Left Of Greg 077 Psychologist Dr. JJ Walcutt

Hey everyone, thanks for tuning in. Brian Marren, I'm the host of The Human Behavior Podcast. You're going to be watching the video version of our audio podcast. Please, guys, if you like the video, like it, subscribe to the channel. There's going to be more content down there if you're already a subscriber, and a better way for us to get you guys some more stuff. If you have any questions or comments, go ahead, leave them below. Check out our links down below to get a hold of us and to actually find out more places where you can get more information about this. Please like it, subscribe, follow us on Facebook at HBPRNA. Remember, all these cases that we discuss and all these discussions that we have are through the lenses of what we call Human Behavior Pattern Recognition and Analysis. So please like it, share it, tell your friends about it, and we hope you enjoy the show.

All right, Greg and Dr. Walcutt, we are going to go ahead and get started. First of all, thank you so much for coming on. You are one of the, I would say, more intellectually capable people we've ever had on the podcast. Normally, it's just fellow knuckle-draggers like myself and Greg, so it's nice to have an actual, we tell people, don't listen to the influencers, listen to the experts. So we tell people we actually go out and find them sometimes and bring them on the show. So we're probably going to get into a whole bunch of different areas, but just a quick, I know some people listen to intro, some people didn't. So you're a PhD research psychologist, you've done all kinds of stuff. You've worked with the Department of Defense a lot in terms of research, and which is a lot of cool stuff that happens with inside that, and where they're at in terms of research versus like a typical university research type organization. So there's a lot you can get into there. But you've worked with NATO, Human Innovation Fellow at the Office of Personnel Management. I got a little beef with them. They, I was one of the people who got all their identity stolen from them, and back. So the Chinese have all of my stuff. But you've got a book out called Who the Eff Wants to Be President? You host the podcast called "The Nerdy Truth," which I love that title. And where you're going with that, a presidential candidate. So you got all kinds of stuff going on. So first off, thanks for coming on. It's awesome to have you on here. I'll let you start off with what you want to get into today.

Well, first, let me say thank you for having me on. And I will clarify, I am officially no longer a presidential candidate, and that only matters for legal purposes, but okay, to make sure. But yeah, my most recent has been really this trip around the country and getting to talk to citizens, every walk of life. What is working and how do we string that together to work for the whole country? We kind of worked with a hypothesis that we already have a whole bunch of ideas and we don't need to create, we don't need to reinvent the wheel, to use what we typically say, military. And so what we were trying to do is figure out where can we find those ideas and not to hold ourselves back. You know, we frequently do only listen to experts, or refuse to listen to them. And we need both.

One of my favorite stories was a gentleman that I met in an RV park, and he was somebody, his job was to lay concrete. And, you know, it's very interesting when you stay in an RV park because you know everybody's living room, because you are actually living in it with them. So when you come out for breakfast, you're having breakfast in your jammies with them. So it's a very interesting experience. And this gentleman, in his wife beater (undershirt) and his, you know, his morning cigar, says, "The problem with government, JJ, is that it's the same as my profession. The people who design what it is that they want concrete for have never actually poured it themselves." I thought, "Bingo!" You don't need a PhD to understand what the problems are. And so we all get it. It's just that nobody's coming with solutions. We yell, we scream, we complain, we try to do good, but at the end of the day, how do we bring all that together? So that's what we did in this book.

So that's a good point because that goes into everything you're talking about. One, yeah, I always say, "Hey, no one actually knows, you know, everyone eating sausage has never made it themselves." So, you know, it gets very, when it comes down to the actual details of doing this stuff, it gets, it's very nuanced and there's a lot that goes into it right there. So a lot of issues are connected where, seemingly on the surface, you wouldn't think they were, but one thing leads to another. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you're kind of trying to do is take a scientific approach to policy, right? So I guess maybe that would be the best way to sum it up, or data approach, or holistic approach. How do you describe it?

Military approach. Okay. Base concept: what does every person bring to the team? So yes, there's a science element, but I often say, "I didn't serve in the military, but I've been professionally raised by them." And, you know, one of the things that we talk about when you go into theater, all those differences melt away because frankly, if we get it wrong, people die. It's that simple. And so we figured, well, if we kind of took the OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and took it around the country and said, "All right, what do we observe? What is out here? How do we scout for the right ideas? How do we take what we do as far as team cohesion concepts and how we would actually define mission and tactical plan, an operational plan? How would we set that out? And then how do we write it so that everybody understands what mission success looks like?" So, I often argue it's kind of a balance of science and military.

Well, and what you just mentioned there, too, is you brought up right there at the end is what it, what does that mission success look like? And I don't think we start there, right? We, we offer these knee-jerk reactions or policies that in the short term might work, but in the long term, we're going to be horrible. How many, how many bills now are we realizing from different type of criminal justice stuff that was enacted in the 90s that we look at today, like, "Oh, wow, that really was a backwards way of thinking." But I think that goes into it is having that clear definition of what does success look like. Okay, now do we start so that we can get there? I don't know. Greg, you'd probably say, "Yeah."

So, so here's the thing. Most of, most of you guys accelerated pretty rapidly here. Most of the viewers don't know that the JJ stands for "jab, jab, crap from anybody," and she's always fighting in there and she's always, she's always making a lot of sense. That's why it's a pleasure to have you here. So when I think of distributive ops and I think of Intel-driven ops, I also think of ego-driven ops. And the problem is with our nation a lot of times, and with the political motivations of certain personnel, that it's hard for them not to take their foot off the gas or to take their foot off the gas and actually slow down through the Flyover States and see what the rest of the world and what the rest of America is thinking. So I applaud you for doing it. One of the things that the military approach does bring to it is a sense of mission accomplishment. But we're involved now, and the nation is, is burning in some aspects because of it, is that we continue to say, "Don't worry, we keep leaning forward. Everything is fine. We don't have to take a look behind us. We don't have to take a look at our supply trains. We don't have to take a look at our constraints and things like training the strategic corporal." We have officers on the road that are dictating policy for an agency. And now that upside-down way of thinking has created havoc in our nation. What do people think at ground level? What do you think, JJ? What's, what's the real issue that we're facing here as a nation?

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a couple of them, right? One of them is, is systemic. We have a top-down approach. There are those in power which make up like this teeny, teeny, tiny bit, right? And then there's all the rest of us. And the benefit of the people in power, it's not just money, it's knowledge of game rules, right? I often joked, you know, if I ever got onto one of the shows on TV, you know, what, the late night shows or something, I said, "I want to give them index cards and come up with anything you can, anything bizarre that you want funded by the federal government, and test me. And I guarantee you, in five seconds, I can justify anything you want to buy, from shoes to ponies to rockets. If you know how the budget system works, and you know who you need to know, and who you need to talk to, and you know the underground pipeline, then you know the above-ground rules. You can justify anything and you can set things up to your advantage."

