Communication Men v.

All right, well, good morning, Greg, and hello to everyone listening! We've got a fun topic today that's interesting. This is taken from the one we discussed a couple weeks ago where I put on for all of our Patreon listeners a little document PDF version of a book that was written about the "50 Great Myths of Psychology" or "Popular Myths of Psychology." And there are plenty more, right? As time goes on, and this stuff people said doesn't stand the test of it, there's always going to be more to add.

But this one is involving the differences between men and women, and more specifically, how that plays out with our interaction. So, yeah, there are a few questions that we'll answer and discuss today, and it's more revolving around communication and that. But, you know, there are obviously physiological and biological differences between men and women which then lead to different psychological differences and how those manifest, and how your genes are expressed, and all these different issues.

So it's not that we're completely the same or completely different. It's just how this stuff is discussed kind of gets lost, and then pop psychology comes in, and everyone likes a book that gets printed, and then all of a sudden, that becomes the law of the land. But the big questions we're talking about today are: Do women talk more than men? Do women disclose more about themselves than men? Do men interrupt other people more than women? And are women more perceptive of non-verbal cues than men?

So those are the four big things that we're going to discuss, just as differences. So it's almost like men versus women in this domain. Because, like I said, there are differences physiologically, biologically, and then those will change psychologically. But a lot of times, when there are differences, I would say in general, if you go to psychology and you talk about even like the Big Five personality traits—and that's a great one just because there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of studies and ways to look at it, and they're these big buckets—there are slight differences that are measurable and different. But it's not quite what people think; it's not as significant, I should say, as people think.

And what happens is a lot of times, with anything to do with especially psychology, but any experts out there now, people want to come up with a new theory or a new way to explain something. And if it works, if people can identify with it, if they can say, "Yeah, I've seen that before," it becomes really popular. And that's actually the downside too. Like, I love that there's this whole big podcast thing that everyone does now, and you have different experts out there in all kinds of different ways talking about all kinds of different subjects. But then the problem comes in when they start introducing things that are new, and then they start saying, "Well, based on this recent study," and then you look at a study and it's like 12 people. And you're like, "Okay, all lived in the same house." Yeah, or, "Well, this is what we're seeing," and they're really just having discussions that you would have in an academic setting with other peers maybe. And then from there, you could argue and come out with stuff and see a different side. But they're just having those with everyone. So now I'm sitting here listening, going, "Oh, wow, that sounds interesting. This must be the new thing." And there are no worse, one worse offenders, I would say, than the nutrition ones that are out there, their diet ones. Those are hilarious.

But I just want to kind of preface everything with that, because the things that we stick to are typically, I would say, more instinctual and primitive, right? So they have to do with survival, and that have been around forever everywhere you go throughout history. Like, we don't talk about some new thing and introduce that as a concept as how it affects behavior. Because you don't know how, even if it is something that's measurable, right, you don't know how long that's going to last, or you don't know what the factors are, or you don't know if it was something else. So I always caution people listening to different experts from the academic community because we're practitioners, right? I care about the "so what?" and "how can I use this information?" Where in academia, they're just studying things sometimes for the sake of studying them, and this isn't a bash. That's what you're supposed to do. But I think it gets used incorrectly sometimes, or you have like your favorite author, Malcolm Gladwell, come along and go, "Oh, so you mean this?" And then write a hit book, and then the people going, "Ah, that's not really what we meant. '10,000 hours' is not a real thing." But anyway, but it is interesting. So that's sort of like the prep to this, but we do have those four questions that we're going to get to. But I'll let you go ahead and kind of respond, I guess, to my intro there, Greg.

Yeah, a great intro, as usual. I got a half a page of notes this time on it. So what Brian's talking about, folks, is perceptions, and he's also touched on subjective reality—the reality that you create when you read a book, hear a song. Have you ever made a song mixtape or CD or whatever the new kids use now, and stumped it upon somebody and saying, "This is about you. This is about my life. This is how I feel about you?" Well, you can't do that, man. What you're doing is you're absconding with somebody else's emotions and research.

So, second point, "We Didn't Start the Fire," the Billy Joel song: Brian and I are not drawing a line in the sand. We're merely saying that this lore, these myths, are pervasive, and they stick around, and they change the way you deal with people. And if you fix you, it's a lot more, it's a lot easier, than fixing somebody else. To that point, the comms (communications) were different back then. You have to understand that comms have changed so much just in our lifetime, and how fast communication is revealed, and how quickly somebody can lie and make it convincing. And I'm not saying that these are lies because it is myth. It is something that somebody said, and then what Grandpa says becomes the reality of the house, and now it's etched in that tablet, Brian, of their future, and it's hard to get away from that.

I would amplify what you said in your intro by bringing out Orson Welles' War of the Worlds. During that time when it came out on the radio, even though it was an H.G. Wells book, it was so believable that it flooded the calls to the local police, and people were... You're talking about there's a radio station, you did this whole thing, and it was like there was an alien invasion, you know, or whatever. And so they're broadcasting it as if it was news almost. So people are tuning in going, "What the hell is going on?" And because of the slower speed of communication at the time, everyone was freaking out. They were literally calling police, going nuts, like, "We're being invaded," when it was just a show, you know what I'm saying? So that's a great, that's a great example. I haven't even heard. I appreciate it. I look like Orson this morning.

