Latest / The Search / Deep Dive: Knowing It Isn’t the Same as Seeing It

Transcript

Deep Dive: Knowing It Isn’t the Same as Seeing It · The Search

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_01: You know,
• 0:00
  SPEAKER_01: there is this massive difference between reading a yellow warning sign that says
• 0:05
  SPEAKER_01: a road is winding and actually feeling the steering wheel fight against your hands
• 0:10
  SPEAKER_01: as you try to navigate a blind hairpin curve in the rain.
• 0:14
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, absolutely.
• 0:15
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, it's visceral.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_01: Because on an intellectual level, you know the curve is there.
• 0:19
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, you read the sign,
• 0:21
  SPEAKER_01: but actually feeling it,
• 0:22
  SPEAKER_01: adjusting to it,
• 0:23
  SPEAKER_01: experiencing the raw physics of it, that's just a completely different reality.
• 0:27
  SPEAKER_00: It really is.
• 0:28
  SPEAKER_01: And I think that same gap,
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_01: like the massive distance between knowing a fact
• 0:33
  SPEAKER_01: and actually experiencing its reality,
• 0:35
  SPEAKER_01: it applies perfectly to how we deal with other human beings.
• 0:38
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, 100%.
• 0:39
  SPEAKER_01: Because we all know intellectually that people are different.
• 0:43
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, we learned it in kindergarten, right?
• 0:44
  SPEAKER_00: Sure, yeah.
• 0:45
  SPEAKER_01: But actually seeing a situation from someone else's perspective,
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_01: truly stepping out from behind your own eyes, that is incredibly difficult.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_00: It's one of the hardest things we do as humans, honestly.
• 0:56
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 0:57
  SPEAKER_01: And that exact friction is what we are unpacking today.
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_01: We're doing a deep dive into a really profound piece of writing by Julian Brown,
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_01: and it's titled Knowing It Isn't the Same as Seeing It.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_00: It's such a great essay.
• 1:10
  SPEAKER_01: It really is.
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_01: So the mission for this deep dive is to investigate this massive cognitive shift,
• 1:17
  SPEAKER_01: moving away from demanding that other people's behavior make sense to us
• 1:21
  SPEAKER_01: and instead asking how it makes sense to them.
• 1:24
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 1:24
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, let's unpack this.
• 1:26
  SPEAKER_01: Because there is a default human mindset we all seem to suffer from,
• 1:30
  SPEAKER_01: which is this deeply ingrained assumption that when someone does something confusing
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_01: or frustrating,
• 1:36
  SPEAKER_01: there just must be a logical explanation that makes sense according
• 1:39
  SPEAKER_01: to our own personal logic.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, man.
• 1:41
  SPEAKER_00: It's the ultimate cognitive trap.
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_00: It really is.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: To actually figure out how to see from another person's perspective,
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_00: we first have to crack open the hood and look at the mechanism of why our brains
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_00: so stubbornly default to our own perspective in the first place.
• 1:54
  SPEAKER_01: Right, because it happens automatically.
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 1:57
  SPEAKER_00: It comes down to biology, honestly.
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_00: Our brains are essentially supercomputers,
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_00: but they are also incredibly greedy when it comes to energy.
• 2:05
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, interesting.
• 2:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, so your brain uses roughly 20% of your body's caloric energy,
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_00: so it is constantly desperately looking for shortcuts to conserve fuel.
• 2:13
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 2:14
  SPEAKER_00: And we rely on heuristics, which are basically just mental shortcuts.
• 2:18
  SPEAKER_00: So when we encounter complex human behavior,
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_00: we naturally interpret it through our own assumptions,
• 2:24
  SPEAKER_00: our own priorities and our own past experiences.
• 2:26
  SPEAKER_01: Just to save energy.
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely,
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_00: because accessing our own preexisting mental models requires like almost zero extra
• 2:33
  SPEAKER_00: energy.
• 2:34
  SPEAKER_01: Wait, so you're saying the brain is physically trying to save energy
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_01: by just assuming everyone else thinks exactly like me?
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that's exactly it.
• 2:41
  SPEAKER_00: It is cognitive laziness, but, you know, it's a survival mechanism.
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_00: Interpersonal situations are inherently ambiguous.
• 2:49
  SPEAKER_00: You literally cannot read someone else's mind.
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_01: Which is probably a good thing, but still.