We as normal citizens have laid some trust into the people who are running this show. And we've done something, I think the desert (likely "designers" or "system") intended to be positive, but was a critical error: we don't discuss religion or politics in polite society. And in doing so, we create a bubble around an entire section of our world who has built up enormous amounts of power and weeded out people who have long-term solutions, or who don't show well on camera but maybe have great ideas, or people who want to do something that is meaningful and keeps the status quo in certain areas that's not popular, that doesn't sell. So, we think we have some game rule issues.

And I would say the third issue that I found, I come from Orlando, so let me say that, right? And in my state, we've had a number of school shootings, so people that are very emotional about that. And we have a high density in many of our cities. Drive into Wyoming, keep driving through Iowa, keep driving and driving and driving, and three hours later you'll see another person, right? It's not the same per state. And we have taken a one-size-fits-all perspective, and that has essentially sent a message: we hear those that are present and we don't hear those that are far away. It's not surprising people are pissed.

Yeah, and that's, that's kind of what I meant when we get into, you know, the influencers versus the experts, right? It's sometimes the loudest person in the room has all the followers and everyone's behind him and they know the least. But that, and that gets in where you brought up, is we tried to make a, you know, a policy and implement it, you know, even if it was the most well-intentioned policy, and everyone got on board. When the implementation of it is incredibly difficult and challenging, this is where we get case law from. And that informs, you know, that, that really is what the Constitution is about. But there's different tests in there. And like you said, we had, we had Andrew on a while back, and he wrote the book Why Meadow Died. His daughter was dead, and he went through and identified, from the Parkland shooting, these are all of the things for the years leading up to this event that occurred prior to this happening. And we were like, "This is amazing!" But then what happened is that his response and his book and everything got politicized. And he got thrown in the mix because he was wearing an old T-shirt the day of the shooting, and it happened to be a Trump T-shirt. And everyone just said, "You're just a pawn for this administration." He's going, "No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of why this kid was allowed to go to school with my daughter. And I don't care if he's like, if I thought the NRA had something to do with it, you bet your ass I'd be going after the NRA. I'm going after the system, the process that we have." And it kind of fell on a lot of deaf ears because it got very political. And it's weird how some of these issues have now gone, it's now, it's tribalistic. It's instead of us, instead of JJ, me and you, working together, "All right, here's what my people want, here's what your people want. How do we work together to get everything out of this?" It's going, "No, you can't have that. I don't think you can have that because the people that voted me in said they don't like that." It's like, "Wait, that's, that's a little bit backwards approach, I think." I don't know what your thoughts are on that.

Well, I mean, yeah, well, it's a power and not powerful approach, right? And I often say, "We named the wrong enemy." Your neighbor is not your enemy. You may disagree with them, but they are not at the end of the day your enemy. We do have true enemies in this country, and folks who are in defense, whether that's your civilians or the military, we know who they are, and they are generally not our neighbors. And I think that's why you're seeing such a tremendous outpouring from the generals and our admirals and other folks that are stepping up from senior leadership in military saying, "No, no, no, Americans are not our enemy. We need to make sure that we keep clear what those lines are." And we're allowing them to blur and emotions are getting high. And, you know, I'm, as a cognitive psychologist, of course, I know that means our decision-making goes out the door. So, and that's for everybody. That's our first responders, that's our military, that's right, who have a daughter in ROTC, and, you know, they're not equipped at 18 to 22 to be able to make that decision. They're following orders, and we know that. So I appreciate the leadership standing up, and I think that's why you're seeing it. They're trying very hard to say, "We're apolitical, but we do stand on the side of the Constitution." So that's an amazingly important distinction.

That's a distinction with a difference. Listen, I have no problem telling everybody that I'm tired of hearing, "More study is necessary," because if you're not out there trying to implement change, then you're not doing anything. But there's also this, this rush rather than exercising the gift of time and patience. And I'll give you just a brief example, and I'd love your opinion on that. You got in Arizona where they set a list, and we want to pass this so the cops are out of the schools. Okay, that's how we're going to show that we're against a situation that happened over here. Then we're going to pull the cops out of the schools. You're from Florida. That's a bad choice. That's a bad knee-jerk reaction to a problem that's going on. And that would be tantamount to saying, "You are exhibiting these three symptoms, so what we're going to have is this panacea of drugs, and just feel free to choose, because sooner or later, you're going to hit on the right mix that's going to solve the problem." I am opposed to that. I'm opposed to waiting too long. I'm opposed to using a retro approach. And I love that one of your titles, and everybody that's listening, our loyal listeners, she's the real thing. She's been in and out of all of these jobs. She's an insider, a trusted insider. But your job title was "Innovation." We need an innovative solution that takes everybody's voice and is constitutionally sound. I totally agree.

I think this is where I borrow from the military. I preach this a lot: the 80% rule. And you know, the way I tell it is something along the lines of, "If, if you hear a bomb go off and everyone runs, everyone dies. You've got to have a plan. But if at the same time you stand there and plan and plan and plan until everybody's dead, everyone's still dead," right? So there is an in-between. Gather enough information to make the best decision you can, balancing time and, in some cases, you also have to balance physical resources. It's just a matter of living, right?

And so, you know, I like, that's why I just like to tell everyone, like, "Look, these are, these are heavily nuanced issues." That, you know, it's like everyone now is yelling, "Hey, the police need more training!" And like everyone who's been involved in training and law enforcement and actual law enforcement officers are like, "Hey, welcome to the party! We've been saying this for longer than you've been alive, but thanks, thanks for letting us know." And you're going, "Yeah, people on the ground know." Then this is what brings back to a lot of times people out there doing it know. They have the answers or an answer or a general idea. And you said it, "Don't reinvent the wheel." I always say, you know what, it's one of my hated terms when someone says, "Hey, we've got to think outside the box." I'm like, "No, you don't. You don't qualify to think outside the box. You haven't used all the tools that you have inside the box yet." So until you, until you use all those, then you can, then you can go outside the box.

But that, that's what comes up is that, so I would ask from your, your psychologist background, right, your cognitive psychologist, so give it to me in that lens, so to speak, because Greg and I talk about a lot, and I bet you'll probably come up with something similar, you know, why do we do that? Why do we feel the need that this is now the biggest thing? To me, this is what we have to do, and everyone, yeah, we're all nodding and patting each other on the back, yeah, that's, that's the right way, because everyone thinks so. But there's always a guy going or a girl going, "Wait, maybe we should do this." So, so why does that happen? And why do we have these knee-jerk reactions, and why doesn't, why doesn't someone then step up and stop those knee-jerk reactions? Who knows better?