But Brian, I would add to that, that every once in a while in the news, you hear that North Carolina still has a law about marrying raccoons or something. And then somebody brings it up and goes, "Can you imagine that there are 1864 laws still on their books?" Yeah, but unless we shine the clear light of day on something, it never gets discussed academically or scientifically or in a debate. And what happens is somebody writes a little article about it, people only read the headlines, and it becomes something new. Yeah. So those four questions: Do women talk more than men? Do women disclose more about themselves than men? Do men interrupt other people more than women? And are women more perceptive of nonverbal cues? That was a chance to shine the light on this myth and this lore. And these guys and ladies that researched it did a great job on it. And what I like is that they did a 25-year "circle," you know, they used the protractor on the linoleum and said, "Okay, let's take a look at all these studies and see what really came out of them." And that, to me, is much more scientific than trying to back it up with, "Well, I've heard," or, "People say that." That takes it to the realm of the shows you and I like to watch, Ancient Aliens, you know, where their scientists go, "Oh yeah, people believe that this is..." Well, if you believe that, you're full of [expletive], and your scientific method is flawed.

Yeah. And so, so before we jump into those, because I actually want to... You brought up a couple of great examples, what I call like your raccoon North Carolina law, you know, old-timey laws, right? Something that was on the books that just hasn't surfaced for whatever reason in a hundred-something years. And then someone goes, "Wait a minute, what's going on here?" And then it just went, "Well, it never came up so no one ever changed it."

Exactly.

And there's even the neighborhood I grew up in in Chicago, you know, it's a predominantly Irish neighborhood, and there's on Western Avenue, through that neighborhood, there are no alcohol sales allowed like east of Western Avenue. Only on the east side of the street, only on the west side, just in the small little enclave, which is odd. So, because it was during the women's suffrage movement, they wanted to keep all the bars over here and this. And so it was something, this historical thing that happened as the city developed around there. Yeah. And then because it then changed that way and was on the books, a lot of things didn't develop east of there. It was all just residential, and even in the areas where like you could put restaurants and stuff like that, no one ever really opened any because you couldn't sell alcohol there. You couldn't have wine with your dinner and stuff like that. So it then changed how that town—or, well, it's not the town, it's part of Chicago—but it changed how it evolved over time. And no one ever went back, even though now it's like, well, no one's fighting to change it because it's kind of like that, it's just there and how it is. Which is actually great for the St. Paddy's Day Parade because you have the one side of the street with all the bars, so everyone's, all the drinking is over there. And then the other side of this big, four-lane street is where all the families go. So it actually separates the riff-raff from like everyone can go and have a good time. But it just because that was still on the books. So those are big things with lore and myths that stick around and then affect things in the future. And we go, "Where? How?" And then you, the classic Greg question, "How did we get here?" Like, "You know, how did this happen, look in our lifetime?"

And it's important that we talk about comms (communications) when we're talking about this. And if you're a CEO or a CFO or a C-suite executive, you need to reach out to us because we can really help you brush up on your communications because certain rules apply, and certain don't. And the lore, the myth, the legends—those are the ones that don't. And John Gray—not, I don't want to get sued here—but John Gray, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, back in the '90s. Okay, he made a tremendous amount of money on his different variations in the book. And they were wonderful, they're just like Gladwell to me. I disagree with his process, but I love his books. And Gray, and during that period, a bunch of the pop psychologists that came out have conducted zero research on any one of their claims, and they cite no studies. So while it's a romp, Brian, it's pop psychology, which means it's popular, and it's more popular than it is psychology. But when it's fun to read, we believe it. And women have historically been unrepresented or underrepresented, right? So when we see something like that, we want to champion it because it just says, "Yay for women!" even though we didn't read down into it very much and didn't do a lot of research on it. So what I say is, beware the source a lot of times of that signal, because if there's a lot of noise on that signal, and the noise is dissenting opinions, you may want to rethink your position before you come out. That's why I like these four questions. These four questions were very simple, and they're telling, because what they tell is a story that we're not that different.

And Brian, how many times have we in our stints overseas and dealing with the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, how many times have we gone into a country and they go, "Well, you don't understand, it's very different here." Every single country we've gone into outside of the continental United States, they say they all laugh at the same jokes, and they all get the same references, and they all understand.

Yeah.

And so when we come, it's one thing, and when we leave, it's a completely another, another perception, right? So that's important, you know, so we'll, we'll, we'll jump into these. And I'll, but and and also preface with, this is why our first principle at Arcadia is literally, "People are the same all over the world, so look for the similarities, not the differences." And, you know, that's why that is number one bedrock. Like, how we view human beings in general before you start getting into any of the science or any of how to read things or conduct predictive analysis or pick up on any cues or anomalies or incongruent signals. I stick with that: "People are the same all over the world, look for the similarities, not the differences." It helps to kind of clear that picture up a little bit. But I'll, I'll, I'll throw it to you then, Greg. So what did they say with question number one: "Do women talk more than men?"

Yeah, and the great definitive answer out of all of the different research papers and all of the conclusions came out the same: No. Controlled studies, the meta-analysis, the using Cohen's D, which is a rating scale on how it comes out and measures against others, they came up with the difference being so small, it was smaller than small and barely noticeable. And it was even less noticeable when people used it in everyday life. So the study said it was 0.11 in its CD (Cohen's D). So on that scale, Brian, that is so scientifically insignificant that it's not even, it doesn't bear remark. So it's unremarkable. So we have to remember that: Do women talk more than men? No. And again, we're talking about adults, folks, to keep our science paper clear. Yeah, we're talking about adults, not kids. And the second part of that is we're talking about in the same types of situations. So we're not talking about in extremist, Brian. We're not talking about where a fire is broken out in the subway and now we're doing the San Andreas flee. That hasn't been tested, so we can't comment on that, you know, right? And that would become myth or lore if we said, "Well, what I've seen over the years..." So the simple answer to question number one: No, it does not occur where women or men talk more.

