Social Chemistry: The Patterns and Power of Human Connection

Summary

このビデオでは、イェールセンターのビジネスと環境のエグゼクティブディレクター、スチュアート・デクが司会を務め、著者マリサ・キングとヴィンセント・スタンリーが対談します。彼らは、社会的変革を生み出すためにどのようにネットワークが機能するかについて議論し、特に仲介者、拡張者、結束者という3つの基本的な社会構造に焦点を当てます。また、COVID-19のパンデミックが人々のネットワークに与えた影響や、心理的安全性、信頼、相互関係の重要性についても探求します。視聴者は、これらの概念を活用して個人のネットワークを強化し、社会的変革を促進する方法を学びます。

Takeaways

• 🌟 スチュアート・デキュは、耶鲁ビジネス環境センターの執行ディレクターとして、耶鲁大学のビジネスと環境の間の共同イニシアチブを紹介しています。
• 📚 シリーズの最初の講演では、パタゴニアの哲学ディレクターであるビンセント・スタンリーが、過去8年間で中心的な協力関係を築きながら、著書「責任ある会社」を発売しています。
• 🤝 マーサ・キングは、社会化学に関する本をリリースし、個人がネットワークを通じて大規模な社会変革を起こす方法について研究しています。
• 🔗 社会ネットワークは、個人が集まり、アイデアを共有し、信頼と買収を築く集会ネットワーク、ブローカーシップ、そして拡大主義の3つの基本構造に分けることができます。
• 💡 ブローカーは異なる社会世界を架け橋にし、新しいアイデアと創造性を生み出しますが、拡大主義者は大きなネットワークを持っており、ランダム性や混沌をもたらして社会構造を変革する可能性を高めます。
• 🤔 マーサは1999年のシアトルデモンストレーションを通じて、社会運動がどのようにしてインフォーマルなネットワークから生まれるのかに興味を持ち、その後の研究を通じてネットワークの重要性を理解しています。
• 🌐 ビンセントは、パタゴニアの経験を通じて、ネットワークが社会と環境の両方の危機に対処する鍵となりえると語っています。
• 👥 マーサは、組織内での心理的安全、相互性、そして批判の精神を高めるために、集会ネットワークの強みを強調しています。
• 💭 コロナ禍においても、人々は密接な関係を維持し、孤独感に対処する必要があるとマーサは研究を通じて指摘しています。
• 💌 最後に、マーサはネットワークを通じて社会変革を起こすためには、個人が自分自身のネットワークを理解し、役割を果たす方法を学ぶ必要があると結び付けています。

Q & A

スチュアート・デクはどのような立場からイベントを主催していますか？

スチュアート・デクは、耶鲁ビジネス環境センターの実行ディレクターとして、このイベントを主催しています。

ビンセント・スタンリーはどのような人物で、彼はなぜ重要な存在なのですか？

ビンセント・スタンリーはパタゴニアの哲学ディレクターであり、耶鲁ビジネス環境センターのレジデントフェローです。彼は過去8年間で中心的存在として、様々な形で協力してきました。

マリサ・キングはどのような専門家で、彼女の研究の焦点は何ですか？

マリサ・キングは、耶鲁大学ソムの組織行動の教授であり、社会運動やネットワークの動作を研究しています。

「社会化学」という本はどのような内容ですか？

「社会化学」は、個人がどのように集まって大規模な社会変革を起こすかについての研究に基づいた本です。

なぜネットワークは社会変革において重要な役割を果たしていますか？

ネットワークは、個々の人々を結びつけ、アイデアや情報を共有し、社会的な問題に対処する力を持たせるための重要な構造です。

「コンビニエンスネットワーク」、「ブローカー」と「エクスパンションリスト」の違いは何ですか？

「コンビニエンスネットワーク」は信頼と集団意識が強い集まり、「ブローカー」は異なる社会世界を架け橋として結ぶ人々、「エクスパンションリスト」は極端に大きなネットワークを持つ人々で、ランダム性や混沌をもたらします。

信頼と互恵性はネットワークの活力にどのように影響を与えますか？

信頼と互恵性はネットワークの基本的なプロパティで、繰り返しの相互作用を通じて関係が深まり、効果的なコミュニケーションと協力を生み出します。

なぜ人々は自分のネットワークを分析することを避けがちなのですか？

人々は自分の社会関係を神聖なものと見做しており、それらを意図的に分析することは拒否感を覚える傾向があります。

コミュニティと接続感と金融的な報酬はなぜ対立する傾向にあるのですか？

心理学の研究表明、コミュニティと接続感は金融的な取引と対立する価値観です。人々はお金や取引に関するアイデアに曝露されると、人々とのつながりを減らす傾向があります。

組織内で「心理的安全性」を築くことはなぜ重要なのですか？

心理的安全性は、人々が批判や失敗から安全であると感じることを意味しており、組織の機能性を高めるために重要な役割を果たします。

なぜ職場での人間関係はコミュニティや宗教組織よりも多様性が高い傾向があるのですか？

職場での人間関係は、人々が自ら選択するグループであり、多様性を持つことができるためです。職場では人々が異なるバックグラウンドから集まり、より多様なネットワークを形成する可能性があります。