Well, so this, I've actually, I'm going to take this all the way down, brain, if you're ready. Chemicals in the brain. And so when I, when I mentor children, I tell them, "Follow your energy." And usually their energy pops up in a couple of key ways. For some people, it's that moment when that challenge comes in front of them, like a puzzle, and they can sit back, digest, and think about it. They're the person you're saying, "Oh, wait, give me a few minutes, let me think about this," right? And for others, it's that pounce experience, you know, "The tiger's chasing me!" Where we go, we don't hear, but you're there. And when we talk about military training, one of the things that we do if we can optimize a team is making sure we have both of those people on the team, right? Because we don't want analysis paralysis, we also don't want you running without thinking. And somewhere in the middle lies the right answer.

But one of the things that I find in government, of course, is that we have these missions. Success is not defined by a fully functioning country. That, that is not success to them, right? Yelling, tickets, in other words, getting donations is success. So the best success metric is messed up from the beginning. And so the notion that you're going to go find these problems and these answers to these problems is only true to the extent that it sells tickets, that it's interesting. One of the things they found that was a huge driver for this campaign was, as my job as an Innovation Fellow for the Office of Personnel Management, I had to do a project. And my project was to redesign the entire executive branch. I studied all 15 departments and the associated agencies. I went and looked for innovation groups all over these programs. I started asking hard questions because I was a scientist, not a politician. They talked to me. And you know what I found? I found amazing ideas in every single department. I found solutions that nobody's ever heard of. And the number one punchline that I found was that the administrations had no idea that these people even existed.

And the way that our budget lines work, Congress throws money over the fence and says, "Do the following." Somebody gets a task that says, "Do the following." They are there to solve world hunger. They are not there to make a better education system. They are there to do a task on a line. So going outside to talk to other offices that already have a solution, or going into our citizens and saying, "Who has tried to solve this already?" is not rewarded. Because guess what? Now you've taken time that you have to justify away from that specific task that you've been asked to do. And so the system is set up poorly, and that's what we did is we redesigned the system to make it work where it connects to citizens. And as a shameless plug for a very free book that you already paid for because it was government sponsored, it's called Innovating Government: Redesigning the Executive Branch, and it's free. It was published by the Pentagon. You can just download it. Google it.

So what, what does that look like then? Because we, I say, you know, there's, it's a bureaucracy, it's big, it's a, it's a big slow-moving ship. The federal government is, yes. And so we, we have processes that have been there for certain reasons, right? There's, there's checks and balances, like, "Hey, there's a government, you know, contracting process, and you can bid, and then you can protest that," so that there's fairness and there's, right? So, so some of that has to be built in there for, for the purposes of it's taxpayer money, so we have to be careful how we use it. But then that leads to what is, all right, now I have this funding stream. Now as long as I hit these little wickets, I keep continuing to get that funding stream. And what we saw, is I was one of the craziest things that when I first started in the Marine Corps, was my first experience with the US government was like, "Hey, we've got to hurry up and spend this money because the, the fiscal year is almost over. And if we don't spend this right now, we're not going to get it next year." It's like, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So we didn't need it this year, but, but if we don't need it, then, then we get less next year." Like, why don't we just, why can't we just, just have that for next year, because we saved like. And it's not set up that way. But so how does that work then? How do you, how do you change a fiscal and budgetary policy to allow this innovation now? So I'm kind of curious what you came up with or what you found to be, you know, practical solutions to that issue.

Yeah, so I mean, you're pointing out the very reality of it. It's one thing to paint a beautiful picture, and then it's another to say, "Okay, here are the constraints that actually exist." And so oftentimes you'll see a military will say, "Here's what we have as a current functioning level. Here's where our dream is, and then here are the five steps in between." And so we set it up exactly like that.

Number one, I started looking for programs that were already showcasing certain things. So for example, did you know that there are citizen science project funding lines? They already exist. It's very easy. They run in the ten thousand, a hundred thousand dollar range. And somebody who is not a scientist, but has a great idea for their community, can actually apply. The point I'm trying to make is that this is already set up as a process. You can just multiply it.

Another great one was, it's called the Virtual Service. It's through the State Department. I'm not going to get the acronym correct, but it's a virtual service program. And so what they started out was working overseas. They would have virtual college students that would teach folks that were working for the US government, but in different countries, how to, how to connect. And they traded ten hours a week for class credit and got to work with the government. Well, then that multiplied, and I think they're in like 30 different agencies now doing all kinds of projects. And essentially what happens is, it means if somebody could volunteer their time and learn about how the government works, could give their personal expertise to problem solving and have a seat at the table. And so when you find those kinds of avenues, it's like, why don't we just apply this to more places?

You mentioned military spending, absolutely, right? A couple of points on that. One, we now have OTAs (Other Transaction Authorities). These are starting to be understood, but the punchline for anybody who doesn't know, the DoD funding, it allows it to move more rapidly. And so we don't have to do these long drawn-out processes for identification, which of course, delays the time by which we get information to people, and we can't innovate as well. But the other is more systemic things. Like I often say in the Pentagon, "Power is defined by how much money you can control, and how many one-pound burritos you can eat." There, there is a layer of, "I cannot make more money or get rewarded in any kind of a way that you would normally be in a company. So instead, I will amass control by how much money I can gather." And so it's like minnows and sharks looking for small pots to be able to gain control, and large pots to gain money. And this becomes a game that gets played.

And then there's the underlying piece, which is that burrito piece that I refer to. All that social capital. Who in which office needs to approve or give me a waiver in order to get something sent where I needed to, to move the money, you know, as it can be? So I think what you have to do is, number one, you've got to change that structure so that you are rewarding for something other than money spent. You have to have a mechanism by which that money goes back into a pot to help. You have to recognize that Congress stays in power by bringing money to their area. So you have to distribute the money across the states and across the communities in a sensible way, and we don't, we do that just by going after money, but we don't optimize it. And then, of course, you have to look for ways to get the public involved in the government. If you've got a great idea that can help this country, we should have a mechanism by which to access you. The Marine Corps has done this with cyber, right? Our best cyber people are going to Google, Amazon, and other companies. We still need their expertise. So now they have the volunteer cyber force, where we've created the possibility of a volunteer billet. Once that exists, you can replicate it. So there are other ways to do that as well.

And one of the just very practical things that I push back all the time is, I said, you know, "Every single one of us pays taxes, and yet not a single one of us ever gets, you know, a bill or some clarification on what that money is spent on." I know budgets. And I have read through every line of our national budget, and it took me like eight hours to get through it. They surprise nobody is reading that. So you invest your money in your 401k, and every three months you get a statement. Why can't I get a statement? I think there's practical and higher level things that we can do, but there is a way to make this not top-down, but actually citizen involved.

