, where he breaks down how playful mindsets boost neuroplasticity via low-stakes fun like dynamic sports or chess, name-dropping Nobel physicist Richard Feynman as a playful genius. Shortform quickly summarized it, spotlighting play's opioid-driven brain rewards for lifelong learning. Business-wise, his upcoming book Protocols: An Operating Manual for the Human Body is hyped on the Huberman Lab site for preorder, promising protocols to hack mood, energy, and skills. Social media buzz is light, mostly fans raving on the site about his Nobel-worthy pod, with no fresh mentions or drama. Older noise like his Trump admin food pyramid nod from Fox News on January 8 feels distant. Hubermans keeping it lab-focused, but that CBS nod screams biographical milestone. Word count: 378Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

More @ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/   Why does modern mental health care often feel like a bureaucratic ritual rather than a healing encounter? In Part 5 of The Absence of Idols, we explore how psychiatry emptied the temple of meaning and replaced it with a checklist. We begin with the ancient dream of Addudûri and the terror of an empty temple, using it as a map to understand our current crisis. Drawing on the work of historian Theodore Porter and physicist Richard Feynman, we dismantle the "Cargo Cult Science" of the mental health system—a system that builds perfect wooden control towers but cannot land the plane. From the rigid authoritarianism of James Dobson's Focus on the Family to the "mechanical objectivity" of the DSM, we examine how weak institutions use metrics to hide their lack of authority. We also look at the "lacuna"—the institutional blind spot that prevents experts from seeing the harm they cause—and why deconstructing religion without reconstructing meaning has left us vulnerable to the return of monsters. In this episode, we cover: The Cargo Cult of Psychiatry: Why "evidence-based" protocols often function like coconut headphones—mimicking science without the substance. Mechanical vs. Disciplinary Objectivity: How the mental health system traded trained wisdom for insurance-friendly checklists. The Lacuna Effect: Why institutions are literally blinded to their own biases (and how the brain fills in the gaps). Deconstruction Dangers: Why stripping away context without offering new metaphors creates a vacuum filled by conspiracy theories and extremism. Mentions & References: Richard Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" address (Caltech, 1974) Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers The Dream of Addudûri (Mesopotamian texts) James Dobson & Focus on the Family critiques The Rosenhan Experiment Wilhelm Reich, Fritz Perls, and Somatic Experiencing Mental Health, Psychiatry Critique, Cargo Cult Science, Psychology, Trauma, James Dobson, Philosophy of Science, Theodore Porter, Somatic Therapy, Institutional Trust.

In this episode: Kelly is joined by Richard Hayden! Richard is the Senior Director of Horticulture at the High Line. Join them, as Richard teaches us about the profession of gardening. He tells us about how he got into horticulture, and what it does for him. He talks about his staff and how dedicated they are to maintaining the wonderful vision of the High Line. Kelly asks Richard how the High Line got started, and Richard tells Kelly the amazing redemption story that the highline overtook: From Death ave to one of the most visited parks in the world.  Richard tells us about some of the plants that live on the High Line. He talks about the gardening philosophy that they take when deciding what the areas should look like.  And finally, Kelly asks Richard some fun questions about the High Line: if he's named any of the plants, which area is his favorite, what his favorite view is, and... what berry birds get drunk on?    But above all else; Richard Hayden is a New Yorker!   Kelly Kopp's Social Media @NewYorkCityKopp   Richard Hayden's Social Media @NatureGardener Jae Watson's Social Media @Studiojae170 Chapters (00:00:00) - This New Yorker Has One of the Most Ordinary Jobs in NYC(00:02:45) - The High Line: Richard Pryor on the Garden(00:05:51) - What Inspires You in the Morning?(00:07:15) - The High Line's Secret to Gardening(00:09:23) - What is the maintenance of the High Line Garden?(00:11:24) - The Story of the High Line(00:16:30) - The High Line: An Infrastructure Reuse Project(00:20:37) - Favorite plants on the High Line(00:23:43) - The People of the High Line(00:26:29) - The Last Section of the High Line(00:28:24) - Richard Feynman at the High Line(00:30:53) - Plants and flowers around the park(00:33:54) - The High Line: Art on the High Line(00:37:36) - How to care for the High Line gardens(00:39:58) - High Line Trees Need Irrigation(00:41:57) - How to Win at the High Line(00:46:02) - "A Plant Isn't Worth Growing Unless It Looks Beautiful"(00:46:47) - How Do You Keep People From Damage Your Garden?(00:48:08) - Favorite view from the High Line(00:49:12) - Richard on What Does Nature Mean to Him?(00:50:00) - What It Means to Be a New Yorker(00:51:42) - The High Line: Where to Find Them?