COVID-19パンデミック期間中に人々が経験する孤独感とネットワークの変化について何がわかりましたか？

COVID-19パンデミック期間中は、acquaintancesの外側のリングが縮小し、人々はより密接な家族や友人とのつながりに焦点を当てました。強固なつながりを持つ人々は孤独感からよく耐えられましたが、それ未満の人々は孤独感をより強く経験しました。

Outlines

00:00

📚 ユール環境とビジネスセンターの紹介

スチュアート・デクは、ユールビジネスと環境センターの執行ディレクターとして、2012年にビンセント・スタンリーを招待し、その哲学と書籍「責任ある会社」を紹介した。このシリーズは、人々から学ぶための一時停止とリフレクションの必要性を強調しており、深い思考と対話を促す意義を持つ。

05:02

🌐 社会変革とネットワークの役割

マーリサ・キングは、1999年のデモを通じて社会運動がどのように自然発生するかに興味を持ち、その後の研究を通じてネットワークの重要性を学んだ。彼女は、ネットワークが個人を連結させて社会変革を生み出すプロセスに欠かせない要素であると語った。

10:04

🔗 ネットワークの3つの基本構造

マーリサは、ネットワークが3つの基本構造から成り立っていると説明し、コネバー、ブローカー、エクスパンションストを紹介した。それぞれの役割が異なる社会構造を形成し、社会変革を促進する。

15:05

🤝 コミュニティとネットワークの強さ

コミュニティとネットワークの強さは相互に関係しており、互いに信頼し合う関係が築かれる。一方で、金銭とコミュニティは対立する価値観であると説明された。

20:06

💼 ビジネスにおける人々の多様性と繋がり

ビジネス環境は、人々の多様性と繋がりに優れており、宗教組織や地域社会よりもセグレゲーションが少ない。ビジネスは人々の繋がりを促進する機能を持っていると語られた。

25:07

🤔 ネットワークの質と持続可能性

ネットワークの質は短期間と長期間にわたって決まる。短期間では人々がどれだけ互いに関心を寄せるかが重要であり、長期的には人々が忙しいことや時間を割くことの影響を受ける。

30:10

👥 組織内での人間関係の役割

組織内での人間関係は、信頼と心理的安全性を構築する上で非常に重要である。ブローカーは異なるグループ間のつながりを築き、新しいアイデアをもたらす。

35:13

🌟 エクスパンションストの影響力

エクスパンションストは非常に大きなネットワークを持つ人々で、彼らは異なる人々をつなぐ役割を果たしている。彼らのネットワークは多様性があり、新しい出会いの可能性を提供する。

40:13

📉 コビッド19期間中のネットワークの変化

コビッド19期間中に人々は自分のネットワークを縮小させ、より密接な関係に焦点を当てた。男性のネットワークは特に縮小したが、女性はほとんど変わらなかった。密接な関係が孤独感を緩和する上で非常に重要であると示された。

45:14

🌱 社会変革のためのネットワークの活用

社会変革を目指す人々は、自分のネットワークを理解し、コネバー、ブローカー、エクスパンションストの役割を果たす人々を見つけて、協力して変革を促進する必要がある。

50:16

🗣️ ネガティブなフィードバックのポジティブな活用

ネガティブなフィードバックをポジティブに活用するためには、責めることなく真摯に問題を理解し、資源やサポートが不足していた場合にフィードバックを提供する必要がある。

55:18

👂 聴く力の重要性

聴く力は人々の間の相互作用において非常に重要であり、特に子供たちは好奇心を持って真剣に聴いており、大人たちはそれを再学習する必要があると語られた。

🤝 社会変革のためのネットワークの構築

社会変革を築くためには、人々が互いに助け合い、感謝の意を示し、信頼し合うネットワークを構築し、維持する必要がある。単純なアクションが大きな影響を及ぼすことが示された。

Keywords

💡環境とビジネスの関係

これはビデオの主題であり、環境問題とビジネスの結びつきについて議論されています。ビデオでは、ヤール環境とビジネスセンターという共同イニシアチブが紹介されており、ビジネスと環境保護の間でバランスを保ちながら進歩を図る取り組みが強調されています。

💡社会変化

ビデオでは、個人が集まり大規模な社会的变化を起こす方法について議論されています。特に、1999年のシアトルデモンストレーションを通じて、多様なグループが集結し大きな变化をもたらす可能性について触れられています。

💡ネットワーク

ネットワークはビデオの核心コンセプトの一つであり、個人がどのように集まって行動し、社会的变化を促進するかを説明する重要な要素です。スタンリー・ミルグラムの6ステップ分離理論に基づく社会構造の基本要素として、コネバー、ブローカー、エクスパンションリストの3つのネットワークタイプが紹介されています。

💡コネバー（Convenors）

コネバーは、ネットワークの基本構造の一つで、互いに友達同士の集まりを持つ人々を指します。彼らは信頼と買収が高く、アイデアを共有しやすくなり、社会変化を促進する集団として機能します。

💡ブローカー（Brokers）

ブローカーは異なる社会世界を架け橋とする人々で、彼らは異なるグループ間のつながりを築き、新しいアイデアや創造性を持続可能にします。彼らは社会構造の橋渡し役として、社会変化を促進するのに欠かせない存在です。

💡エクスパンションリスト（Expansionists）

エクスパンションリストは非常に大きなネットワークを持つ人々で、彼らは多くの異なる人々と接触し、ネットワークにランダム性や混沌をもたらします。彼らは社会構造におけるショートカットを作成し、新しい出会いやアイデアの刺激をもたらします。