• 2:54
  SPEAKER_00: True.
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_00: But from a psychological standpoint, ambiguity equals danger.
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_00: It creates a profound discomfort because we absolutely hate not knowing where we stand.
• 3:03
  SPEAKER_01: We want certainty.
• 3:05
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_00: So to soothe that discomfort and conserve energy, we crave simple binary answers.
• 3:11
  SPEAKER_00: We want to label a situation immediately so we can just file it away and move on.
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, like deciding they are interested in me or they're uninterested
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_01: or like they are right or they're wrong.
• 3:22
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 3:22
  SPEAKER_01: They care about my feelings or they are totally selfish.
• 3:24
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 3:25
  SPEAKER_00: If we can just slap a binary label on someone's behavior, we feel safe.
• 3:30
  SPEAKER_00: The threat of the unknown is totally neutralized.
• 3:33
  SPEAKER_00: We know exactly how to react,
• 3:34
  SPEAKER_00: whether we should, you know, pull away, get angry or feel validated.
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_00: We use these overly simplistic categories
• 3:41
  SPEAKER_00: to stabilize our own emotional world rather than to actually understand
• 3:45
  SPEAKER_00: the other person.
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_01: You know, thinking about the mechanics of this, an analogy came to mind.
• 3:49
  SPEAKER_00: Let's hear it.
• 3:50
  SPEAKER_01: It's like trying to play a brand new video game.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_01: But you sit down on the couch and just assume
• 3:54
  SPEAKER_01: the controller is mapped exactly like your all time favorite game.
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, I love that.
• 3:59
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 4:00
  SPEAKER_01: So you're mashing the A button,
• 4:01
  SPEAKER_01: expecting your character to jump, but instead the character ducks.
• 4:05
  SPEAKER_01: And you immediately get frustrated and think, man, this game is broken.
• 4:08
  SPEAKER_01: This makes no sense.
• 4:10
  SPEAKER_01: But the game isn't broken.
• 4:11
  SPEAKER_01: You are just applying your own operating manual to someone else's hardware.
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_00: What's fascinating here is how that desire for a simple,
• 4:19
  SPEAKER_00: familiar operating manual completely distorts our understanding of
• 4:23
  SPEAKER_00: the real living humans in front of us.
• 4:26
  SPEAKER_00: Because people are Vastly complex and they almost never fit
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_00: into those binary boxes we try to shove them into.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, people communicate in wildly different ways.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, they really do.
• 4:38
  SPEAKER_00: Some people process conflict by being incredibly direct and loud.
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_00: Others, they physically or emotionally withdraw when they are overwhelmed.
• 4:46
  SPEAKER_00: And the motivations driving those behaviors are just as layered.
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_01: Because someone might act out of a deeply hidden fear
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_01: that you have absolutely zero visibility into.
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_01: Or, you know,
• 4:56
  SPEAKER_01: they might be acting out of a deeply ingrained habit from their childhood
• 4:59
  SPEAKER_01: that they just haven't unlearned yet.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_00: Or, and this is a crucial point that we often miss,
• 5:04
  SPEAKER_00: they might not even understand their own motives.
• 5:06
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, wow.
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_00: Like, how can we demand a simple logical explanation from someone
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_00: who doesn't even know why their nervous system is reacting the way it is?
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_01: You can't.
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_00: By reducing their complex,
• 5:19
  SPEAKER_00: messy human reality to a single,
• 5:22
  SPEAKER_00: simple explanation that satisfies our own need for clarity,
• 5:26
  SPEAKER_00: we completely miss the reality of the person sitting across from us.
• 5:30
  SPEAKER_00: We end up interacting with a projection of ourselves, not with them.
• 5:35
  SPEAKER_01: Which brings us to the real turning point of this whole concept in the essay.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_01: Once we recognize that our default biological setting is flawed,
• 5:43
  SPEAKER_01: that people do not operate on our internal logic,
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_01: that their controller is mapped completely differently, how do we actually fix it?
• 5:49
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that's the big question.
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_01: What happens when we stop trying to force that single, quote unquote, correct explanation?
• 5:55
  SPEAKER_00: Well, that is where the cognitive shift happens.
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_00: You have to move away from the instinctual reaction of,
• 6:00
  SPEAKER_00: you know, I don't understand why you would do that.
• 6:03
  SPEAKER_00: Because if you look at the mechanics of that statement, it's a dead end.