And you, you brought up that good point about, hey, you have to compare one context to another similar context, right? You can't just say, you know, "In this situation men were speaking more, in that situation over there women are speaking more." It's like, well, no, you have to utilize the same sort of situation or the same context for it in order to make an accurate comparison between those two, you know, in this case, the different sexes, between men and women. And so I, I think these are, you're hitting all these important parts that I think get missed along the way, and reasons why they spin out of control, or why they become lore, the myth, and why they become popular is because it's like, "Well, and this is why we say everything about different studies where a researcher will have really, really good research and find out some things, but then their hypothesis, their findings, or their what they think their opinion is, is wrong." That was the big Ekman one with all the microfacial features or expressions for deception and all that stuff. His research was incredible and found that like, "Hey, people suck in general at detecting deception, no matter who you are." Like there's just across the board, people are not good at it. But then he went forward, and that was even with some of the Grossman stuff too, with his stuff like On Killing and On Combat. Some of his research that he found is incredible, and it's awesome. But then his opinion on why was like, "Ah, yeah, I don't know about that."

So let me comment about that for just a second. We've got a very dear friend that's ultra-religious and is constantly sending us words from the scripture. I have no problem with that, I love that as a matter of fact. He sent me two books on religion, the two hardest books to read. I'm reading that stuff. But the point is that that person will send me an opinion from somebody that's not a scholar that says, "Well, when he read this in the Bible, he said this." Well, listen to me, that's suspect. When we go back to something, we go to the original text, and then you have to get a scholar in that text, and you have to conduct certain studies. This study on question number one, and there were a number of studies, but the 2007 study, the Pennebaker study, let's call it, that you can read about, folks, because Brian's got it posted there, did a very simple thing, Brian. They followed around a number of men and women, and they figured out that both men and women talked about 16,000 words per day. To me, that's conclusive that in those environments that they tested was, you know, I don't need a Cohen's D to tell me that 16,000 words per day—in tests over and over and over with men and women—that's significant to me, right?

Great. You're great for—Yeah, 16,000 per day. You, you do 16,000 per minute?

But I do 16,000. Yeah, I apologize, per day. But I do 16,000 per podcast, no question. And so that's, that's another great point that you brought up, making fun of me there, which I deserve by the way, because my thoughts and my words don't always come out right. But Brian, look, in certain circumstances, like for example, if I—and you brought it up perfectly, but I want to make sure we stick with the science—I remember going to Disney one time with my dad. Drove us all the way from Detroit to Florida. We stayed for about four hours and then left because my dad had to work, you know what I mean? So our whole thing at Disney was more the parking lot, getting from the parking lot to the gate. When he figured out how much it cost, "Hey, let's go somewhere else." But the idea was there was a female that was on our little tram from the parking lot, "Hey, welcome to Disney!" This and that. Now let's talk about her. She talked more than the man that was driving the tram. Well, yeah, not a fair comparison. But see, that's what happens with pop psychology, that's what happens with pop sociology is we say something like that and a person goes, "Wow, I never noticed that before, but you know what? That is true." And now, all of a sudden, it becomes something. Don't sense make when it's a scent. If it doesn't pass the smell test, you got a broom. But great, that was a good question too.

Yeah, yeah. So, kind of moving on to the next one, is, "Do women disclose much more about themselves than men?" That was the next big question. Oh, just as a reminder too, for the Patreon subscribers, this is where we're getting all the stuff from. That's the episode extras. You can just go there, you can check it out. Even if you're just listening, you can sign up for a week for free on there and go watch everything in a week if you want to, and then cancel your membership or something. But it'll be on there. So anyway, sorry. "Do women disclose much more about themselves than men?"

And scientifically insignificant difference. The definitive answer is nope. It was so small in magnitude—it's 0.18 on your Cohen's D. But still, it indicates that women are just slightly more self-disclosing than men in all of the studies. So that's significance too. We're talking about a hair, we're talking about the needle in the haystack here. And so I think that's telling again. What does that tend to show us? That tends to show us on the things that matter in communications that we're much closer than we take for granted. And to me, we think women are always wearing their emotions on their sleeve. Well, physiologically there are certain times that women's hormones are different, for example, progesterone to testosterone, or pre-birth or postpartum. Those are hugely significant. But does it have anything to do with modifying how men and women communicate? The central thesis is no. And, you know what, it's borne out through these studies. So that, to me, is important too. And again, same set of rules: You've got to compare apples and apples, not apples and lawn chairs. You know, it came out very definitive.

And this goes into, it's a point to bring up, sort of on this question is, when these studies are conducted, or when someone's taking a survey, it all depends on the method with which you're measuring it. You know, if everything is a survey, and, you know, it's like personality tests, man, if you're really hungry when you take it, it's going to affect the outcome and how you measure. If you were hung over, if you're tired, if you're excited, you just got really good news. I mean, these things really affect this type of information much more than people realize. So like you brought up just a bunch of factors that would explain some personality differences or how someone communicates in a given situation. But you can't, just because you make that observation at that time, it's only necessarily at that time and place. It may mean nothing in five minutes from now, or tomorrow, or over time. And this is the big thing: over time. And you even brought up too earlier—and it's good to reinforce—we're talking about adults here, because then there are differences within children because of how development, and men, women, you know, boys and girls develop at different rates. And so, so there's so much difference in there. But once you get up into adulthood, and then you, over time, is the best way to measure something. And that's why when you get into it, and you really do what a lot of these studies are, which is a meta-analysis, right? So it's an analysis of maybe hundreds or thousands of studies that they can have data on. That's when you really get the good information. And that's also when it becomes like, "Oh, wow, there's a lot less differences than we thought." This experiment here wasn't... You're not going to get that, or you're not going to get that follow-on contract unless you leave with more questions than you came in with.