💡心理的安全性

心理的安全性は、組織内で健康で機能的な関係を築くための重要な概念です。ビデオでは、信頼と相互性に基づいたネットワークが心理的安全性を高めると述べられており、それが集団の創造性と生産性を高めると強調されています。

💡自己監視

自己監視は、人が異なる社会グループと対話する能力を指し、ブローカーとして機能する可能性を示すパーソナリティ特質です。自己監視が高い人は、異なるグループとの間の架け橋になり、新しい視点を取り入れることができます。

💡リスニング

リスニングは、コミュニケーションと人間関係を築く上で非常に重要です。ビデオでは、第一学年の生徒が最も良いリスナーであるとされる理由として、彼らは好奇心を持って開かれた心で話を聞くことができると述べられています。

💡社会心理学

社会心理学は、人間が社会構造の中でどのように行動し相互作用するかを研究する学問分野です。ビデオでは、社会心理学の概念がネットワーク理論、人間関係、集団動力学などの議論に取り入れられており、社会変化と個人の役割を理解する上で重要な役割を果たしています。

Highlights

Stuart DeCou介绍了自己作为耶鲁大学商业与环境中心的执行董事，并提到了与耶鲁管理学院和耶鲁环境学院的合作。

Vincent Stanley作为巴塔哥尼亚哲学总监和耶鲁商业与环境中心的常驻研究员，分享了他与耶鲁中心的长期合作经历。

讨论了Marissa King的书籍《Social Chemistry》及其对社交网络如何促成社会变革的见解。

Marissa King分享了她对集体动态的兴趣，以及她如何开始研究社交网络的工作。

强调了社交网络在解决大规模社会问题中的重要性，以及个体如何通过社交网络实现变革。

讨论了Stanley Milgram的六度分隔理论及其对理解社交网络结构的影响。

解释了社交网络中的三种基本结构：召集者、中介者和扩张者的作用。

Marissa King讨论了社交网络如何通过自主组织和共享原则来增强团体的凝聚力。

强调了互惠和信任在维持社交网络活力方面的重要性。

探讨了社区感和财务回报之间的张力，以及如何在工作环境中平衡这两者。

讨论了在工作场所中如何通过共享使命和目的来建立社区感。

Marissa King分享了关于社交网络如何随着时间变化，以及如何通过当下的互动质量来维持网络的洞见。

强调了在组织中创造心理安全的重要性，以及如何通过建立信任和互惠来实现这一点。

讨论了在组织中如何处理负面行为，以及如何通过建立规范和原则来促进积极的行为。

Marissa King分享了她个人从写书过程中学到的东西，以及如何通过学习社交互动规则来减少社交焦虑。

讨论了在COVID-19期间人们社交网络的变化，以及如何通过强化核心联系来应对孤独感。

强调了在困难时期重新连接旧关系的价值，以及如何通过维护现有关系来增强个人的幸福感。

Marissa King总结了社交网络如何通过召集者、中介者和扩张者共同作用来创造人类秩序。

Transcripts

welcome i got people pouring in here so

we'll give a couple of seconds for folks

to join

uh my name is stuart deku i'm the

executive director of the yale center

for business and the environment which

is a joint initiative between the yale

school of management

and the yale school of the environment

um thrilled to have the first

in a series of authors talks which we're

going to do

in 2021 this year um

and you know this sort of the start of

this is in 2012.