Yeah, Brian Marren, I don't know if you know that JJ and I have got a lot of background together without ever having physically been in the same location at the same time, which is funny. So if you go back to University of Central Florida, or Border Hunter, or Combat Hunter, all the way back, JJ, you'll remember that Combat Hunter was actually called the greatest program that nobody's ever heard of. And the deploying troops are getting it and the tip of the spear was getting it. But we'd fallen on a unit and they were voluntold to take the training, and they were like, "Wait a minute, where's this been all our lives?" So I'd like to relate a funny story, because you, you and I back in the Beltway days. Brian Marren, you graduated in like '97. So he doesn't know 'em, or that, first of all, I never graduated, he'll fight me for that. But there was a film called Backdraft. And so it's, it's aka fireman porn. All it is is fireman, fireman, fireman, fireman, fire, fireman. So everybody right after that, don't go to that site. The, the idea was that after that movie, Congress invited Ron Howard to come speak to Congress to increase the funding for Fire Department training for a problem that was from a made-up movie. So Hollywood and the government got together to spend a million dollars to help a problem that nobody had. But it's things like that, when they asked me what the problem is, we would go into a situation, and Combat Hunter's a perfect example. Invented it, got this, got that, get the training, everything else. And a vendor would come up and go, "We can do it for this much money." And I'd be going, "What are you talking about?" And they'd be going, "We already have subject matter." "Dude, I wrote the book! You don't even know what you're talking about!" Why, why do we keep falling backwards, JJ? Why can't we stick to innovation and see that those old policies didn't work then, and they're not going to work now?

Yeah, I literally was on the phone with NATO three days ago saying exactly that. They said, "The NATO leadership has bought in, we need to be doing distributed learning. How do we get them to move forward?" I said, "Your number one problem is they don't know what good looks like, right? And you don't have the trust." So the question that we get in government is, "Do we have X?" And someone says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, we have X." No one asks the next question, which is, "Does X work well?" And if they do, they mean, "Does it turn on and off?" Right? I mean, does it train better? Does it lead to increased readiness? Does it mean that our country is ready for whatever is going to come our way? Is resiliency being measured? Who knows of a resiliency metric that any politician uses? Nobody. Nobody. As you're hearing about some of it in New Zealand, from their prime ministers talking about it, and certainly some of our European countries do talk about it. I had the experience working with one of the O6 equivalents in Finland. The Nordic countries are frequently building up their entire society to be ready for a Russian invasion. Everybody knows, "This is my job. This is what I contribute to the national team to be ready." We don't do that well.

That's your, there's, there's cultural differences. There's a number of things. There's, there's the way the US says, "No, I." And that comes into different, you know, buying in and being part of the society, and what does that actually mean? Because you've got people that are like, "Hey, you know, well, I pay my taxes." It's like, "Yeah, look." I always go back to, actually just posted on something I did on Instagram yesterday about, because it was, it was nine years ago, you know, today, or whatever, when I took the photo. And I was outside of Nazriya, Iraq. There's a ziggurat at ancient Sumerian city. And I was up on top of it, it's just cool place, you know, supposed the birthplace of Abraham, the father of all nations, right? This whole historical textbook. I remember being there and reading up on the Sumerian civilization, like we've learned about before. But I found this old Sumerian proverb, and that said that, you know, "You can, you can worship your God. You can praise your king, but the man fears the tax collector." And that's a 4,000-year-old proverb. And my whole point is, 4,000 years ago, people were bitching about paying taxes. So, there, in 4,000 years from now, people are going to be bitching about paying taxes. But that, that, that's something that's there, right? It's a little, "death and taxes" only like you, you have to take an active involvement in this. And there's different ways that people looking at doing it in terms of different types of national service or ways to do that. But, but it's that involvement that's, that's, that's key.

And one of the things kind of you touched on, I'd like to ask you what your thoughts are on, because you, like, you went around to all these different departments in the government and all these different agencies, and you found people that, that knew what the answers were, or were innovating. And I think sometimes my opinion is that, you know, we're obsessed with technology and new things, right? And sometimes people mistake that for innovation, meaning, you know, a new technology. This isn't necessarily innovate, innovation can mean another thing. And the term technology can mean a lot of things. A technology is just something that, that improves your process or your output, you know, with it. It's like a force multiplier, something that gets you better and more effective without increasing your numbers or your budget, right? It can be a number of things. But especially in the military and DoD, we get obsessed with, like, I had this big long conversation with people working on all kinds of cool projects. And I'm like, "That's not innovation." Like, "No, it's a better radio! It uses laser!" Then I go, "What, what changes about the mission? Did you, did you increase that person's effectiveness?" "No, you decreased it because you actually are now saying, we're going to send another person along with this new tool." It's like, "Well, so they have the same job, but now they have more people that are required to do it. So you're now less effective." And they literally could not get it past that point. "No, no, it's, we're innovating here." So I don't know what your thoughts are on, like, do we mistake that sometime, that technology with actual innovation?

We're excited. I mean, straight up, right? It's, it's the new best thing. There's a reason we, we used to buy shiny new bikes, and we buy fancy new cars. It's, it's fun and it's exciting. And to go back to the brain, it shoots the chemicals up, right? So we live in a world where, you know, not, not to diminish the inequities that exist in our nation, but the very base of our country is pretty high still. And so it means that our entire mindset is one that looks for excitement. And so we look for shiny new objects, period. And we don't have enough tigers chasing us to wear us out at the end of the day. And so we're constantly looking. And this is actually, if I may say, it's, it's extremely dangerous. And the reason it's dangerous is because I think it's about eight years where the brain actually, the homeostasis points, and the brain starts to change semi-permanently. And so what that translates to in lay speak is you need to keep finding that upper, if you will. And so if it doesn't come into your life, if that drama doesn't come into your life, you will go look for it. And if you can't find it, you will invent it. And so what do we see as a national, or I would say, epidemic, is need for social upping. And so we need this constant emotional plug. Sometimes that comes in the form of looking for inventions or excitements, the new shiny new something or other. But other times it comes in looking through social media and other, other places, or creating drama in your own life. Right, right. It's very interesting to watch young people right now, and there seems to be this, this goal to prove that your life has been harder than someone else's, and that justifies any good thing that happens to you. And so it's like a badge of honor to have drama.

No, that's, that's an interesting point because it goes into like you said, you know, humans need adversity. We, we have to have struggle, like it's part of condition. We have to overcome things, right? And life is very, very easy right now. And that's, it's not being an insensitive comment. Even the poorest people in the United States are doing really well compared to some of the places that I'm sure you've been in, Greg and I have played. And they're doing really well. But that, that's not, I'm not trying to justify and say everything's okay. What I'm saying is we need that adversity. So, so it's all relative, right? So my suffering is relative based on what I've been through. And we forget that sometimes when we're listening to someone else talk. And that, that need for that adversity I think causes that. And sometimes it comes from a good place. Like a lot of people, you know, call it like what you're talking about, it's like, "Oh, we've created this, this culture of victimhood where we look at, oh, woe is me, and everything that happened." And people go, "Hey, we've got to change that." But at the same time, you look back and go, "Well, where did that come from?" Well, that actually came from people weren't being heard. Women were being victimized in the workplace or there was a horrible sexual harassment assault or these places. And then no one was allowed to talk about it. So then when someone finally did, we celebrated that person in an attempt to get other people to speak, right? But then, but then that pendulum kept going, right? And it just kept on going, it kept on going to then it became the point where now you come on and, "Hey, you've been through something. Tell us about a horrible thing in your life!" You got someone who's like, "Uh, I've had it pretty good. But oh, okay, let me, you know, this one time, the bus was late, and it just ruined my day, and let me tell you all about it." You're going, "All right, hang on here. We have to have some degree of where we fall in." And I think that that's kind of hard to do. I mean, that would be kind of, I don't know, Greg, you're sitting there going like, "No, I, I'm thinking about," you know, we only can be subject matter experts on what we know. And a lot of us like to play outside. It ain't helping.