And so, a lot of times, these white papers, these studies, are written to get more money to study. And I think that their methodology is skewed, and we know that. I'll give you an example of this question, "Do women disclose more about themselves than men?" And then I come in and I show you examples of in the interview room when I was talking to women about a homicide that they were much more forthcoming than the men in the interview room. Well then, that's subjective again, because in the interview room, was the man a witness or was he a suspect? Okay, did he know the victim? Was he at the scene? Was the female the mother or a significant other of the victim? Do you see what I mean, Brian, how those minor things can put their thumb on the scale for the end? Now, most researchers would disclose the methodology that was used. (Like) Pennebaker, Kobus, Jon, John (scholars). When you read in a study, they would give you all of that information so you could draw a reasonable conclusion. But when we see this pop psychology, you know what's absent, Brian? The thinking, the planning, the how the experiment was conducted, right? The method and the manner, and the mechanisms that were used to collect information.

I mean, that's when you start looking into something, you're going like, "Okay, you're really pulling strings." Like, this is not scientific whatsoever on some of these that come up. And, you know, you just, you set up this experiment to demonstrate this specific thing. And so, therefore, the, like you said, the methods you used and how it was set up was done to show the outcome that you wanted. It's like, "Well, okay," like that's not really very scientific. But here we go, and then we attribute things that we go, "Oh, yeah, I've seen that before," and, "You know, I recognize that." And that's the big fundamental attribution error that we... It makes it simpler, right? When I don't have a good way to—maybe because humans in general aren't the best at communicating, I would say—like what you specifically want. That's why when you meet someone who's very clear, it's almost like, "Oh, wow, this person is telling me exactly what they think and why they think that way." And they get very articulate, and you get such a better understanding because you're like, "Oh my gosh, they really, they took a lot of time to put that message out there and know exactly what it is." But that's rare. I mean, most people are just, we're heavily emotion-based, and we don't always know what those contributing factors are. Sleep and hunger are huge ones that will affect your mood and your behavior. And so, so there are all of these external factors and internal factors that we don't really take into account, and we oversimplify by just saying, "Men versus women. Okay, got it. I can boil it down to those two things." It's like, "Yeah, I don't know about that." So this is just one of those that is kind of profound. So, and I apologize, there's a little delay on my side, so I didn't mean to cut Brian off, folks, if that comes through.

Daniel Kahneman recently died, and it was a sad day for everybody, because both Kahneman and Tversky (Amos Tversky) are still around. And one of the things that if you read into their stuff, what happens is they put their thumb on the scale only because of their academic prowess, how popular and how famous they are, and how many studies they've been involved with. And what I mean is that they'll say something about, "Okay, we were in the quad of a university and we're handing out caramels. But if you took two caramels, or took one, or you took three now and one later when you came back." And then what they do is they talk about that for four chapters. You forgot what the original experiment was—some high school or college kid grabbing a caramel. That alone is meaningless. What it is, is how they extrapolate information from that. And that's why your buddy, gosh darn, Gladwell—the Gladwellian folks, they love him—because he tells this amazing story up front, and he hooks you, and then he goes off on a tangent. So when we look at the raw data, and then the analysis of that data, then the meta-analysis of that data, it gives us a much, much clearer picture. And then you can say, "Okay, based on this artifact and evidence..." Like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. When Gray wrote it, he had no intent to bamboozle you. What he did is he wrote a romp, and it's fun, and it's a fun romp. And Brian, like you said, I bet you find yourself in different chapters and you go, "Oh my God, that's me!" Or that just bolsters it, and it's not true.

Well, but, but, and here's the thing to go with them, and it's not that we're bashing these people, because, you know, my thing is, if you read that and it helps you in some manner to recognize a difference in the way someone's communicating or how you are, and then you get better, then it's a net positive. Like, that's a good thing. I agree. But what we can't then say is, is use that as some sort of guiding principle or way to interpret situations, because you're going to be then, if you do it that way, you're going to be wrong more than you're right. But like if I read that and I communicate better with my wife and we have a better relationship, that's a good thing, you know what I mean? So it's not necessarily all bad, which is why I love Gladwell's stuff too. It's like, yeah, okay, he's the first guy to say, you know, "Don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good story," you know? So if you—no, he almost literally said that word for word on an interview. He did say that. Like, "Well, it's more important about the story than the details." And it's like, "Um, not with some of this stuff." Like, I get what you... But what, but he is right about the lesson, right? Like, "What's the lesson in it? What's my takeaway?" Okay, I can use some of that. But, you know, which is why with our principles and our ToK (Theory of Knowledge), we try to be very specific with something that you can use generally. Like, here's one specific thing that I can use in every situation versus here's something that works in these situations, because that then bleeds over into the other thing. It's the, "Well, that works over there, but it doesn't work here." And so that's why I go back to that like, "Look, people are the same all over the world, look for those similarities," because now if I go do studies about that, I'm going to find more studies that support that claim, than I will the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, which I think they started making, like, didn't they make like a Broadway play off of that and like a TV show or something?

Billion dollar, right.