we had an author invited who came to

campus vincent stanley who you see there

who's the director of a philosophy of

patagonia

and a resident fellow at the yale center

for business and environment now

and i think in two days vincent probably

had i actually went through the agenda

we put him through like eight or nine

meetings um and he came and he talked

and he was launching this book the

responsible company and one of the

students guy named john lovner

who got to sit in about three of the

meetings um came up to me

at the third time that he was hearing

vincent speak and he said

you know you really need to form a

relationship with that guy

every time i hear him talk i learned

something new

and that's certainly the way we felt uh

throughout those two days and so after

it we were fortunate and lucky enough to

be able to

create um a connection with vincent and

the center

and so for the past eight years now

we've been collaborating and engaging in

different ways

and vincent is going to be the

centerpiece and kind of lead

of these authors talks um and with the

first one today

we're incredibly jazzed to be able to

feature one of the folks from the

community

here at yale um maurice king and vincent

will do more of the introduction

but her book social chemistry

launches today and you can find it in a

number of different places heather

fitzgerald from our team just popped

into the chat

where you can find a great way to to get

the book

um really exploring um

some of the kind of connections like we

just i was just describing of

how we connected with vincent um and uh

this series

is put together because we really see

the need um

to pause reflect and learn from people

like vincent and marissa who've taken

such

time effort energy to synthesize

incredibly complex topics

like let's stay away from hot takes and

get down to really thinking and

listening to people in conversation who

thought incredibly deeply about

something

um and so we hope that you enjoy it this

is the first

of a series as i mentioned um questions

throughout

the first part of this will be a

conversation between vincent and marissa

uh after that we'll take your questions

through the q a function so if you have

one

throughout the the conversation please

put it into the q

a which you'll find at the bottom of

zoom i'm sure if books are well familiar

with that now

uh and we'll be still pushing those to

vincent so he can ask them to marissa

um the floor is yours vincent and thank

you for all the time that you spend

uh collaborating and engaging with us uh

at the center

yeah well thank you stuart and

thanks to heather and amy and the sea

based staff

it's been a big part of my life for the

past eight years

i'm really happy to join marissa king

today uh we were speaking yesterday just

briefly and there's just so much

in this book um

in social chemistry that uh

so many departure points and so many

questions i want to ask

uh then i'm afraid an hour won't do us

justice but

let's go ahead and i'd like to introduce

marissa is

the the professor of organizational

behavior

at yale som holds her

phd from columbia

and um i'm very interested i was

reading a little bit and i'm very

interested in uh

how marissa uh came to the work and

there was a quote

about marissa you were appearing

i think you were student at reed at the

uh

the seattle demonstrations in 1999

and observing uh this enormous protest

that had developed quite

spontaneously and wondering

uh how social movements uh arise

uh from these informal networks of

people

and um i think that one the the

the quote from you that really

resonates with me is questions about

collective dynamics

how do you get individuals to come

together to create

larger scale social change

and that you you mentioned that from

that

time in 1999 that is how you became

interested in understanding how social

networks

work um and this resonates with me

because i think that the

what i see from the patagonia

my the perspective of my own work at

patagonia

is that we have reached a point of

what pope francis calls one single

crisis that has two faces that is both

social and environmental that

we've we're in a decade that we all know

is uh existentially critical not only

to the survival of the human race but

also to the health of the

other species on the planet and we also

see that

networks are either going to take us

down our networks are going to save us

because

one of the capacities that we've gained

over the past 50 years

as a species is the ability to create

large international networks

often informal to address problems

that reach deep bottlenecks within the

existing structures so an example would

be

that people in miami now are working

closely

on the issue of sea level rise with

people in rotterdam with people in dakar

they don't really care what the state

legislature of florida

has to say about sea level rise they're

more concerned with engaging with other

people who are involved

in the same issues so

i guess um my first question

to you would be working on this book um

and from your initial concerns in 1999

when you went to the seattle protest

what did you learn working on the book

about how individuals get together to

create larger social change

yeah it was such a powerful moment for

me

to see in that protest just how

diverse groups came together so you had

you know enormous turtle posters you had

people from unions you had

environmentalists you had people

really focused on social issues and

social equity and social justice

and in that moment i saw the possibility

of what can

happen and create just large-scale

social change

when individuals can come together as a

collectivity

and throughout my work i've been

profoundly interested in what

happens and how do we get large-scale

social change from individual actions

and what i've learned is that that

really boils down to networks

and if you want to solve large-scale

social problems the answer is the same

if you're trying to

look at how you can leverage your own

individual network for personal gain

right whether it's to find a job

to get a promotion to increase work

engagement the answer is the same

you actually have to understand how

networks work

and to begin to understand that it's

helpful to go back in time

to the 1950s and the work of stanley

milgram so this is

the same guy who did the shock

experiments but this is a much more

benign

experiment and what he found which has

become really popularized is that we're

all connected

and that six degrees of separation can

separate us all

and that is profoundly important if we

think about complex social problems

but what's interesting is when that work

was reinvigorated in the 2000s when i

was doing my doctoral work at columbia

university

duncan watts in his lab began to redo

these same experiments to see how much

we're separated

and the answer actually was the same

despite rapid changes in technology

an increased ability to communicate

there were still six degrees of

separation

but what was profoundly uh

to me it's amazing right like i feel

like the you know physics has their

higgs boson particle

and this they boiled it down to

essential elements of social structure

and that we can really deduce social

interaction to three simple structures

and that for me has this sort of same

flavor of like the god social particle

because once you can start to understand

that and

imagine this world in this way whether

you're trying to leverage large-scale

social change

bring forth change in your company or

actually just change your personal life

for me the ability to see the world in

this way changed