• 6:06
  SPEAKER_00: What it really implies is, I wouldn't do that, therefore your action is invalid.
• 6:12
  SPEAKER_01: Oof.
• 6:12
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, that's so true.
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_00: To break the cycle, you have to replace it with a completely different framework.
• 6:17
  SPEAKER_01: The magic question.
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_01: Instead of saying,
• 6:20
  SPEAKER_01: I wouldn't do that,
• 6:21
  SPEAKER_01: you ask,
• 6:22
  SPEAKER_01: and this is right from the deep dive material,
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_01: what would have to be true for this to make sense from your perspective?
• 6:29
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 6:29
  SPEAKER_00: That question radically alters the architecture of how you process an interaction.
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_01: It really does.
• 6:35
  SPEAKER_00: But we need to break down the psychological difference
• 6:38
  SPEAKER_00: between true perspective taking and what most of us normally do,
• 6:42
  SPEAKER_00: which is simply imagining what we would do in their shoes.
• 6:46
  SPEAKER_01: Wait, I always thought those were the exact same thing.
• 6:48
  SPEAKER_01: How are they different?
• 6:49
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, they are very different.
• 6:50
  SPEAKER_00: When you just imagine yourself in their shoes,
• 6:51
  SPEAKER_00: you are still taking your own brain,
• 6:53
  SPEAKER_00: your own emotional regulation skills,
• 6:55
  SPEAKER_00: your own childhood history and your own logic and just placing them into
• 6:59
  SPEAKER_00: a different set of physical circumstances.
• 7:01
  SPEAKER_00: Ah, I see.
• 7:02
  SPEAKER_00: You're saying if I were in that meeting, I wouldn't have snapped at the boss.
• 7:07
  SPEAKER_00: But true perspective taking is much harder and requires a lot more cognitive load.
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_01: Because you aren't just transplanting yourself.
• 7:14
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 7:15
  SPEAKER_00: It requires you to imagine what it is like to be them in their shoes,
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_00: equipped only with their history,
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_00: their deepest fears and their specific coping mechanisms.
• 7:25
  SPEAKER_01: That makes so much sense.
• 7:27
  SPEAKER_01: Let's ground this in a real example to see how it plays out.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_00: OK, let's do it.
• 7:31
  SPEAKER_01: Let's say you're in an argument with a partner or a friend
• 7:34
  SPEAKER_01: and suddenly they just go completely silent and walk out of the room.
• 7:37
  SPEAKER_01: To you, with your specific background and triggers, that looks like textbook avoidance.
• 7:43
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_01: It looks like they don't care enough to stay and fight for the relationship.
• 7:48
  SPEAKER_01: It feels incredibly disrespectful.
• 7:50
  SPEAKER_00: But if you use the magic question,
• 7:52
  SPEAKER_00: what would have to be true for this to make sense from their perspective?
• 7:56
  SPEAKER_00: You have to adopt their operating system.
• 7:58
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 8:11
  SPEAKER_00: Unregulated anger.
• 8:12
  SPEAKER_01: Or what feels like cold rejection to you might simply be the other person trying
• 8:17
  SPEAKER_01: to give you space.
• 8:18
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 8:18
  SPEAKER_01: Because that's exactly what they would want if they were stressed out.
• 8:21
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_01: Or what looks incredibly inconsistent and flaky to you might actually be
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_01: the chaotic result of someone desperately trying to balance two competing priorities
• 8:32
  SPEAKER_01: that both matter deeply to them.
• 8:34
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 8:35
  SPEAKER_01: But wait, here's where it gets really interesting.
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_01: Let's play this out to its logical conclusion.
• 8:40
  SPEAKER_01: If we abandon the idea that there is one objective reality to a situation
• 8:45
  SPEAKER_01: and we stop looking for the one true explanation,
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_01: doesn't that just lead to total chaos in a relationship?
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_00: How do you mean?
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_01: Well,
• 8:53
  SPEAKER_01: if I am seeing abandonment because you left the room and you are seeing protecting
• 8:57
  SPEAKER_01: the peace and we just look at each other and accept
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_01: that both are completely plausible realities,
• 9:01
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, how do we actually navigate that?
• 9:03
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 9:03
  SPEAKER_01: How do you live together or work together
• 9:05
  SPEAKER_01: if you are literally experiencing two entirely different versions of reality?