Before the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, NASA management officially estimated the probability of catastrophic failure at one in one hundred thousand. That's about the same odds as getting struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark. The engineers working on the actual rockets? They estimated the risk at closer to one in one hundred. A thousand times more dangerous than management believed.¹ Both groups had access to the same data. The same flight records. The same engineering reports. So how could their conclusions be off by a factor of a thousand? The answer isn't about intelligence or access to information. It's about the mental frameworks they used to interpret that information. Management was using models built for public relations and budget justification. Engineers were using models built for physics and failure analysis. Same inputs, radically different outputs. The invisible toolkit they used to think was completely different. Your brain doesn't process raw reality. It processes reality through models. Simplified representations of how things work. And the quality of your thinking depends entirely on the quality of mental models you possess. By the end of this episode, you'll have three of the most powerful mental models ever developed. A starter kit. Three tools that work together, each one strengthening the others. The same tools the NASA engineers were using while management flew blind. Let's build your toolkit. What Are Mental Models? A mental model is a representation of how something works. It's a framework your brain uses to make sense of reality, predict outcomes, and make decisions. You already have hundreds of them. You just might not realize it. When you understand that actions have consequences, you're using a mental model. When you recognize that people respond to incentives, that's a model too. Think of mental models as tools. A hammer drives nails. A screwdriver turns screws. Each tool does a specific job. Mental models work the same way. Each one helps you do a specific kind of thinking. One model might help you spot hidden assumptions. Another might reveal risks you'd otherwise miss. A third might show you what success requires by first mapping what failure looks like. The collection of models you carry with you? That's your thinking toolkit. And like any toolkit, the more quality tools you have, and the better you know when to use each one, the more problems you can solve. Here's the problem. Research from Ohio State University found that people often know the optimal strategy for a given situation but only follow it about twenty percent of the time.² The models sit unused while we default to gut reactions and habits. The goal isn't just to collect mental models. It's to build a system where the right tool shows up at the right moment. And that starts with having a few powerful models you know deeply, not dozens you barely remember. Let's add three tools to your toolkit. Tool One: The Map Is Not the Territory This might be the most foundational mental model of all. Coined by philosopher Alfred Korzybski in the 1930s, it delivers a simple but profound insight: our models of reality are not reality itself.³ A map of Denver isn't Denver. It's a simplified representation that leaves out countless details. The smell of pine trees, the feel of altitude, the conversation happening at that corner café. The map is useful. But it's not the territory. Every mental model, every framework, every belief you hold is a map. Useful? Absolutely. Complete? Never. This explains the NASA disaster. Management's map showed a reliable shuttle program with an impressive safety record. The engineers' map showed O-rings that became brittle in cold weather and a launch schedule that left no room for delay. Both maps contained some truth. But management's map left out critical territory: the physics of rubber at thirty-six degrees Fahrenheit. When your map doesn't match the territory, the territory wins. Every time. How to use this tool: Before any major decision, ask yourself: What is my current map leaving out? Who might have a different map of this same situation, and what does their map show that mine doesn't? The NASA engineers weren't smarter than management. They just had a map that included more of the relevant territory. Tool Two: Inversion Most of us approach problems head-on. We ask: How do I succeed? How do I win? How do I make this work? Inversion flips the question. Instead of asking how to succeed, ask: How would I guarantee failure? What would make this project collapse? What's the surest path to disaster? Then avoid those things. Inversion reveals dangers that forward thinking misses. When you're focused on success, you develop blind spots. You see the path you want to take and ignore the cliffs on either side. Here's a surprising example. When Nirvana set out to record Nevermind in 1991, they had a budget of just $65,000. Hair metal bands were spending millions on polished productions.⁴ Instead of trying to compete on the same terms and failing, they inverted the formula entirely. Where hair metal was flashy, Nirvana was raw. Where others added complexity, they stripped down. Where the industry zigged, they zagged. The result? They didn't just succeed. They created an entirely new genre and sold over thirty million copies. They won by inverting the game everyone else was playing. How to use this tool: Before pursuing any goal, spend ten minutes listing everything that would guarantee failure. Be specific. Be ruthless. Then look at your current plan and ask: Am I accidentally doing any of these things? Inversion doesn't replace forward planning. It completes it. Tool Three: The Premortem Imagine your project has already failed. Not "might fail" or "could fail." It has failed. Completely. Now your job is to explain why. Researchers at Wharton, Cornell, and the University of Colorado tested this approach and found something striking: simply imagining that failure has already happened increases your ability to correctly identify reasons for future problems by thirty percent.