and so what duncan watson his

collaborators found is that we're

separated by six degrees of separation

because there's a fundamental underlying

social structure this is true in social

life but we also

see the same social structure when you

look at neural networks when you look at

ant colonies so there's this

demarcator that makes the world small

and why the world is small is that all

networks can be boiled down to

three fundamental social structures you

have conveners

you have brokers and you have

expansionists

so within convening networks friends are

friends with one another there's a dense

tight social structure this makes

there's a lot of trust

there's a lot of buy-in it's easy to

convey ideas and get by

and within these networks but they're

essentially right tight clusters of

people and they're separated from

everyone else so in this the case that

you're giving right you

the environmental movement is typically

separate from social justice movements

but those are often brought together by

brokers

and brokers both by personality and

predisposition but also

brokers can be created they tend to

bridge social worlds

and in bridging those social worlds they

create the possible

possibility for movements but they also

bring forth innovation and creativity

and so fundamentally you have a

structure

of a lot of separate social worlds that

are connected between brokers

and the third piece of this are

expansionist expansions have

extraordinarily long

large networks there's a property within

social networks in general that they

tend to have long tails so while most of

us know around 600 people

expansionists will know 60 000 people

they have extraordinarily large networks

and what they bring into that system is

a bit of randomness or chaos

and so if you start to think about this

world in this way right that we have

movements or we have organizations or we

have communities that are

densely connected and they are

consistently

brought together by brokers who bring

social structure

but the expansionists bring shortcuts

that's the randomness of the beauty of

networks

and you need all three of those pieces

to make the world small

and the same is true if you're trying to

catalyze large-scale social change you

need to figure out who are your

conveners who are your brokers

who are your expansionist and they all

need to be brought in a purposeful

concerted way into the mix

and the thing that i find so interesting

is networks are made out of people right

they don't just exist in the ether

uh right our networks are our

relationships

but people are so reluctant to examine

their own personal networks and this

makes a lot of sense for a lot of

different reasons our social

relationships are in many ways our most

sacred um our most sacred

thing that we have right so the idea of

being intentional or purposeful about

them is often really off-putting

but if you want to bring about

large-scale social transformation

you have to understand networks and you

have to understand

your own network and the role you play

and being able to help bring about that

change

interesting um

one of the things i noted early on in

the book is you referred to

the kind of cellular function of

networks um

and referred to uh examples being

uh alcoholics anonymous or the communist

party which were built

on uh these these sort of semi

uh or autonomously acting

uh groups that then expanded can you

talk a little bit about that

yeah it's a pleasure i mean i think if

you think about

what holds those groups together like

that there's something

amazingly powerful about having

independent

autonomous organizations that are

oftentimes guided by the underlying set

of principles and practices

but they're not formally organized so if

we think about how most

organizations are designed right they're

kind of like there's a box at the top

there are lines between them and there's

a hierarchy

and that hierarchy really it creates

possibility for urgent action but it

also impedes a lot of

what needs to happen if we actually want

to transform society

and to transform society you need

independent groups acting autonomously

that are guided by underlying principles

and vision

that that's really where identity plays

such an important role and it holds

people together and it gets a

sense of commitment and buy-in in a way

that's next to impossible if you don't

allow people to self-select into

a group which is what humans just

naturally do

but you can't just sort of have if we

just have a bunch of autonomous groups

which is in some ways i think what's

happened actually

within societies we're seeing this

increased level of polarization because

you have a lot of autonomous groups that

aren't talking together

so while the autonomy of those

independent groups is so important and

that's really emblematic of what what

convening networks are they have trust

they have buy-in they have reciprocity

and they have identity

but those autonomous groups have to be

connected to one another in some way and

that's why having brokers are the people

who can move between them easily is so

important right

you know another you just mentioned

reciprocity and trust and one of the

things that struck me was that the

vitality of a network relies

more than in a kind of hierarchical

organizational structure the vitality of

a network

relies on reciprocity that's what keeps

it going

and reciprocity relies on trust

i thought that was a very interesting

continuum

yeah i mean they you know the norm of

reciprocity is really what is the

fundamental property that is guiding

all social relationships you know and

it's in

it that's built through repeated

interactions

right that it's trust is i think a

developed property in the sense that if

i connect with you

and then you reciprocate that

relationship gains depth over time

and one of the things that really drives

and fuels that

is the ability to engage in mutual

self-disclosure so

you show me a little bit about who you

are and what you value and then i

reciprocate

and based on that over time we're able

to develop trust and a beneficial

relationship

um but it really has to be reciprocal

right and that i think is one of the

things that

too oftentimes people think of that in a

way that is there's a ticket for tat

so i'll do for you and then you do for

me but in reality it needs to be turned

on its head

in the sense that i'll do for you

without any expectation

of reciprocity and then when you do

reciprocate that is really where trust

starts to come from

that's a very interesting uh observation

and

you you had also mentioned in the book

that there was a

um kind of uh

the opposite end of the spectrum the

feeling of community and connection

and financial reward that these things

often

uh are felt in opposite ways and if i

was just reading a long article about

john berger who

at the end of his last 20 years of his

life lived in this small village in

france

and they were all uh he was the only

writer that the rest were

peasants and there was this reluctance

they never charged each other for any

work

there was always an expectation though

that somewhere down the line

there would be a kind of return and

there was an embarrassment about money

but in the society that we live in where

the transaction the financial

transactions are so significant

how does that play out in relation to

the sense of community

or connection to a google

group yeah i mean i think that that's

one of the biggest challenges

that we face in the work world today is

how do you square these two competing

really orientations and there's a great

work in psychology that shows that they