And Brian and I, JJ, we consider ourselves, we consider ourselves information scientists. And I would ask you, because you remember this, you were around the same times I was around at the same places. It used to be a bragging right in the Pentagon and in DoD where somebody would come up and say, "I was willing to turn that program on. I was the one that got the funding for that. I was the one that got that implemented as a program of record." And I remember the exact date time group when it switched, and it was like the polar opposite, the North and South Poles switched. And all of a sudden it was the person that said, "No," the person that turned off "go-go-go money," the person that turned off the IDIQ's (Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts) was the hero, even when they were incredibly rich and fulfilling programs that were absolutely necessary. And that's happened in our nation. And Brian, what you and JJ both talked about was that because of the COVID pandemic, it's one symptom of a much bigger problem. What happened is people felt as though they were surrendering their identity. Now a situation comes along with a police brutality incident. And while there's 10 million arrests, this one comes to the forefront, and everybody says, "This is where I'm going to draw the line. This is how I'm going to express myself." And okay, it's wonderful, and it's federally protected, and it's constitutionally protected, and you do have the right to redress, and that's what it's called. But the idea is, "So what? What's next?" And Brian, how many times do we ask people, "So what? What's going to come out of this?" Because if there's not a beautiful butterfly coming out of this cocoon, we've all just wasted a lot of effort and calories and time and chemicals. And our electrochemical neurotransmitters aren't going to give us a reward signal because it blows. So my question to you, JJ, is that society, thank you. My question to you, JJ, is you, you and Brian have danced around the issue perfectly. America's pendulous. We tend to deal in extremes. When we come back, are we going to be better off for it? I have an opinion on that, but I'm interested in your learned opinion on it.

Well, I was really encouraged by two recent events. So one, following my tour, I got to talk with General Mattis privately, and we reviewed my findings and his belief systems about the country. And so it was really moved that he spoke up the other day as he stands on the side of the Constitution and Americans and not politics. He did not want to do that, I guarantee you. He did not want to do that. But one of the things that he and I talked about was leadership. And if I were to share his takeaway message to me, it was, "We have to help everybody recognize their value in this country. And everybody does have value. Because when we, we don't recognize that, it's not just that we're being ugly or mean or racist or any of when we argue all of those things, but that's, that's at the end of the day, the big thing is that we hurt ourselves. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face, actually, by undervaluing what every single person you bring to this table." It's not liking someone in spite of something, it's appreciating their difference in opinions. That's, that's what makes this, this nation so strong. And we're not using those assets to our, to our advantage. And I think that's a travesty. Certainly my heart goes out to everybody who isn't feeling heard. And I mean, I'm a psychologist, that's what I do. I listen. I want to listen to everybody. I am so on board with that message.

And that brings me to the second point, which is that I read a statement from an Army officer this morning. And he showed pictures where they convened a bunch of their folks that are in their group. I don't know where they were stationed, but they all essentially sat around and listened. They let people tell stories. This is not entirely a common thing that we do in military. It's not totally uncommon. There are times where we really do see, especially men, come together in ways that I don't think the lay public realizes happens. But it was very moving to hear them saying, "I didn't realize what I was saying," or, "He didn't realize that you had those experiences." And I think that is actually a demonstrative step. Both of these points that there is a right side, and it's not a right or a left, it's an American side. You lead with "A," not with "D" or "R." And that we have to start conversations that are actually healthy and instructive, that you can walk away with something tangible that you can do differently. But those two will not be enough. You exactly right. My head is going to, "How do we actually change this system?" Because the system is set up to keep people down. And so that's where I get to game rules. It is not enough to provide an education to everyone. You have got to teach people how to handle and maneuver through the game rules of power. It was, it was a big lesson to me when I went to Colgate University as the scholarship kid, and I went to one of those sorority parties and someone said, "Hi, nice to meet you. What does your dad do for work?" And I turned around and I said, "Well, he's a janitor." And looked at the woman next to me and said, "That's a weird question. Why does that matter what my dad does?" I didn't get asked back to that sorority.

So, funny side, Brian Marren, JJ and I talked last time, and she had just gotten off of a call with Mattis. And so now we're talking this time, you just got off of a call with Mattis. Spooky. We say it at Arcadia all the time. We say, "Listen, you're largely responsible for your own personal safety, your own personal growth, everything," right? Yet we as a nation continue to call it social distancing when we're talking about physical distancing. When we had a big chance with COVID to show something that we've been preparing for for decades, I mean, the CDC and WHO was designed for this experiment. Do you know that that, that crashed? And what did we do? We started saying there were "mission essential personnel" and "non-mission essential personnel." How do you think that made somebody feel? How do you think that made members of my family feel that didn't have one of the jobs that made the list? We're our own worst enemies as a nation because we have to put things in ice cube trays and put them in individual boxes and comment on every mistake that somebody makes in syntax or, or, you know, explode those errors all over the internet. So I think we still have a great chance in this as long as we want to measure success. And we all determine what that looks like now. We have to, we have to mark that down now so we know when we actually get there. Otherwise, we're going to be throwing a lot of money and sweat at a problem that's going to grow. You guys just brought up a number of issues. And you know, when he talked about, JJ, when he talked about the, the conversation, the people sitting around and talking about, discussing ideas, that, that's, that's difficult. That's easier to do on a micro-level than it is on a macro-level, right? And to speak to that, you know, you brought that up, when, you know, military leaders or folks that people don't realize that some of the things that go on in the military, when you sit around and have those discussions, the times of sitting around and drinking and talking about this, like that, people don't realize, like, "Yes, I get it, the alcohol got involved and then took over too much of it, and then maybe some bad things happen." But, but those issues of sitting around the campfire and talking and going on and passing on the traditions, like that's, that's just as important as the training you just went through. In fact, it's far more important because that's, remember, Brian, when they say the sage graybeard comes out and says, "Look, I understand these are the things I've learned in the 20 years I've been doing this, because you've only been here two." And that's hard at a macro-level to do. But I almost wonder, I was kind of just thinking about as we're discussing, is that maybe, is that what a lot of these protests are? And then they pop up, and is that everyone's yelling and screaming in this and angry and getting it out there, but it's not a guided discussion. But I think what's different than what I've seen or experienced, and just from a lot of the just clips that come out, you know, there's both sides get shown on social media and in the news that everyone wants to paint it as a narrative. But what I've never seen before are that, that there's these loud protests and it's a crazy chaotic scene, and there's police there, but they're attempting to talk, meaning, meaning the cops are speaking and protesters are speaking back, and they're holding hands and praying together and taking a knee and doing things that I've never seen that before. And I think what it is is because both sides, you and the cops, are the ones dealing with this right now. So you've got a bunch of people saying protesting the police, who then have to go out there and prevent a peaceful protest from turning into a riot while someone's shooting at them as they drive past. And they're working 18-hour shifts and going like, and some of them aren't going home to see their families because they're so exposed to COVID that they're segregating themselves in the garage. Like, you, you, this is a recipe where both sides are restoring (stressed). So what do we, what did we think was going to happen? And so none of this protest stuff surprised us at all because we're going, "This is the release valve. This is the, this is the levee burst, you know, we've got to let it out." And so, so how do we take that and make it constructive? Because Brian and I had just had a discussion with some people to try to equate psychology to, to the problem. And so I told them, "Envision the, the teapot that's on the oven, and it's, it's getting hotter and hotter. And sooner or later it's going to whistle." And Brian and I came up with the conclusion that a lot of people are trying to take that little end cap off so it doesn't whistle, but that does nothing to reduce the heat or the friction that's going on with those molecules. So, so we're excited because we think there is a solution. And the solution is leadership and training and transparency and stuff. Wow. Is that message working? You, you just traveled the entire nation and talked to people on the ground. Is it working? Can it work?