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_01: It feels like giving up objective truth would just cause endless gridlock.
• 9:13
  SPEAKER_00: It's a highly valid concern and logically it feels like it should lead to chaos,
• 9:18
  SPEAKER_00: but paradoxically,
• 9:20
  SPEAKER_00: Giving up the search for
• 9:22
  SPEAKER_00: a single objective correct explanation doesn't create gridlock.
• 9:26
  SPEAKER_00: It actually removes the friction.
• 9:28
  SPEAKER_01: Wait, really?
• 9:29
  SPEAKER_01: Explain the mechanism there.
• 9:30
  SPEAKER_01: How does accepting two different realities remove friction?
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_00: Think about the anatomy of most arguments.
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_00: How much time, energy,
• 9:38
  SPEAKER_00: and raised voices are spent trying to prove who is objectively right
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: about what just happened.
• 9:43
  SPEAKER_01: A lot.
• 9:44
  SPEAKER_01: Almost all of it.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_00: You were being rude.
• 9:46
  SPEAKER_00: No, I wasn't.
• 9:47
  SPEAKER_00: I was just being efficient.
• 9:48
  SPEAKER_00: You spend hours litigating the label,
• 9:50
  SPEAKER_00: trying to force the other person to concede to your reality.
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_00: It's an impossible court case where neither of you is the judge.
• 9:57
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, that sounds exhausting.
• 9:58
  SPEAKER_00: When you accept that multiple realities exist simultaneously,
• 10:02
  SPEAKER_00: you remove the need to win that court case.
• 10:04
  SPEAKER_01: Because you aren't trying to overwrite their reality with yours anymore.
• 10:07
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 10:07
  SPEAKER_00: You allow the behavior to be multilayered.
• 10:09
  SPEAKER_00: You can say, I felt abandoned when you left the room and that hurt me.
• 10:13
  SPEAKER_00: But I also understand that from your perspective, you were trying to protect the peace.
• 10:17
  SPEAKER_01: It just takes the sting out of it.
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_00: It completely defangs the defensiveness.
• 10:22
  SPEAKER_00: It's not meaningless chaos.
• 10:23
  SPEAKER_00: It's just a richer, much more accurate map of human interaction.
• 10:28
  SPEAKER_00: It stops being a debate over the objective facts of who did what and becomes
• 10:32
  SPEAKER_00: a mutual exploration of the shared experience.
• 10:35
  SPEAKER_01: OK, I see that.
• 10:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 10:37
  SPEAKER_01: You stop trying to be the forensic investigator of their motives.
• 10:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 10:41
  SPEAKER_01: But even if we deploy this magic question,
• 10:43
  SPEAKER_01: even if we put in the hard cognitive work to map their reality,
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_01: we still hit a massive wall.
• 10:50
  SPEAKER_01: Because no matter how hard you try to see their perspective,
• 10:53
  SPEAKER_01: your vision is still severely blurred by your own emotional state and by the fact
• 10:57
  SPEAKER_01: that you just don't have all the information.
• 10:58
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 10:59
  SPEAKER_00: And this is such a humbling realization.
• 11:01
  SPEAKER_00: We are not perfectly calibrated objective instruments measuring the world.
• 11:05
  SPEAKER_01: Not at all.
• 11:05
  SPEAKER_00: We are messy biological creatures whose perceptions are constantly fluctuating.
• 11:10
  SPEAKER_01: Think about the lens of your own emotional state.
• 11:12
  SPEAKER_01: Think about the last time you got a really blunt one-sentence email from a coworker
• 11:17
  SPEAKER_01: or your boss.
• 11:18
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, I've been there.
• 11:19
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 11:20
  SPEAKER_01: If you receive that email on a Tuesday morning,
• 11:23
  SPEAKER_01: right after you've had eight hours of great sleep,
• 11:24
  SPEAKER_01: a good workout, and a nice cup of coffee, it rolls right off your back.
• 11:27
  SPEAKER_01: You read it and think, ah, they're just super busy today, no big deal.
• 11:30
  SPEAKER_00: Totally fine.
• 11:31
  SPEAKER_01: But imagine that exact same email arrives on a Thursday afternoon,
• 11:34
  SPEAKER_01: you slept terribly,
• 11:36
  SPEAKER_01: you're running late, and you already feel underappreciated at work.