really

are fundamentally orthogonal if you ask

people what they value most and then you

map them

community is the polar opposite of

instrumentality or money

the same is true that we know that the

people get most joy

right out of intimate interactions but

also in one-on-one social

interactions and if you ask people

simply like what do they plan to do in

the next 24 hours

but then you prime them with the idea

simply of money

um they're much less likely to

subsequently report that they're

actually going to spend time connecting

with other people

and so this idea of instrumentality and

social connection or communality are

really orthogonal values and one of the

challenges i think within workplaces

is how do you square those two so how

does you know

a different way of putting it that's

much simpler how do we actually have

friends at work

and some of that is actually keeping

those spheres separate

so thinking about what needs do we

actually need to get out of the

workplace versus what needs should we be

fulfilling in other domains

but some organizations and i think

patagonia has done an extraordinary

job of doing this is that if everybody's

guided by a higher principle or a higher

moral commitment to something that

transcends both of those

then you can get communality you can get

this sense of

communality and purpose your purpose and

shared mission

even if there's money being made because

that there's a higher purpose that's

driving

that effort yeah and i i

think that bears out in my own

experience that that the

work teams become like those cells that

we're

talking about they become like an a.a

meeting or like a communist party cell

in which you are

um you're committed to shared work

um that is well outside

what you think you're going to get paid

for or promoted for

it's a different way of living and i

think you your work

is so exemplary in this regard right

that what is it

like the idea of being a director of

philosophy like that

idea is so powerful and if more

organizations

and even more individuals getting back

to

thinking about aaa and other

organizations like that if you're living

by a different set of principles

right then it's much easier to be guided

in a common purpose and not having to

rely on social structures that

oftentimes simply don't serve us when

they're really transactional it's a very

it's a difficult way to live

right and when they are transactional

the um

that that sense of reciprocity and trust

does not get engaged

so there's a level of resistance i think

to to most organizational work that

disappears when people feel connected to

it

if i want to see people at patagonia

work very quickly to get something done

in an impossible

amount of time it will always be

something that they believe in

personally

that's beautiful and the quality of work

is fundamentally different

like just to be super clear right like i

i understand there's like a place that

we have to have transactional

relationships

and right like that that's just how the

world works and some of those

transactional relationships i do think

come with trust right like i'll invite

someone into my house to repair an

appliance and i trust that they're not

gonna steal

me from me and i pay them and they get

the job done and then they leave

and i think what's important is just

being clear about what our motives are

and what's happening

and those transactional relationships is

the same with dating right like if i say

we're going on a date and it's clear

that's fine it's if i'm friends with

someone and they think we're going on a

date that things get really really

confusing

and that i think is true in work

the world right that we can have

transactional relationships it's just

that we need to be clear that those are

transactional and not model them and i

think what happens too often at work

is that our sense of our own sense of

identity our own sense of purpose

and what drives us is mixed with the

transactional and when that it's that

lack of clarity i think that really

results in the problems

there was it's a kind of related

question

um you mentioned about that the quality

of a network uh changes over time

and then it's often the healthiest the

first six months or

in groups that have worked together for

years

um can you talk a little bit about what

you think make that

makes networks thrive or fall apart for

a time and

and how how they get revived oh that's

really interesting

um i mean i think that when we think

about the quality of interactions it's

helpful to short

separate out both the short and the long

term because the quality

we've talked a little bit about

structure of interactions these three

basic

forms and those are the enduring traces

of our social interactions

but what we know is the quality of our

interactions in the sense

to which we feel connected with one

another is actually determined

in the moment on a very very short

temporal scale

and there's lots of demarcators of this

and it really boils down simply to how

present we are with one another

how well we're listening to one another

the extent to which we're looking

one another in the eye and engaging on a

very very basic

interactional level in the moment and

that really is actually what

determines the quality of our

interactions in a given moment but if we

think over the long term like what

impedes those right what impedes that

and there are two

issues they think that are the biggest

impediments one is actually simply

distraction

and that can rea and i think that that's

something that so many people and

workplaces or in particular are

struggling with

right now is that we're trying to stay

connected in ways that we're not built

to do

and we're really simply distracted my

favorite example of this

is there um there's a study that

demonstrates just how easily it is

to be distracted and not able to connect

by they

um randomly assign people to either be

using their phones or not using their

phones and

be walking down the street and as they

were doing that they had

um a clown on a unicycle ride by

and only one in four people on their

phone noticed

the unicycling clown right so if you

think about

right like you think about what you're

missing

and there are other studies that

demonstrate this also there's a

beautiful study called the parable of

the good samaritan

and what this was done at princeton

theological seminar seminary

and what they were trying to ascertain

is why do people some people stop for

help and

why do some not and they ask some people

right to review the parable of the good

samaritan they were seminarians and they

were told that they were going to be

applying for a job

others were asked to prepare another

sermon on a biblical passage

and then they walked by an actor who was

in physical need a pain

of help actually in pain and what they

found is that

when they looked at who stopped it

didn't matter whether or not they were

asked to

remember the parable of the good

samaritan or think about a different

sermon

what mattered is if they were told to

hurry or not

i think that in both of these it we as

humans we deeply want to connect with

one another

but we're driven to distraction and

we're often in a hurry and that's what

really keeps us apart even though we so

desperately want to be together

and over the long term those slights

right and incidents they

aggregate and can really turn

relationships negative

for no other reason that we're too busy

or too much in a hurry to give them the

attention that they deserved

that's really interesting

um hadn't i hadn't heard that

story um

and it's interesting that it was