Well, I mean, this is where, this is where leadership does matter. And unfortunately for politics, we hire actors who read scripts of leadership versus necessarily people who come with, you know, strategic design skills or, you know, these are not the thought leaders of our country, these are the political leaders of our country. And not to diminish that; I'm not to suggest they don't have skills, but they have specific skills. They are hired based on fundraising, make no mistake. The way you got on stage for the Democratic debates was, period, end of story, money. There was no other criteria. They did not even try and put somebody up there who got there from some other perspective or capability, even just to add a new set of discussion points. There was no allowance unless you made money and brought it to the table. So until that changes, I fear you're going to have a struggle because this is actually hard to change. This is a culture change.

Absolutely. It, it is. But so, so here's, here's where I, this would be my take on that, right? Because everyone's like, "Oh, you know, there's so much money and power sticks, and you've got to have money, and you've got to have backers." And I get that. There's, there's always been money in politics, right? And there is everywhere else in the world. I know in some countries there's, there's no reporting or anything. There's, there's payoffs and bribes are the norm. We kind of have like a legalized system of that, right? I mean, basically, it's the same thing. My group wants to put you in charge so we can donate to your campaign. Where in another country, we just pay you money under the table. But everyone knows it's going on, right? So, so I don't know if there's like, how do you really get money out of it? Yeah, how, what do you do? Like, I mean, what would that actually look like? Because, you know, certain people have more power than others just based on their popularity level or their money they have or some influence they have in some sector of the economy that no one knows nothing about. But really everything relies on. So there's a lot of those power dynamics in there. But how do you realistically change some of that? I mean, I don't think you can change it entirely, right?

I think, I think you can do a couple of things. So number one, I would have loved to have seen the DNC say, "We're going to take, you know, essentially scholarship kids, right? Two to three people who we think have the ability to lead, but probably don't have the fundraising capabilities. And we're going to at least throw them up on stage and change the conversation." I would have watched that, right? That would have been interesting. At least wouldn't have been The Hunger Games. I think another thing they could do is have a team run, right? We, we named a cabinet, but we name it after you've actually won. What if you had eight people working with you that were right up front, coming up with their skill set, right? So maybe I'm not the one who brings in the most money, but maybe I'm the one who can speak on certain issues at a deeper level for people who want to do it. And I'm going to work, you're going to already see how I work with my team, and we're going to solve these problems together. So now I still have that front runner. It's still doing all their talking and they're selling the tickets and they're feeding the beast. But maybe you add to that and allow us to elevate and be heard.

And then I would say the third thing is that at some point we, we would have to come together as a collective. And the US versus them is not right and left. It's those of us who live every day in our communities versus the small amount of power and start, start infiltrating. So for example, when I was in Hawaii, they were having a big protest against a 30-meter telescope. And I went around asking, "How many of you ever served in the government or know anybody who worked in the government or applied for a job in the federal government?" And of course, 100% of people said, "No, why would I do that?" "Is it because you could have solved this problem by being, having a seat at the table? And you don't have to be in Congress to do that." So I think there are ways each one of us can participate and serve. And I think we would at least improve the situation.

It brings up two great points. One, Brian Marren, I don't know if you know this either, but JJ knows Mike Syracuse. And so my gosh, Wile E. Coyote, he's a face for radio, right? He's very direct. He's very direct. Your thing with Syracuse, I'd want him in my cabinet, but I certainly wouldn't put him on the box of cereal I was trying to sell, you know what I'm saying? And I have that, that face as well. So, you know, you've got to, you've got to know where your strengths are and you've got to play to your strengths. And the idea is that if you don't listen, if you think that you've been elected to come in with your grandiose, wonderful ideas, you haven't. You've been there to, you've been put there with an amazing opportunity. And this is why, JJ, that I concur with you. I say, "If you haven't been off the protest line to do a ride-along with your local PD, you're not helping. If you haven't gone to the civil service exam and said, 'I'd like to be a police explorer or a police officer or see what it's like on the road,' then you're not contributing. And if you're not contributing, maybe you're ballast. Maybe you're weight. And maybe we can do without you." And people don't want to hear that because the idea is that I'm thinking, "It's all over, get out of the way, neutral gets you nowhere," you know what I'm saying? So, so take a stand. And I'll tell you what, I, I took an oath to safeguard you when you're taking your stand, even if it's a crappy stand.