But your, your, your Kahneman example is a great one too. So for those listening, Kahneman and Tversky, they were basically studying behavior at an economic level really. But they, they, which is always interesting, which is what everyone wants as a predictor—large-scale economic model, you know what I mean? Like of what you can do. It's like, you know, predicting the markets or economies, which actually, that's what we got to have my cousin Pat on to talk about.

I totally agree.

Because that's what he's always, he's always bashing those people like, "No, you can't predict that stuff. Like you're, someone was just more right than they were wrong, and then they think that they don't have it." They're just creative because they're really, really good at what they do. But what I was getting is even Kahneman and Tversky went back after their initial stuff and they got popular, they even went back and went like, "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't as sound as we thought it was." Now, Thinking, Fast and Slow is still a great book. I mean, I love that and how they explain different mental processes. But, and how it affects behavior, especially at scale. But even them, they went back and went, "Hey, this original stuff that actually can't really be replicated, we, we, we got to, we got to dig further into this." Like, "We know there's something there, but we're not entirely, we're not as sure as we were when we published those findings," which is good. That's science. That's what it's supposed to be, right? You get it out there and then people go, "Hang on, you missed this, you missed that. Let's, let's reintroduce it." So, so you, you brought them up, and I did want to kind of like, I love it, they're really, really good at what they do.

They are. And again, it's wonderful reading, and it opens up. That's why I, this John Flack, the Professor Emeritus, I like his take on things when I see it on LinkedIn. Why? Because it's thought-provoking. And, you know, Brian, when something is thought-provoking, I'll endorse it. Here's the problem. When it comes to the ancient script, you know, "the NASCAR lines are a landing strip in the Andes." Look, you can come light years across the galaxy, but when you scratch out directions, you do it with a rock in the worst, most remote desert in the world. There's [expletive] out there too. And that pop psychology [expletive] is where these four questions came from. And that's what I love about it, you know, even coming into question three. Okay. "Do men interrupt others much more often than women?" Okay, here we go again. If we're reading the science, the Cohen's D is .15, which is even less than the previous question. Yet the conclusion was yes, they do, men do interrupt, but it's so slight that it's again very insignificant. Because the interruptions and turn-taking were a function of social status, which means like when women were in charge, then women tended to interrupt more often and speak longer than men. When the men were in charge of that social status or construct, Brian, the men tended to interrupt more and speak longer. So again, that's a subjective reality and a subjective analysis, right? So the big answer is, not much, you know? And if we were going to be exact, we'd say yes, but it's so slight that it's virtually insignificant again. So, you know, three of those right now are starting to set a pattern.

Yeah, and you, you know, it's another example of that social setting. So if you're in that boardroom business meeting, and it's predominantly men, and they're the ones in charge, then they tended to interrupt more and speak more, right, than women. But if once those roles were reversed, and it was more, let's say, women that were in there and less men, and the women were in the leadership roles, well, they tended to interrupt and talk over people more often. And so it didn't have to do with the sex differences between men and women, exactly. It just had to do with the social situation and the context of how the situation was set up, and therefore it sort of changed the roles of people in there. And that's where you get into also the complexity. You know, like I always say, we, we talk about the simplicity and the complexity of human behavior. That's where you get into the complexity, meaning there are a lot of intra- and interdependent factors that go into any given situation. So if you're trying to narrow it down to one little specific simple one, you're oversimplifying it. You're going too far, and you can't do that, right? And this is why we even get into things like likelihood, "What's more likely than this?" "Is this more likely than that?" And it's not a guarantee, I should say. It's just what's more likely given what we know right now. And if you stick with those things, it becomes much more clear. And again, this is all good interesting stuff to read and be fascinated by and be interested in. But when it comes to utilizing it in any manner, or conceptualizing the information, operationalizing it, you've got to, you can't, you can't oversimplify it, which is why some of our stuff gets a little complex. So, that was a good one.

And then this one, the fourth question: "Are women much more perceptive of nonverbal cues than men?"

Yeah, so, Brian, the definitive answer across all the studies was yes, and many were absolutely yes. And just to give you an example, if you're following the Cohen's D for the scientists in the room, it was about 0.4, which is three or four times as much, Brian, as each of the previous ones. So this is the only one where there's a perceptible difference. And much of that comes from chemical interactions, which we'll talk about in a minute. But when all four of those questions were detail-oriented answers from subject matter experts, all of them came to the same conclusion: that few of the differences were sizable enough to be meaningful.

Now, that's the important takeaway here, is that if I believe in the folk lore, if I believe in the myth, what am I gaining? And the answer is, you're gaining nothing. So then broom it. So if it's not helping you, you know, if you're carrying that weight like Jacob Marley, those chains behind you, constantly thinking, "Well, she won't understand, she's a woman," or, "You know, you men don't give me a chance." What's happening is we're actually causing turbidity, turbulence, you know, both emotionally and psychologically, and obviously physiologically, in a place where it doesn't need to be.

So what does it mean that they're more perceptive of non-verbal cues? Well, I read a study from, and I've got to go to it, 2023 Scientific American, and it said that in all the tests that they conducted, the women proved that they were particularly sensitive to odors that signaled male anxiety. The pheromones that they were picking up on those odors made them believe that the male that they were talking to was risk-avoidant and less trusting. So they didn't stick around with those people. Now, that, to me, that's amazing. Facial... Women gave more fake smiles than men across the studies. But Brian, what's the historical perspective? You know me, I love to go way back. What's the historical perspective when women are underrepresented or undervalued and they're predated against? Okay, they have to come up with those strategies. And they also have more oxytocin. Oxytocin helps them link to the baby, and that oxytocin also helps them be more emotionally available to other people. You know, "Come talk to me, son," because they have to be at those functions in the growth of the child. So let's not make a big mountain out of it.