⁵ Why does this work? When we think about what "might" go wrong, we stay optimistic. We protect our plans. We downplay risks because we're invested in success. But when we imagine failure has already occurred, we shift into explanation mode. We're no longer defending our plan. We're forensic investigators examining a wreck. Here's proof the premortem works in the real world. Before Enron collapsed in 2001, its company credit union had run through scenarios imagining what would happen if their sponsor company failed.⁶ They asked: If Enron goes under, what happens to us? They made plans. They reduced their dependence. When the scandal broke and Enron imploded, taking billions in shareholder value with it, the credit union survived. They'd already rehearsed the disaster. Every other institution tied to Enron was blindsided. The credit union had seen the future because they'd imagined it first. How to use this tool: Before any major decision, fast-forward to failure. It's one year from now and everything has gone wrong. Write down why. What did you miss? What risks did you ignore? Then prevent those things from happening. You can't prevent what you refuse to imagine. How These Three Tools Work Together Each tool is powerful alone. Together, they're transformational. Imagine you're considering a career change. Leaving your stable job to start a business. Start with The Map Is Not the Territory. What's your current map of entrepreneurship? Probably shaped by success stories, LinkedIn posts, and survivorship bias. But what's the actual territory? CB Insights analyzed over a hundred failed startups to find out why they died. The number one reason, responsible for forty-two percent of failures, was building something nobody wanted.⁷ Founders had a map that said "customers will love this." The territory said otherwise. What is your map leaving out? Apply Inversion. How would you guarantee this business fails? Starting undercapitalized. Launching without testing the market. Ignoring early warning signs because you're emotionally invested. Now look at your current plan. Are you doing any of these things? Run a Premortem. It's two years from now. The business has failed. Write the story. Maybe you ran out of money at month fourteen. Maybe your key assumption about customer behavior turned out to be wrong. What happened? One tool gives you a perspective. Three tools working together give you something close to wisdom. This is exactly what the NASA engineers were doing, and what management wasn't. The engineers were constantly asking: Does our map match the territory? What would cause failure? What are we missing? Management was stuck in a single frame: schedule and budget. The difference between a one-in-one-hundred-thousand estimate and a one-in-one-hundred estimate? The difference between confidence and catastrophe? It was the thinking toolkit each group brought to the problem. Practice: The Three-Tool Test Here's how to put these tools to work this week. Identify a decision you're currently facing. Something real. Something that matters. Write it in one sentence. Check your map. What assumptions are you making? Where did they come from? Who might see this differently? Invert it. Set a timer for five minutes. List every way you could guarantee failure. Be ruthless. Run the premortem. It's one year from now. You chose wrong. Write two paragraphs explaining what happened. Find the overlap. Where do your inversion list and premortem story agree? That's your highest-risk blind spot. Take one action. What's one step you can take this week to address your biggest risk? Twenty minutes. One decision. Run it once, then try it again next week on a different decision. As you use these tools, you'll notice other mental models worth adding. Your toolkit will grow. Most decisions feel routine until they're not. That morning at NASA felt routine. Seven astronauts boarded Challenger. They trusted that the people making decisions had the right tools to think clearly. Management had maps. The engineers had territory. The distance between those two things was seventy-three seconds of flight time. The engineers saw it coming. Management didn't. Same data. Different tools. When your moment comes, and it will, which group will you be in?   If this episode helped you think differently, hit that Subscribe button and tap the bell on our YouTube channel so you don't miss what's coming next. And if you found value here, a Like helps more people discover this content. To learn more about mental models, listen to this week's show: Mental Models — Your Thinking Toolkit. Get the tools to fuel your innovation journey → Innovation.Tools https://innovation.tools [irp posts="4392" name="Subscribe to Podcast"] ENDNOTES Rogers Commission Report, Volume 2, Appendix F: "Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle" by Richard Feynman (1986). Management estimated 1 in 100,000; engineers and post-Challenger analysis found approximately 1 in 100. Konovalov, A. & Krajbich, I. "Mouse tracking reveals structure knowledge in the absence of model-based choice." Nature Communications (2020). Participants followed optimal strategies only about 20% of the time even when they demonstrably knew them. Korzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1933). Wikipedia, "Nevermind"; SonicScoop, "Time and Cost of Making an Album Case Study: NIRVANA" (2017). Initial recording budget was $65,000. Mitchell, D.J., Russo, J.E., & Pennington, N. "Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (1989). As cited in Klein, G. "Performing a Project Premortem." Harvard Business Review (2007). Schoemaker, P.J.H. & Day, G.S. "How to Make Sense of Weak Signals." MIT Sloan Management Review (2009). Describes how Enron Federal Credit Union survived the Enron collapse through scenario planning. CB Insights. "The Top 12 Reasons Startups Fail." Analysis of 111 startup post-mortems (2021). 42% cited "no market need" as a reason for failure.