seminarians and it didn't matter

that it was it was just this question of

being in a hurry

um there's another kind of interesting

question for you that that really struck

me

when you talked about uh blame assigned

and groups

and blameworthiness and i think there

was uh

you mentioned some ceos were asked uh

how many uh the problems that were

caused how many

could be assigned specific you know were

due to

the blame on particularly individuals or

groups and

it was like the ceos would say two to

five percent

but when you talked about um with

how people regarded um

what actually happened in terms of

people

being held to account it was like 70

of the problems were assigned blame how

does this relate to

the function of networks and how they

can function what

what what kind of atmosphere does this

create or is there

and is there a way to work around this

yeah i mean what we know within

organizations

is one of the most powerful ways of

creating a high functioning organization

is to create something called

psychological safety

and the idea of psychological safety is

this sense of

blameworthiness um and we know from a

structural perspective that

psychological

safety is most likely to happen in these

dense convening groups right where

friends are friends with and or

one another our colleagues work together

quite closely the downside of this is

it's also that they tend to be people

who are homogenous

with respect to background so within

those structures

naturally there tends to be higher lit

levels of psychological safety and this

was developed the idea was initially

developed by amy edmondson and like she

says i wish i wouldn't have called it

psychological safety in retrospect i

wish i would have called it radical

candor

and that type of network or relationship

right where people are working together

repeatedly and quite closely

there tends to be a high level of trust

in that

so even if you bring someone new in that

networks actually naturally close on

themselves so

because of one principle of this is just

psychological balance right so the adage

that of a friend of a friend tends to

become a friend

so we actually tend to evolve in this

structure

but what's really powerful is that it's

difficult to create

but it's really quick to dissolve and

what we know is that

within organizations we've been talking

a lot about positive relationships

but negative relationships have an

outsize effect on

our networks in particular if you look

at studies of networks and

this is we often refer to this as

negative ties that it's

literally close to two to five percent

of tithes are negative ties but they

capture a disproportionate

part of our attention and some of this

is evolutionary right that we're taught

to pay attention to things that can harm

us or are

likely to be a threat um just to survive

so we actually devote much more of our

attentional focus on things that are

negative but it's also just human nature

right if someone could

you can give me a hundred compliments

and one critique and i'm gonna focus on

the critique

but what that means is when we're

thinking about designing systems

we need they naturally actually evolve

in this way that has a lot of pr

the potential for radical candor and a

lot of psychological safety

but one drop of negativity can

dissipate that amazingly quickly and

it's

extremely difficult to repair it

and so the idea if you're thinking about

creating a thriving organization

is to focus first and foremost on

creating an environment that really has

a lot of trust

a lot of reciprocity and the potential

for radical candor

but you have to go to great lengths to

protect it

because it's the adage like one bad

apple can spoil the brunch

is absolutely true some of that is

thinking about very very carefully about

hiring

but also thinking about how do we

establish norms and principles that we

all buy into as a group

and then you can create a culture where

there's a self-reinforcing property

um and hold each other mutually

accountable

yeah that's interest i mean it

i think that we need to expand this idea

of radical candor to

include the ways in which we

deal with uh i think you referred to

jerks and pessimists uh uh who

in in one meeting can change the tenor

of the group

uh uh from from the beginning to the end

of the meeting and then

change the tenor of the group going

forward so so

it becomes important to create norms and

principles that we can call people to

account

for in in ways in which people are shy

people don't call each other out for

being negative or

for uh

not acting in the interests of of of

of the group dynamic yeah and i think a

lot of it is also

trying to approach that with empathy

because a lot of times people are acting

in that way

for reasons because they themselves

actually are hurt there may be something

going on in their lives and

in being able to engage in perspective

taking and reaching out but

again getting back to not assigning

blame right but getting back to a

question of

asking with like true curiosity like

is everything all right is there

anything we can do right it's very easy

to want to exclude and like

you know working with mba students like

they they are so quick to be like oh

let's fire them and it's like no

let's ask them how they're doing and

what they need

um and that reorient or reorientation

is so incredibly helpful because when

you ostracize someone from a group

it not only hurts that person but it has

long enduring consequences for the group

but inviting them back in it has a power

it sends a very powerful signal about

what you care about and sometimes that's

not possible

but most of the time people aren't

acting like jerks because they're really

jerks it's because they have something

else going on

that need and they need help right or

they need to have something modeled for

them

that illustrates a more productive way

to

to behave with the others yeah and i

think for me that that was actually one

of the most powerful parts of writing

this book actually

i'm not trained as a social psychologist

by training right like i study social

systems but

i and i myself have struggled i

hopefully wasn't a jerk but i've

definitely struggled with a lot of

social anxiety

and what i realized right is a lot of

the way

like it can all be learned right social

intelligence is very much a learned

skill

and by learning some basic like

fundamental rules of social human action

interaction that i wasn't given the

playbook to someone

somewhere along the way it's been

extraordinarily helpful for me both in

reducing that

anxiety which is really critical to

allowing me to engage with other people

and i think that that's often the case

is that

oftentimes people can seem disengaged or

like they're

acting out and it's actually simply that

they don't know how they should be

acting yeah and there was

this is not a a major part of the book

but very early on you meant

you mentioned it the classic problem for

people who go to parties and don't know

what to do with themselves is

you that people are drawn to bias so you

look for the odd number

crowd the three and the five or the one

and then you

and then you you complete the circle

those kinds of uh

tips about social anxiety i certainly

wish i had had

um at any time in my life

i'm sure you're always the life of the

party vincent i doubt that you needed

them

but so much of it actually does boil

down to confidence so the odd number

group it can be i i found enormously

helpful because it mainly more than

anything it makes me feel more confident

i'm like all right i know where i'm

going i don't need to run away

[Music]