And this is why, and this is why I started with, "Yes, there are biological, physiological differences which will cause psychological differences, which will cause adaptation over time." And this is why we go back to, we tie everything back to instinctual, your limbic system, survival-based mechanisms. Why? Because that's how you're wired. And so this is a perfect example of one of our women much more perceptive. Because, all right, so if, as a woman, you were born with lower testosterone, less muscle mass, different bone density, all these different differences between a man and a woman, just general, across the board. And so, what does that mean for survival purposes, man? If I'm not as strong as you, Greg, and I can't lift as much, and I can't fight you, I've got to kind of be, I've got to be more cunning. I've got to be smarter. I've got to figure things out. I've got to be able to see more. I'm naturally in our environment predated upon, like you said, more than a man will be. So therefore, I have to adapt and learn to survive in that environment. And so, what ways, what mechanisms can do that? How will that come about? Well, that one's a big one is, are they more perceptive? Do they have, or like what we talk about in class even, with functional field of view, and how women can literally, in a sense, see more or process more than a man can? Now, it's significant, sort of, it's significant in number, but not in use, in a sense that like, women can see a little bit more than men, right? They can take in more, and so they're able to process the scene a little bit faster in some respects. And I don't want to go too far off of how we talk about it in class and not jump into it. But that's where you get into, "Okay, what are the actual differences?" Yes, you could say hormonal differences lead to men with more muscle mass, women with more adipose tissue, more fat tissue, for these purposes because then they also have to carry on the species, they have to have a child and love and make sure that child survives. Whereas, just go back to the caveman days, like if I'm a guy and I have that testosterone and I think one way, then I'm going to go, "This baby won't shut up, and it's going to get us killed by that predator, so I'm going to get rid of this baby," right? And Mom like, "No, no, no, we need this for survival of the species and for the child." So those differences will play out in that manner. So it's almost like they'll manifest themselves given the context of the situation. And this one is always good, always said it and stuck to it, like, "Yeah, women can technically see more, they're better at reading non-verbal cues than men are. They're more perceptive in that ways." But I've always said, and it goes right back to why we talked about the first few, especially when it comes to communication, what have I always said? Like, "No, women are not any better at communicating than men. Men are not any better at comms." Like, we're not necessarily any better at it. No one's, it's just there are different ways that we describe things based on the, you know, just maybe language and how we use it. But that changes constantly over time, is subjective, and doesn't necessarily...

Exactly.

And doesn't necessarily get into the intent of the message. So it, I, I love this one because I knew what I was going to say when I was reading through that and that question came up. I was like, "All right, I already know where they're going to find on this," so I'll let you comment on it. But yeah.

So, Brian, I'm a, Brian and I are both martial artists, and I've been in martial arts a good long time. And one of the things is that I would do a lot of library research. Yes, there's a thing called the library where you would go and take out books and do things. It was well before the internet. And one of the pervasive messages in martial arts back then was that rape, and there was rape studies, and there was, you know, rape, anti-self-defense, this, that, the other. And in nine out of the ten books that I read: "Women ask for it, man! You're asking for it! You're dressing for it!" And it's worse. So, but they're still there, Brian, go find them. And, "Oh, there are still people that think that!" "Oh yeah, what was, what was she wearing?" It's like, "Shut the [expletive] up!" Excuse me. But it's like that is the worst way to... So I call those studies that I did back then, I would call them social cognition studies. And what I mean by that is we constantly use social cognition unconsciously. Every child, every adult, processes facial expressions and knows that somebody's happy or sad or hungry. Body language, external social stimulus fits to those. And then all of a sudden, what we start doing is we start saying, "Oh, Mom's pissed, I better give her some time," or, "Hey, Dad's happy, now I'm going to show him my report card." We do that social cognition all the time.

And so what happens is studies started showing that women were much better at recognizing the facial effects and the expressions and processing those emotions, and men were uniquely ready to look at anger, aggression, threat. But why is that? Look at the social construct. This is what I mean by social cognition. Men were put into roles where they were more likely to be the police person, you know? And women were the nurturers. And therefore, and guess what, Brian, if you do that long enough, you fall into those roles. So you start believing your own bullshit. Do you know what? When I came to police work, police women were wearing skirts that made a job really easy to do. They had a little jaunty hat pinned to their hair, you know what I'm saying? And the idea was there were a lot of things that happened. I'll give you an example: I can't, I can't see Shelly ever standing for a second. Shelly was doing a detail on a SWAT team and saying, "No, it's not going to happen." When you took a look at early, this specific Police Department, non-attribution, what happened is to save money, everybody in Michigan went to the same people for the uniforms. And you had them, Oii Brothers, down in Detroit, would measure you, get your uniform ready, you'd come and pick it up on the day. So it didn't matter what police agency or what badge. All Michigan badges looked exactly the same, you know? It just had the little thing for your city on it. And this city's job was to save money, so the police uniforms and the paramedic uniforms are identical. I can't tell you how many times that I got punched on a scene where they thought I was an EMT and wasn't the cop, and I go, "Dude, you're hooked!" And they looked at you and go, "Oh, I'm sorry." And then you're sitting there in that conversation. Why? Because of this misperception that this person was something else. That's what we do with females all the time, that's what we do with males. So the social cognition is built in to say, "Listen, start reading the tea leaves early so you know what's going on." And then we, you know, we do the social thing like we open up the door or we put, you know, the jacket so they don't step in the water and stuff. And that only complicates it, Brian, that really only makes it worse when it comes to the communication side of the house.