In this episode, we discuss "Is the scientific paper a fraud?" by Sir Peter Medawar.  Shownotes Medawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31. Ross, G. R., Meloy, M. G., & Bolton, L. E. (2021). Disorder and downsizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 959–977. The footnote reads: "Like many consumers, we were inspired by Marie Kondo to declutter our homes—and also to conduct this research! Note that our work is not a test of the KonMari method per se but rather an investigation of ideas—on dis/order, waste aversion, and selection/rejection (as these quotes illustrate)—inspired by her writing and the surprising lack of research on downsizing." Karataş, M., & Cutright, K. M. (2023). Thinking about God increases acceptance of artificial intelligence in decision-making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(33), e2218961120.  Richard Feynman on finding new laws  

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Human Resources: A Concise Guide by Dr. C. Rasmussen https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Machine-Learning-Resources/dp/B0FWZQXHMG Curtisrasmussen.focalpointcoaching.com What if a computer could help find the perfect employee or predict who might leave a job? This exciting idea opens the door to a new way of working. Overview This guide explains how artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are transforming human resources (HR). Smart computer programs can quickly review thousands of job applications to find the best candidates, suggest training tailored to employees’ needs, and predict which workers might quit, helping managers take action to keep them. The book includes real-world examples, like how large companies use AI to save time, and covers benefits, such as improved hiring, as well as key concerns, like protecting personal information. At just 61 pages, it's concise by design, following Richard Feynman's wisdom: “If you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” More pages don't equal more value; in fact, lengthy texts can bury useful insights. Since every organization is unique, this book equips HR professionals and managers with the right questions to ask rather than a rigid roadmap, making it a practical tool for anyone curious about the future of work. About the author Dr. Curtis “Curt” Rasmussen is a leading expert in industrial-organizational psychology with a Ph.D. from Walden University. He specializes in blending human skills with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to make workplaces better and more efficient. With years of experience in research, consulting, and government roles, he helps businesses use data and tech wisely. His career highlights include owning Cyber-Human Performance Tech, LLC, where he advises small and mid-sized companies on adding AI to hiring and daily tasks while keeping things ethical. He also guides students in George Mason University’s Data Engineering program, focusing on AI tools like natural language processing and computer vision. At the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), he led workforce planning as a senior I/O psychologist, creating surveys and frameworks that improved employee satisfaction by 45% and helped with smarter hiring. Earlier, he reviewed AI and data science proposals for the Department of Commerce, National Academy of Medicine, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, making sure projects were strong and fair. Dr. Rasmussen has invented patent-pending tools like the Multidimensional Algorithm Structure (MAS), which picks the best AI methods by checking data and company needs, and the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence Construct (XAIC), which makes AI easy to understand and trust by involving people in decisions. These ideas help fix common AI problems, like failures or hidden biases.