Well, the involvement piece is, is key. But there's a number of ways to do that, and we kind of even argue on that. And you know, there's a lot of people think that, "Hey, this kind of system that we have, this form of government, there's a lot of problems with it. Maybe it's outdated. Maybe we're using something," yeah, "that was built a couple hundred years ago, but it was built on, it was an architecture, that's always a framework. That's it, it's not; it was just a framework. There was no house built. It was, it was just, just a cutout in the ground with some concrete slab." It was. And then, and then we build on that as we go, and we go one way, and then we realized, "Oh, that's the wrong way!" And then we walk that back, and we go this way, and then we get too far out there. But, but I, I don't, because of technology, because the way we're looking at things, because of our access to data and what we're learning from that, maybe there is some new concept or some way to do this. And like you said, like putting a team together, going, "Hey, here's my team I'm running with." In some ways now, I get to learn about eight people, or before, I just got to learn about this one. For a lot of people, it's difficult, 'cause I look at when you get into like presidential elections, it's a popularity contest. I mean, it really, people vote with their gut, right? They go, "Well, this is what I think. And now I can't vote for her because she drove a car." So, so that's, you know, and although the president has a lot of power and they make policy changes and they make long-term changes in terms of appointees on like Supreme Court stuff like that, you know, they, they do have a lot of power and a lot of influence in what they do. But in terms of your daily life or the average person, no, they don't. So what we're really looking for, what a lot of people want is, I think it's like, we just, we want a leader, right? So we need leadership. Okay, so that, that's what it is, because it turns into a popularity contest. So if we have a leader, like, I'll get your, to your guys' opinions from your experience of what you know on what I think the government should be. Because I don't believe in making like, "Oh, we just got to change everything." That doesn't work. We don't want to live in the country that's constantly changing. Those places are really bad, we spent a lot of time in them, right? It's, it's violent. And so like I would imagine like the president is like, "Hey, who do we want to lead the country?" What party? Not with this. "Who do we all look up and go, 'Yeah, I want, I want that person in charge. I want that guy or that girl or that person, that individual, to be, they're going to make good decisions, they're going to make tough calls'," right? And that, that goes across party lines, right? I always look at it as like a, you know, you've got like that, that friend growing up whose dad was like kind of the stern one, but they were fair. And you hated it, but you knew it was in your best interest because they're always making. Like, that's who you want in charge. Then I think like the Senate should be like the old guard of Republicans and Democrats. You've been in politics for 20 years, you know the game, you know what's important. There's downsides, there's upsides and downsides, right? You're bought off, you're paid for this, yeah. But you also know how to get stuff done, you know how to get policy done, right? There, there's, there's ways to look at it. And I think the House of Representatives should be like just a complete debauchery fest, like there should be alcohol and there's people fighting, people, you know, hooking up. This is what you look like at grounds. Just, just put just constant arguing and bickering. And then, and then the old guard goes because, "All right, hey, hey, we've got to make a decision here. What are we going to do, Dad?" with, and then or, "Mom," with, right? Is the president. And then they go, "Hey, you guys, you girls, cut it out out there!" There has to be this dynamic of just that represents what, what, what goes on in society, right? I, that's what I think. But I think that might be the one realistic, well, the Pentagon, yeah, you don't want that at the Pentagon. We want people that are following orders and following the rules. It's probably Constitution, that's what we want. I know. I don't know, it just, it gets into, because what I'm about is people, our involvement, and people vote with who they feel like on emotion. That, that person, we don't get some great choices, right? And we're not really saying, "Who do you love as a leader?" We're saying, "Who you hate less?"

And I don't, I, I, I love your point, but that would assume that I get to choose from the truly 2,000 people that decide to run. And I don't get to choose from that number. I also think very strongly that there are different people needed at different times. I would love to see, and this is, I'm going to toot my own horn here, but that's not my intention. I would love to see a psychologist come into play next because I think we have a lot of social issues that are coming up, and this is the time where somebody with that skill set would be beneficial. But that's not always going to be the case. There are times in our country where we need somebody that's stern, we need somebody with a business background, we need, we need somebody different at different times. There are different types of leadership, and I don't think we take that into account. But I think the biggest issue is we give you two choices that are artificially chosen. So it's in that artificially chosen space where I'd like to see something different. And that's why I say things like, I'd love to have seen the Democrats put, you know, a couple of people on stage that were maybe experts in an area or something. They don't need to win, but they allow us to see the candidates in different ways and have that true leadership step up.

Yeah, you see the problem, when we're so archaic. And it's, it's great to have institutional memory, but not if it's a moldy old tortoise that needs to go away. And so we call it the Surgeon General. Now, the Surgeon General's Office fit a job description for that time period. But you're exactly right, where's our sociologists and our psychologists with what, what is our nation's stand against suicide, and, you know, systemic teen violence, and, and, you know, bullying in schools? What we do is we pluck it ourselves by throwing money at it and put up, yeah, novel posters. And then, you know what, as soon as somebody gets elected in or elected out or the, the funding stream changes, it goes by the wayside. And in groups like, not to, not, this is not, I'm not trying to denigrate or say anything bad about, but Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, we've all had to deal with them. And Marine Corps Warfighting Lab has to keep going out and finding the same program they have for 40 years and saying, "You know, it would be a good idea if we put this in together." And then somebody goes, "Yeah, wasn't that this program?" "Yeah, but that's unfunded. That's, no, keep reinventing." We do not know that. You've got to know what you said about, "Don't reinvent the wheel." And you know, exactly, you know, I was kind of making a joke with my description.

No, you weren't!

No, you're, you're already, I love it. That's coming. Coming back to that, though, what I was to address exactly what you said, JJ, and you know, we conflate some of the issues sometimes, and we get hyper-focused on something that, that is a symptom, that isn't the actual issue. Because my big thing is always like, "Look, we have a mental health and substance abuse problem in this country, yet that's what we have." So, so think about all the things, all the spirals from just those two issues: mental health and substance, which you could probably put them under one. But meaning just that, just, just put it under that. What happens? Crime. Crime comes from that. A lot of crime. And then, and then recidivist crime comes from that. And then now we have a criminal justice issue. And now that leads to this. And now that leads to a police officer, you know, killing someone unintentionally on the pavement. That sets off the riots that do this. And now we, like, if we just focus, Greg says, "Take a giant evolutionary step back for a second and take a look at what we can, what we should be solving." Because the second and third order effects from focusing on the actual issue are the things that are going to work themselves on their own. The capitalism, free market society will run its course and run with it, right? If just we focus on the right areas. And I don't know specifically what those areas are, but, but maybe, maybe you do, or maybe you have some insight.

I mean, this is something we talked about in developmental psych, right? And that is how do we, how do we look at a person's development and where are those points where they start to have a major issue and then they don't progress past it, right? And so if you blow that up into a society, where have we as a society started to grow up? And now we have an issue at this point where the self-soothing behaviors that are happening, whether that's drugs, alcohol, sex, marital issues, personal issues, I just call that today. Well, and I mean, it is a sign that we are not a healthy society right now. And that doesn't get solved with money. That doesn't get solved with punitive action. But those are the two mechanisms we have available to us as we just keep going at it, and it's, it's not working. And at some point, you have to actually have that cathartic moment. You have to deal with the issues that have been festering. And you have to essentially go through that therapeutic process of coming out on the other side. I mean, I don't mean to diminish, this nation is just like the environment. It's healing itself. It's coming up with this violent upheaval, but that's going to create scar tissue, and we'll be stronger for it. But that doesn't mean that you should go out and burn down your community either.