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 11:40
  SPEAKER_01: Suddenly, that identical sequence of words is a direct personal insult.
• 11:45
  SPEAKER_01: It feels aggressive.
• 11:46
  SPEAKER_01: It feels like an attack.
• 11:48
  SPEAKER_00: If we connect this to the bigger picture,
• 11:50
  SPEAKER_00: it highlights a profound vulnerability in human perception.
• 11:55
  SPEAKER_00: The exact same data point,
• 11:57
  SPEAKER_00: the words in the email,
• 11:58
  SPEAKER_00: is processed completely differently depending on the internal weather of
• 12:02
  SPEAKER_00: the receiver.
• 12:03
  SPEAKER_01: The internal weather.
• 12:04
  SPEAKER_01: I love that phrase.
• 12:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 12:05
  SPEAKER_00: Your nervous system literally dictates the meaning of the event.
• 12:08
  SPEAKER_00: And that's just the noise from our own side of the equation.
• 12:11
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 12:12
  SPEAKER_00: The other massive variable that distorts our understanding is that we are always,
• 12:16
  SPEAKER_00: always operating with incomplete data about the other person.
• 12:19
  SPEAKER_01: Because we only ever see the tip of the iceberg.
• 12:21
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 12:22
  SPEAKER_00: We rarely, if ever, know what someone else is truly dealing with.
• 12:27
  SPEAKER_00: We don't see the massive fight they had with their spouse that morning
• 12:30
  SPEAKER_00: before they walked into the office.
• 12:32
  SPEAKER_00: We don't see the crushing financial anxiety that kept them awake all night.
• 12:36
  SPEAKER_00: We don't feel the chronic physical pain they are masking with a smile.
• 12:41
  SPEAKER_00: And the mature realization here is that sometimes we simply do not have enough data
• 12:46
  SPEAKER_00: to decide what happened, period.
• 12:48
  SPEAKER_01: We just don't know.
• 12:48
  SPEAKER_00: We just don't know.
• 12:50
  SPEAKER_00: And accepting that ambiguity,
• 12:52
  SPEAKER_00: consciously leaving an empty space in our minds for
• 12:54
  SPEAKER_00: the things we do not know is crucial.
• 12:56
  SPEAKER_01: Even though our brains hate it.
• 12:57
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 12:58
  SPEAKER_00: Instead of filling that void with our own worst case assumptions,
• 13:01
  SPEAKER_00: which is what the brain wants to do to feel safe, we have to let the void exist.
• 13:06
  SPEAKER_00: We have to learn to say,
• 13:07
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know why they did that,
• 13:08
  SPEAKER_00: and I literally do not have enough information to make a ruling.
• 13:12
  SPEAKER_01: Which feels incredibly counterintuitive because,
• 13:15
  SPEAKER_01: as we discussed, our brains absolutely despise that void.
• 13:19
  SPEAKER_00: They fight it every step of the way.
• 13:20
  SPEAKER_01: But let's push this a bit further because this leads to what I think is
• 13:24
  SPEAKER_01: the most crucial and frankly the most difficult distinction in this entire concept.
• 13:28
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 13:29
  SPEAKER_01: If we are constantly holding space for other people's perspectives and accepting
• 13:33
  SPEAKER_01: that everything is subjective and making room for the things we don't know,
• 13:37
  SPEAKER_01: does that mean we just have to roll over and accept bad behavior?
• 13:40
  SPEAKER_00: Oh man, that is the trap of toxic empathy.
• 13:44
  SPEAKER_00: And it's exactly what happens when people misunderstand this cognitive shift.
• 13:48
  SPEAKER_01: Let's define that clearly.
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_01: What makes empathy toxic?
• 13:51
  SPEAKER_00: Toxic empathy happens when you absorb someone else's emotional state
• 13:56
  SPEAKER_00: or their perspective so completely that you lose your own boundaries
• 14:00
  SPEAKER_00: and your own agency.
• 14:01
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 14:01
  SPEAKER_00: You trace their logic.
• 14:03
  SPEAKER_00: You see their childhood trauma.
• 14:04
  SPEAKER_00: You understand exactly why they are yelling at you.
• 14:07
  SPEAKER_00: And so you decide that you just have to stand there and let them yell.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_00: You prioritize their reality over your own psychological or physical safety.
• 14:15
  SPEAKER_01: Wow, okay.
• 14:16
  SPEAKER_01: That is a massive trap.