That's, no, that, that's, that's several interesting points there too. And when you get into, and there's, that's when you can get into different societal norms and then how they kind of, kind of, you know, over time, like you said, people will fall into that. And then that then over time compounds, and then it takes a while to, "Well, wait a minute, why, why can't you do this?" or, "Why isn't this?" And that's the classic, "Wait, how did we get here?" or, "Why did this happen?" Got it. So you can, you can, you can see how those things change over time. Now, you know what to do about it, that's up in the air, or how to, how to then say, "Well, how do we address that?" That's not, there is no definitive way of doing that. And the biggest thing is that that stuff takes time, and any type of that social change like that takes a, takes a, takes a long time. And so, you know, I don't want people to go, "Oh, well, you then you, you believe that you should be doing this, you believe that you should be doing that." It's like, well, no, that a policy is different than we're just discussing the differences between and similarities between men and women and how that manifests itself in different situations, which is very different than trying to kind of create some solution for that. If you see it as a problem, I just see it as, "Okay, this is what happened. It was really no one's fault necessarily, but this is how things played out given the way humans have evolved into the society that we and culture that we have right now."

And, and again, it goes back to what lenses then can I use? How do I see things for what they are? What, what, you know, what studies should I read? Because someone's going to go, "Well, yeah, but then you guys just cherry-pick your studies for what you, you know, you think it is." And it's like, "No, I keep it, I keep it simple, and we keep it basic and oversimplify very complex interactions for the purpose of seeing them more clearly and making a more informed decision." And those, those, those small, you know, better-informed decisions over time, well, that's what adds up. I mean, that's the, that's, that's how you get massive change to things over time. But, but I, I think we, we forget about that, and we, we want a simple answer for all this stuff. Like, "I want a simple answer for why, you know, me and Michael keep arguing over a certain thing." And that's what we talk about, taking another person's perspective. And so, but if I put all of these things up in front and go, "Look at this different, well, you're different." Now I have to learn how you see things, Greg. And then I have to learn how this person communicates, and then I have to learn the dynamics of this. That's too much to [expletive] learn. Like, it's too much. You can't know all of that person who isn't always, always clear on what they want, what they need, or what they're like. Like, we're starting on shaky ground. A lot of the stuff starts on shaky ground. There is no solid foundation. I like solid foundations, and then maybe we'll put up a wall over here and see if it lasts, and then maybe we'll put up something over here and see if it lasts. But what are those foundational elements? And so that's, that's my big thing for all of these, or anytime I'm listening to some podcast or watching something on TV and someone talks about it, it's like, "Yeah, that, that's interesting. Okay, but, but, but maybe, maybe it's not, maybe it's not as accurate as we think it is. What are the foundational elements?" So that, that, that's my big commentary.

Oh, and the one I forgot to mention, I thought of earlier when you were talking about men and women responding to things and facial expressions. When Michael's watching the different reality shows and they're arguing or they're fighting or the woman's getting emotional about something, I've always been like, walking past her watching like, "This is, this is BS, like she's full of [expletive]." But then I'll see like a tear come down her face, and I'm like, "What the [expletive] is going on here?" And I forgot like, there's so much Botox in some of these people's faces that it changes, it doesn't. So they're not giving an actual natural response to the situation. So the words, yeah, there's an incongruence in the words and the emotion, but like you can't really fake the tears. So like those come out and I'm like, "Oh, wait a minute, it's because of this!" So that was a factor that like I never even thought of until it hit me one time. And I was like, "Oh, they got so much plastic surgery and Botox that they're not giving natural reactions to the situation, which is changing how everyone else is perceiving them without even realizing it." So, so there are all kinds of different factors that, that, you know, that get in the way of our accurate perception of a person.

So to capitalize on what Brian said earlier, and he said a lot, unpack it, go back, listen to what he's saying. The idea is that there's so much going on that you're going to be unable to function. What do I mean by that? If you take this information and it makes you smarter, faster, harder to kill, then it's great. If it makes you stutter and stand there and move your feet and go, "What do I do next?" then it's not going to do you any good. And also, you have to rehearse those things.

So, funny Shelly story, we're a little bit off of where that story might have fit in, but it's still important to me about Progesterone Patty (referring to Hillary Clinton). Shelly and I were on the Clinton detail before he was president. So I was on the Bill Clinton side of the house, and Shelly was on the Hillary Clinton side of the house. And the funny thing was, those camps never met on the road. And so, whether you like her or hate Hillary Clinton, or you're ambivalent to her, I've read every book that Hillary Clinton wrote. I know so much about her, and I'm always talking about her. Why? Because Hillary Clinton was making comments like, "Hey, I'm going to break the glass ceiling," forgetting that Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi—should I go on?—Cleopatra had all done it before. But see, she could pull that off because, no pun intended, Hillary Clinton always wore balls outside of her pants.