And here's where we're back on this that I always do with Greg too, is he, "You're saying you want me to change? No, no, no, no, I'm not. I'm not the problem. It's everyone else's, the system, it's this. I'm set up. You want me to look at, take a whole long, hard look at myself?" "No thanks. That, that's going to require me burning a lot of calories and having a mirror." Which he doesn't have in his box right there. That's actually a box that I meant. I'm outside of a local McDonald's in San Diego area, and I just flip up this box and I usually get the internet connection. "You are just killing it. You are doing so awesome. Can you show everybody else how to do that? And we're going to, we're going to tweak it just in this one spot. Move it forward, you're going to, you're going to be amazing. And I want to be there to watch." That's why she was running for president. I'm like, "Well, I'm going to get, yeah, I already did a ballot." That's what blows on my side. So, JJ, help me out on this because I love what you've written in the past. I love your body of work. I love the people you're associated with. Shout out the stations and all the other great folks that they have, Magnum Performance Group, Bill and Carol Ross, and just absolutely everybody. It's just wonderful people that I love. But who should buy your book? Because everything you've written is, you spin gold.

Buy your book! First of all, yeah, the book is called Who the Eff Wants to Be President? So yes, I think I've got a picture here, here. You know, for a little comic relief, you know, and anybody who's really frustrated right now, and I think this starts to sound like everybody. And it's, it's not really taken from a Democrat or a Republican perspective. It's really taken from the perspective of somebody who's just a pissed off American that said, "You know what? I'm good at problem solving. Maybe I can help." And so we just throw the ideas out there. Love to get the feedback, love to get input. But I think the demographic is seriously anybody who wants to start figuring out how to actually solve problems. Because we don't, we don't take surface-level. We start arguing, "Hey, this is the system and why it's not working. I know you have a great idea, but here's why it's not getting implemented." And help people who figure out, "This is what I can do in my community today." And so that's, that's who I really think should, should read this book and share it. It's, it's good news. It's not painful, but it, you know, we do navigate some hard discussions and we, we talked seriously about the readiness issue in the country. We talked seriously about the healthcare problems and the environmental problems, but also the solutions. And so I think if you want to be challenged in order to actually make change, I'd say this book's for you.

It's a great book. It's a fabulous book. It's a fast read. I think some of the people that wrote the reviews about your book are amazing humans. I want to make sure that we get a shout out for Jen Phillips, "For the love of God, I forgot it! I'll never back down!" Can you imagine that? Holy crap. Because a small circle of people that we all run into each other, the rolodex up here, we've got to throw.

Yeah. So, so I, and I, I don't want to take too much more of your time, and I know everyone's got, we've got a bunch of other stuff we've got to get to. Well, she'll charge us, all right? Yeah, just send us an invoice. It might go somewhere. So anyway, so no, but you know, you just talked about a difficult conversation. So given your background as a psychologist, too, what are some, some takeaways or some things that I need to think about for having a difficult conversation with a potentially polarizing issue, something that's going to might create divisiveness in my organization or in my house or with my friends? Like how do I set the stage for that conversation? Because you did that. You traveled all around the country and you do that as a psychologist, and you talk to people openly and honestly and get them to weigh in. But how, how does someone do that?

Listen, I mean, really, there's no magic bullet to this. You listen. And I think what happens is when, when someone starts to share their perspective, the assumption is that that is an attack on you. And so one of the things that we learn as we do therapy is to stay calm and recognize, "I'm the recipient of your frustration, but I'm not the cause of it necessarily." And so when someone comes at you, our knee-jerk reaction is defend ourselves, and you end up with this back and forth. And the best thing to do is really just to listen. And the second thing to do is to let someone get it all the way out. There's actually a chemical reason you want to actually allow all of those high-end chemicals to essentially drain out of the brain. Because at that point, and you'll actually see the person, they'll take a deep breath. That's the point at which you can speak. Everyone says, "Well, I don't know when I'm supposed to speak. They're still going and going." That's because they're just getting it out. Just let someone get it out. And then the third one is to say, "Ask a question." Don't tell. Don't try to solve it. You see, I say this to my husband all the time, "I wasn't telling you so you could solve the problem for me," right? So really it's listen, breathe, and then ask, "What can I do to be helpful?" Yes, you will see a transformation in the way people interact because they'll feel heard. And then they will orient to an actual solution because once they are asked, "What can I do to be helpful?" or "What do you need to have success?" then that changes the way they're thinking as well. But they can't get there when they've got to get it out. You've got to let people speak.

We call that the gate agent, and that's so funny because we were just talking about that. And how you come up because your flight's weather-delayed and you have to cancel. You do this, and the first person that you go, "Whoop, hey!" It's the gate agent's job. "Can't do this," dead-end. And that's what we're seeing in our nation again. We're seeing a protracted version of that same thing. And it can be fixed. That's a great strategy. Those are the three great takeaways from this call.

It is. And that's, that's definitely the way I think people should frame what's going on right now. Because I look at it as, "Look, this is, this is not what you're seeing on the news. Is in fact normal human behavior," right? All this buildup over everything that's going on with being cooped up and losing jobs and all this stuff that just builds. And like you said, you've got to let it all come out. And when the dust settles, then you go, "All right, here's how we need to move forward." But, but it has to play out. And that sucks. It's terrible. It's going to lead to some bad things. But I think it's going to be a net positive. We always find that in these situations, our country comes out better for it, right? You know, we, there is light at the end of the tunnel. And it's, it's pretty bright. I think many times it's generated by JJ. It's something you're shining a light on a problem, and this is what I call transparency. Transparency means that you're able to expose your jugular and say, "This is what I stand for, and we can fix this." And that's what I appreciate most, and that's what we try to do with our podcast, too.

Yeah, if I were to say one thing, I really want people to hear, and that is that what you hear on the news is, is generated for very specific reasons, right? For politicians to be able to give their messages, and for news to be able to share their information. But when I went around the country and started talking to people after hearing all of that noise constantly, what I found were real people doing really great things. And I'm way more of that. And I found that supported the chaos that's on TV. So if you have to believe, you know, if you have to wonder what do I believe in and what does our country stand for? It's to me, it's for the citizens that are in your community, that are your next-door neighbors, that are around your table, that are connected to you very closely. And multiply that times many, many communities across 50 states, and you will get a fabric that is very positive, very genuine, and intending to do well. We just don't have the media coverage to be heard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, I think that's a great message there, Dr. JJ Walcutt. We really appreciate you coming on. I want to have you back on again and get laser-focused on a few things. If you're not going to answer our emails...

Oh, I know.

For everyone listening, I'll put the links up for Who the Eff Wants to Be President? And you've got the YouTube channel going, "The Nerdy Truth." I love it. I think it's great conversations and cool stuff. Are you going to play in Hollywood? We've got to get back to that. Come on! I voted for Isla Fisher, I mean.

There we go. You know, the red hair. She's, there we go. Quirky. She's fun. I always vote for RuPaul or Dame Edna to play me, only because it's so accurate, you wouldn't believe it.

That's great. I never thought about. I need, I need one of the, like the, you know, Joaquin Phoenix type broken human beings to play, because that's the only way it's going to, it's going to get real. Someone who's there, something broken here. So I appreciate you coming on. Thank you so much. We always end it with: Don't forget, everyone, that training changes behavior.