• 14:17
  SPEAKER_01: We constantly collapse these concepts together, don't we?
• 14:20
  SPEAKER_01: We conflate understanding with agreeing.
• 14:22
  SPEAKER_00: We do.
• 14:23
  SPEAKER_00: It's another one of those false binaries our brains love.
• 14:27
  SPEAKER_00: We feel like if we truly understand why someone did something,
• 14:30
  SPEAKER_00: we are somehow contractually obligated to endorse their behavior.
• 14:33
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_00: Or, conversely,
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_00: if we firmly disagree with what they did,
• 14:38
  SPEAKER_00: We feel like we have to justify our disagreement by deciding they are
• 14:41
  SPEAKER_00: a fundamentally bad person with malicious intentions.
• 14:45
  SPEAKER_01: But the breakthrough here is that you can uncollapse those concepts.
• 14:49
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 14:49
  SPEAKER_01: You can actually do three distinct things at the exact same time.
• 14:53
  SPEAKER_00: Let's hear them.
• 14:54
  SPEAKER_01: First, you can fully understand why a decision made total sense from
• 14:58
  SPEAKER_01: the other person's perspective, given their history and fears.
• 15:01
  SPEAKER_01: Second, you can genuinely recognize that the person was not maliciously trying to hurt you.
• 15:07
  SPEAKER_01: Yes.
• 15:07
  SPEAKER_01: And third,
• 15:08
  SPEAKER_01: you can still decide that it is a terrible way to behave,
• 15:12
  SPEAKER_01: recognize that the behavior caused you real pain,
• 15:15
  SPEAKER_01: and set a firm boundary that you do not want to be around it.
• 15:18
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 15:19
  SPEAKER_00: Understanding someone's path does not mean you have to walk down it with them.
• 15:23
  SPEAKER_01: But in reality, isn't that incredibly hard to do in the heat of the moment?
• 15:26
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, incredible.
• 15:27
  SPEAKER_01: Let's be real.
• 15:28
  SPEAKER_01: When someone cuts me off or sends a rude text or my feelings are deeply hurt by
• 15:33
  SPEAKER_01: a friend, I don't want to sit there and ponder their hidden trauma.
• 15:36
  SPEAKER_01: I want to be mad.
• 15:37
  SPEAKER_00: Of course you do.
• 15:38
  SPEAKER_01: I want an apology.
• 15:39
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 15:39
  SPEAKER_01: How do you actually short circuit that anger?
• 15:42
  SPEAKER_01: Because honestly, isn't it just easier to write them off as the bad guy?
• 15:46
  SPEAKER_00: This raises an important question about the nature of healthy
• 15:49
  SPEAKER_01: conflict and self-protection.
• 15:51
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 15:51
  SPEAKER_00: In the short term,
• 15:52
  SPEAKER_00: it is absolutely easier and more deeply satisfying to just write someone off as
• 15:57
  SPEAKER_00: a villain.
• 15:57
  SPEAKER_00: It feels good.
• 15:58
  SPEAKER_00: It gives you a rush of self-righteous adrenaline.
• 16:01
  SPEAKER_00: But villainizing someone requires you to dehumanize them.
• 16:05
  SPEAKER_00: And while that might make it easy to walk away in the moment,
• 16:08
  SPEAKER_00: it builds up a thick residue of bitterness and cynicism inside of you over time.
• 16:12
  SPEAKER_00: You start seeing the world as full of enemies.
• 16:15
  SPEAKER_01: So how does separating understanding from agreement fix that?
• 16:19
  SPEAKER_00: Think about setting boundaries, like building a structure to keep yourself safe.
• 16:23
  SPEAKER_00: When you write someone off as a villain, you are building a solid brick wall.
• 16:27
  SPEAKER_00: You are safe behind it, but you can't see the other person at all.
• 16:30
  SPEAKER_00: They're just a monster on the other side.
• 16:32
  SPEAKER_00: But when you uncollapse under Understanding and agreeing,
• 16:35
  SPEAKER_00: you are building a chain-link fence instead.
• 16:38
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, I like that visual.
• 16:39
  SPEAKER_00: The boundary is just as strong.
• 16:40
  SPEAKER_00: You are still completely protected from their behavior.
• 16:44
  SPEAKER_00: But you can look right through the fence and still see their humanity.