So we were just getting ready to go. I was meeting the Secret Service. Tough and smart, man, like, I don't care what you think of her, but she's not vulnerable. She is not. And so I'm getting ready to go, I've got my Secret Service folks, and we're talking about the motorcade and this. And Shelly's over to my right. And Shelly's wearing a suit coat like I've got on today and a pair of slacks because they had a uniform that you have to wear this if you're going to be on it. And so Shelly's in it, and she's got her hair up. And so I hear Hillary Clinton turn around, and she's constantly about something. And Hillary Clinton looks at Shelly and goes, "Hey, hand me my purse, hun." And Shelly gave the, "No, this is not a lady. First of all, I don't work for you yet." And, you know, this is the way. And they became fast friends because Shelly was taking no [expletive] right up front. So what did you have? You had two alpha personalities, two apex predators in the same room. And then once they smelled each other and, you know, circled around each other a little bit, it was like, "Okay, we can move on." That's what I'm talking about here. Yeah, I'm talking about if you understand how the basics of comms (communications) work, then you can have that moment and get past it, Brian, and you can be much more successful longer having had that discussion.

So if you can break through this, and can I give one more example? Our good buddy Dan Chavez that's on our Board of Advisors. He called me yesterday and we had a great discussion, and he said, "Hey, I just watched this video and these folks were booting this homeless person who was living out of her car, happened to be a female. And I want you to listen to what the cops say and tell me if these were trigger moments." Well, here's the first thing: there are laws. So, if you're living in your car, your car is inherently more mobile, so you've got the motor vehicle exception, right? But the same thing on the other side of that, if your car is your home, well, maybe an argument can be made. So then the people were tossing all the female's [expletive] out of the car, and she was getting increasingly pissed, and you could see it. And the answer there is, yeah, but it's an inventory inception—if the exception in the search warrant rule, if they're going to tow the car, they have to do an inventory. But, you know what that is, Brian? That is miscommunication. If I look at you and I tell you, "I understand this car is your home, so I'm going to deal with it as delicately as I can. But because these laws were broken, we have to impound it. So let's work on getting your equipment out of there that you need and getting you a place to stay for tonight." It would have, it would have taken a completely different turn.

So in every situation, yeah, there's the chance to do it procedurally, and the chance to invoke folklore, and the chance to invoke your specific religion and not listen to anybody else's views. You get where I'm going? And so comms (communications) is so important, and that face-to-face comms with humans always invokes a wide, a panacea of different drug interactions in our brain, most of which will take hold before we ever open our mouth. So we have to slow down, we have to come off the gas, and see that early.

That, and that's a great example, but I wish we would have almost started with that, that story, and to get into these because, you know, what you're talking about there is the confluence of, okay, there are laws, there's policy, there's procedure, there's also social norms, there's having empathy, there's having to enforce laws that are on the books that either the person that, maybe even the police officer, doesn't agree with. But guess what? They have to enforce it. And someone, there was a reporting party, maybe someone called. Like, there are all of these different factors. And there are all those different ways that things are done. And so what people will do is they'll come back and they'll watch that video, and they'll go, "Well, here's what the problem is." It's like, "Well, but you didn't take into account any of these other factors of why this situation coalesced and occurred in the first place. What were all of these contributing factors that came out this way?" Now, is there, could there have been a maybe a more effective way to handle the situation? Sure. But you can say that about literally every situation and every conversation that people have with one another. There's always a better way to do it. But you're not thinking of that in the moment, right? You, you have this confidence of all these different factors that come together, and then the outcome can be just completely misrepresented. That's how a lot of studies are. That's how a lot of research is. It's, you, and that's the point of the research too, is you may uncover insights that you otherwise did not know. You uncovered something that was like, remember the folks that we were working with in the, in the, well, try to keep non-attributional, in the medical field, right? They're in healthcare. And they talked about this new drug that was going to, supposed to do a lot of great things for these older folks. And, you know, they did all, spent, you know, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars researching, going through trials. And then they weren't getting the results in these areas. And they were having this phone call about it. And then it was this, this, you know, the older woman who helps out, like, kind of like old school candy striper, but, you know, hands out the pills at this place, was saying, "Well, I'm finding these all over the place, and they're not taking the medicine. And they're not taking it because it's too hard to swallow." So they were looking at all their data, going, "How is this not working?" Spending all this time and research. And it came down to this small factor of, "Well, they're not actually even ingesting that medicine. You need to make the pill smaller or easier to swallow." And it was like that. So many stories right there. I mean, and how many stories are there out there like that, you know? And that even goes back to what you bring up sometimes, it's like, "Okay, you're, you're going to make the taser look and feel and act just like a gun." Like there's going to be, and have a holster for it. Problem, right? Come on, like, know those signals are going to get crossed eventually, yeah, and sooner than later.

And that's why I wanted to caveat early on about that we didn't start the fire on this one, because, you know, all we're doing is saying communication is so relevant and it's so essential. And here, propping it up with men and women, and, you know, getting that fog of war out of the way and saying, "Hey, there's some real tangible stuff we can use," knowing that these things are folklore. You know, to me, Brian, that, that's a good thing. And I hope that people look at the article, and I hope that they dig a little deeper on their own. It'll, it'll make it easier to communicate with your loved ones, with your kids, with your church group. I really, I believe that.

Check, check, check out the article. There are all kinds of different ones in there, so you can pick what you want and then go find it. It's on our Patreon site. You can even get it for free, but you can go on there. And it's just, it's just interesting because it put things into light. And, you know, you've got to, you've got to walk the line of not oversimplifying things, but also not overcomplicating things. And this is why I always tie it back to that one of our first principles: if people are the same all over the world, if I look for the similarities, not the differences, I will, that communication process will be better because I'll have a more clear signal, you know, on what I'm actually doing here. I can reduce some of that noise environment and focus on sort of what matters for the situation that I'm in. And that's kind of, I guess, I, I would end with that. Greg, give anything else?

I think it's a great, great landing zone.

All right, well, thanks everyone for tuning in. We appreciate it, and don't forget that training changes behavior.