Nobel laureate Sir Roger Penrose dismantles standard cosmology, arguing the Big Bang wasn't the beginning and quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong. He then connects a real, gravitational wave function collapse to the non-computational nature of consciousness and why today's AI can't truly understand. Sponsors: - Get 50% off Claude Pro, including access to Claude Code, at https://claude.ai/theoriesofeverything - As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: - 00:00 - The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning - 02:14 - Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) - 09:12 - The Collapse Problem - 14:31 - A Feeling of Elation - 24:32 - Gödel and Understanding - 37:32 - Gravitational Collapse - 50:05 - Critique of Modern AI - 57:12 - Black Hole Information "Paradox" - 1:04:15 - Wheeler, Wigner, & Witten - 1:15:04 - Richard Feynman in Poland - 1:20:25 - Libet's Timing of Consciousness - 1:32:49 - Three Worlds, Three Mysteries - 1:44:14 - Why Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong Links mentioned: - Stuart Hameroff [TOE]: https://youtu.be/0_bQwdJir1o - Classical Theory [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9409195 - Rebecca Goldstein [TOE]: https://youtu.be/VkL3BcKEB6Y - The Emperor's New Mind [Book]: https://www.amazon.ca/Emperors-New-Mind-Concerning-Computers/dp/0192861980 - Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe [Book]: https://www.amazon.ca/Fashion-Faith-Fantasy-Physics-Universe/dp/0691178534 - Perturbative Gauge Theory as a String Theory in Twistor Space [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0312171 - What Is Life? [Book]: https://www.amazon.ca/What-Life-Matter-Autobiographical-Sketches/dp/1107604664 - Michael Levin [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Exdz2HKP7u0 - Why I Don't Buy the Simulation Hypothesis (Nor Materialism) [TOE]: https://youtu.be/3_lBPMc6JRY - Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics [Book]: https://www.amazon.ca/Consciousness-Quantum-Mechanics-Shan-Gao/dp/0197501664 - Ivette Fuentes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/cUj2TcZSlZc Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this flash 20th October 2025 X Space, s explores technology's impact on science and society, using touchscreen frustrations as a metaphor for our quest for clarity. Highlighting skepticism and acceptance in scientific inquiry, inspired by Richard Feynman, they emphasize the importance of rigorous testing. The session culminates in a discussion on truth and encourages attendees to challenge assumptions, advocating for ongoing inquiry into knowledge and communication's role in our shared experience.SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

It's a full plate this week on The Free Outside Show. I'm diving into Terminus Season—that bittersweet time when thru-hikers take the photo, post it, and wonder what's next. Then we get into Trail TMZ, where a defamation lawsuit is brewing, and I try not to get sued for talking about it.From there, we climb the philosophical peaks of Richard Feynman, Christopher McCandless, and Killian Jornet, somehow connecting it all back to neuromas, the UTMB money machine, and why you should just do the thing—even if nobody understands it.There's science (a running study that might change how you train), there's gossip (Wikipedia wars are back), and there's reflection (because post-trail life is weird).As always—stay mid-America, stay elite, and remember: nothing matters, but also everything does.support our sponsors: CSinstant.coffeejanji.comgaragegrowngear.comChapters00:00 Observations on Social Interactions02:36 Navigating Post-Adventure Challenges05:44 The Dynamics of Ultra Running Events08:29 Understanding Terminus Season and Post-Trail TransitionSubscribe to Substack: http://freeoutside.substack.comSupport this content on patreon: HTTP://patreon.com/freeoutsideBuy my book "Free Outside" on Amazon: https://amzn.to/39LpoSFEmail me to buy a signed copy of my book, "Free Outside" at jeff@freeoutside.comWatch the movie about setting the record on the Colorado Trail: https://tubitv.com/movies/100019916/free-outsideWebsite: www.Freeoutside.comInstagram: thefreeoutsidefacebook: www.facebook.com/freeoutside

Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart, co-hosts of Passage to Profit Show have interview Lisa Ascolse, "The Inventress", Ariel Schur from ABS Staffing Solutions and Gina Triantafillou from Tiny Tot Co.   Meet Lisa Ascolese, "The Inventress"—entrepreneur, TV host, and mentor who's helpedcountless people turn ideas into market-ready products. In this episode, she shares her journey, biggest lessons, and practical tips for avoiding mistakes, overcoming fear, and turning passion into profitable innovation. Read more at: https://inventingatoz.com/   Ariel Schur is the CEO & founder of ABS Staffing Solutions,  redefining boutique staffing in NYC with a personalized, high-touch approach. With 20+ years of expertise, Ariel and her team deliver exceptional matches for both employers and job seekers. Read more at: https://www.absstaffingsolutions.com/    Gina Triantafillou is the founder of Tiny Tot Co. and creator of the patent-pending Catch the Mess bib — a stylish, stress-free solution for messy mealtimes. Her mission: make parenting easier with products that are as functional as they are adorable! Read more at: https://www.instagram.com/tinytotco/   Whether you're a seasoned entrepreneur, a startup, an inventor, an innovator, a small business or just starting your entrepreneurial journey, tune into Passage to Profit Show for compelling discussions, real-life examples, and expert advice on entrepreneurship, intellectual property, trademarks and more. Visit https://passagetoprofitshow.com/ for the latest updates and episodes. Chapters (00:00:00) - Passion to Profit(00:00:55) - Passage to Profit(00:01:52) - What is the Smallest Win in Your Business Journey?(00:03:03) - What small thing happened that made you feel like you hit the jack(00:03:26) - Inventor Spotlight: Gina's Journey(00:06:23) - The First Question Entrepreneurs Should Ask themselves(00:08:14) - Richard Feynman on Inspiring Others(00:11:52) - Non-Disclosure of Ideas on Intellectual Property(00:15:04) - How long does it take to develop a new product?(00:16:34) - Inventing A to Z's Lisa Askalise on Her(00:20:00) - The Investment Value of Gold(00:21:02) - The Cruise Line Hotline(00:22:00) - Inventor Spotlight TV(00:26:16) - What Have Been The Traits of Successful Entrepreneurs?(00:28:34) - Where do you get money to do your projects?(00:29:38) - Inventing A to Z With Lisa Askles(00:30:46) - 7 Rules for Using AI in Your Book Editing(00:32:16) - How to Use AI in Recruitment(00:35:59) - Passage to Profit: Car Insurance Hotline(00:38:33) - Intellectual Property in the News(00:40:34) - Meet Arielle Scher(00:42:47) - What Makes a Good Recruitment Recruiter?(00:44:58) - How Do You See the Job Market?(00:46:07) - How to Prepare a Job Candidate for an Interview(00:52:33) - How to Hire a Team Member(00:54:50) - Gina Triantofilo's Gorgeous Baby Bibs(00:58:22) - What are some lessons you've learned from your entrepreneurial journey?(00:59:04) - The Secret to Perfect Bibs(01:03:13) - TinyTotco: Where are they selling their products?(01:03:43) - Kevin Lane on His Elevator Pitch(01:04:28) - Head-to-toe bibs for injured kids(01:08:32) - Noah Fleishman on the Home Pages(01:09:49) - Lisa Lees(01:11:05) - Richard Gearhart & Arielle Scher(01:14:27) - Passage to Profit

What can a Nobel Prize-winning physicist teach us about navigating squiggly careers? In this new Borrowed Brilliance format, Helen introduces the curiosity-driven ideas of Richard Feynman and Sarah helps turn them into practical actions for work. Together, they explore how Feynman's playful approach to learning can help all of us grow with more clarity and confidence.You'll discover the power of the Feynman Technique, why keeping a Don't Know Notebook builds smarter learning habits, and how Problem-Testing can help you see new solutions to old challenges.Episode #498

Can intellectual humility be measured? What influences it and affects it, limits it and enhances it? What even is it, scientifically speaking? We explore all of this and then play an episode of How to Be A Better Human featuring psychologist Tenelle Porter telling comedian Chris Duffy how she is researching how to conduct better research into intellectual humility.Previous EpisodesTranscript at TEDHow to Be A Better HumanThe Gateway Drugs to Intellectual HumilityTenelle Porter's ResearchTenelle Porter's WebsiteThe Illusion of Explanatory DepthKitted ShopThe Story of KittedHow Minds ChangeDavid McRaney's BlueSkyDavid McRaney's TwitterYANSS TwitterShow NotesNewsletterPatreon

What makes some groups thrive while others crash and burn? According to organizational-behavior scholar Colin Fisher, the real villains are rarely individuals, but dysfunctional teams and organizations. Listen as he and EconTalk's Russ Roberts discuss the reasons for the free-rider problem and the importance of meaningful, well-defined tasks to incentivize synergy. They speak about why most team-building exercises are usually a waste of time, and why the best way to build trust is simply to do the work. Finally, they explore the role of great leaders from Steve Jobs to Bill Belichick in elevating groups into teams, and offer lessons from history's great projects for increasing productivity.