• 16:47
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 16:47
  SPEAKER_00: You don't have to surrender your own moral Exactly.
• 16:49
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 17:13
  SPEAKER_01: As we look at this entire exploration from the biological desire for simple answers
• 17:18
  SPEAKER_01: to the magic question to this nuanced ability to hold boundaries with compassion,
• 17:23
  SPEAKER_01: I want to ask you about the core of this.
• 17:26
  SPEAKER_01: What do you think is the deepest mechanism underneath all of this?
• 17:30
  SPEAKER_01: What is the hidden insight here that maybe isn't immediately obvious
• 17:34
  SPEAKER_01: when you first start trying to change your perspective?
• 17:36
  SPEAKER_00: I think the deepest insight is a profound paradox about human connection.
• 17:40
  SPEAKER_00: When you actually make the shift,
• 17:42
  SPEAKER_00: you realize that you don't magically become a mind reader
• 17:46
  SPEAKER_00: who perfectly figures everybody out.
• 17:48
  SPEAKER_00: Instead, you just become much more comfortable with not knowing exactly what's going on.
• 17:52
  SPEAKER_00: And strangely, that is what makes it easier to understand people.
• 17:56
  SPEAKER_01: Wait, becoming comfortable with not knowing is what creates understanding.
• 18:00
  SPEAKER_01: That is a total paradox.
• 18:02
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 18:03
  SPEAKER_00: The deepest mechanism here is that becoming perfectly comfortable
• 18:06
  SPEAKER_00: with uncertainty is actually the highest form of understanding.
• 18:10
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 18:11
  SPEAKER_00: When we are frantically trying to figure people out,
• 18:13
  SPEAKER_00: we are usually trying to solve them like a math equation so we can control
• 18:17
  SPEAKER_00: the outcome and feel safe.
• 18:19
  SPEAKER_01: But people aren't math equations.
• 18:20
  SPEAKER_00: No, they aren't.
• 18:21
  SPEAKER_00: They are complex, contradictory, messy systems.
• 18:25
  SPEAKER_00: By abandoning the desperate need to perfectly decode everyone,
• 18:29
  SPEAKER_00: you ironically become much better at connecting with them.
• 18:32
  SPEAKER_00: True understanding isn't about achieving perfect,
• 18:35
  SPEAKER_00: crystal clear clarity on why someone did something.
• 18:38
  SPEAKER_00: Wow.
• 18:38
  SPEAKER_00: Making peace with the mystery.
• 18:54
  SPEAKER_01: That is a completely different way of walking through the world.
• 18:56
  SPEAKER_01: It takes so much pressure off of every single interaction.
• 19:00
  SPEAKER_01: You don't have to be a forensic detective anymore, gathering clues to prove your case.
• 19:03
  SPEAKER_00: You just have to be an observant, compassionate witness.
• 19:06
  SPEAKER_01: A witness.
• 19:07
  SPEAKER_01: I love that.
• 19:08
  SPEAKER_01: And to you listening to this deep dive right now,
• 19:11
  SPEAKER_01: I want to leave you with a final thought to mull over as you go about the rest
• 19:14
  SPEAKER_01: of your day.
• 19:14
  SPEAKER_00: It's a good one.
• 19:15
  SPEAKER_01: The next time you find yourself entirely baffled or frustrated or deeply hurt
• 19:19
  SPEAKER_01: by someone else's actions,
• 19:21
  SPEAKER_01: and you feel your brain spinning its wheels,
• 19:23
  SPEAKER_01: burning through energy,
• 19:25
  SPEAKER_01: desperately trying to make their behavior make sense to you, I want you to pause.
• 19:30
  SPEAKER_01: Just pause and ask yourself, What if the goal isn't to solve the puzzle of their behavior?
• 19:35
  SPEAKER_01: What if the goal is simply to acknowledge that they're reading from
• 19:38
  SPEAKER_01: a completely different script?
• 19:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 19:40
  SPEAKER_01: How much mental and emotional energy would you get back today if you stopped trying
• 19:44
  SPEAKER_01: to be the director of a play that they don't even know they're in?
• 19:47
  SPEAKER_00: That is a brilliant question worth carrying with you.
• 19:51
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 19:52
  SPEAKER_01: Thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive.
• 19:54
  SPEAKER_01: We loved exploring this with you and we will catch you next time.
• 19:57
  SPEAKER_01: Have a great one.