um one of the questions there was

another um

one of the things i thought was actually

um appropriate for

particularly appropriate for a business

school and and also

for the role of business in society for

what

for what business can provide um that

and ngos and and governments

might not necessarily provide as you

mentioned that offices are less racially

segregated than

churches and schools that there is there

is a kind of function

to the transactional quality of

businesses and the way people are

arranged together since they're not

making choices about who they're going

to be with

that provides some um

provides some hope for us schools

churches and voluntary organizations are

more segregated than

offices are and it may also explain they

were

some of the response of the business

community to black lives matter and to

the events

over the summer i was just wondering if

you had any further thoughts on that

yeah this is one of the pieces that i

find

so powerful and because it one it

reveals so much of

just how human interaction work the

reason

why religious organizations voluntary

groups and neighborhoods are so racially

segregated is because we

select into them and when we form groups

naturally on our own that we tend to be

guided by the principle

which is known formerly as homophily but

the tendency of like to affiliate would

like

so we choose to interact with people who

look like us and already think like us

in part because it feels safe and it

feels secure there's like less

worry um and so when we're left to our

own devices we

form self-segregating groups that are

pretty homogeneous

and what's so powerful about

organizations in the workplace in

particular

is it tends to be far more diverse than

any other

type of organization that we interact

with on a daily basis

but what's even more powerful than that

is that in the workplace we can actually

create networks we can devise and tinker

with social structure

in a way that we can't right like i

can't choose

move my neighbor from next door which i

would if i could hopefully they're not

on

right but i can't tinker with what

interactions happen in my neighborhood

but at work we can actually design

organizations we can design interaction

that one first allows the possibility

for more diverse workplaces because

we're not self-selecting into them

but it also creates the possibility for

a greater level of inclusion if we think

about how do we take that diversity and

create interactions that

allow for not just diversity but also

inclusion and there's a lot of potential

within organizations to start to solve

societal problems if we think about

loneliness if we think about mental

health

organizations and workplaces in

particular when i say organizations i'm

referring to workplaces

have the potential to change our

interactions

in a way that can help solve those

problems in a way that other domains of

social life can't

interesting to

um

you mentioned earlier the kind of the

breakdown between conveners and brokers

and expansionists

would it be the role of a broker

in the network to kind of reach outside

the

the homophilic associations

and put different people together yeah

so if

we think about right that these

self-selecting structures and networks

left unmanaged

tend to create these convening like

structures that friends are friends with

one another

and they tend to be pretty homogeneous

and it's the brokers that connect

between them

and someone ends up can end up as a

broker for lots of different reasons

some of it is personality and

predisposition

people often think your network type is

most likely to be determined by how

extroverted or introverted you are

we actually know that our the

personality plays a

tiny role so extroversion or

introversion only explain

around 10 of variance in network type

but of all personality characteristics

the one that is the biggest predictor of

what type of network you have is

actually called something

called high self or low self monitoring

which is really the extent to which

you're a chameleon so high self monitors

um

tend to be good at doing things like

giving impromptu speeches

at parties on topics they know a little

about right that they are chameleons

and they can in many ways speak to

different groups

and interact with different groups in a

way that they're able to frame issues

and problems in a way that speaks to

both

which so it's really brokers that are

connecting these groups

but what's really also important to

realize is

that organizations can create brokers

much of our network type and much of our

network signature is actually

determined by where we spend our time

and how we live our lives so brokers

tend to have very unusual career paths

and if organizations want to create

brokers right if they're trying to

create more

inclusion if they're trying to create

innovation or creativity comes through

brokers

then you can take steps to start to

devise career paths or rotation programs

that allow people to develop this type

of network and that benefits the

organization but it also benefits

the broker themselves

and then can you can you what is the

difference between the role of the

of the broker to make the connections

between these

disparate groups of people and the role

of the expansionist

in creating the random or the

introducing the random or the chaotic

element that

serves the vitality can you talk a

little bit about that

yeah so brokers tend to connect social

worlds that are

pretty socially proximate right so you

could think about a broker would be

within an organization they would be the

one who would connect

engineering and um

let's say the sales department right so

they're bridging paths

between groups that are pretty socially

proximate and what's

so powerful about expansion is they have

extraordinarily large networks right my

favorite example of this is david

rockefeller who at the time of his death

he collected he

every person he met he put on a

nine-volt an

index card and those index cards

end-to-end by the time of his death

would have stretched more

miles and miles and miles

[Music]

and what's interesting there is there

creates the possibility

for random social interaction so if you

map

networks and you look at expansionists

they'll have just this outer layer of

people who would never talk to each

other

right that they may you know they are

the person who would know someone and

uh i don't know darus salaam and they

would know someone

you know in idaho city right and

it's that right so it's not that they're

brokering groups

but they have connections to a large

large number of individuals

and that's where this possibility of

people who would never

normally bump into each other because

they're not necessarily in groups

that they're just extraordinarily large

and disconnected

that that's where this these shortcuts

and networks are the magic really of

bringing the world

making the world small comes from in

expansionist networks

and i think one one question i want to

ask you before we

we go and take questions from uh

the audience by the way i i have to say

if you have a clock my computer has this

new capacity

to not tell me the time unless i make

my window disappear which is

440. all right okay

so the last question i would like to ask

is um

what i'm wondering what you learn from

writing the book

that has been useful to you or

seemed especially resonant to you in the

time of covet

during this last year which has been one

of

of probably an intensification of both

loneliness for most people

[Music]

and also an intensification of networks

uh because we're all doing a lot of work

by

by zoom and we're all uh connecting to

uh people that we would ordinarily

travel to see

so anything that's come up that

that that you'd think oh my gosh that

was

especially a positive to what's happened

this year

yeah i mean i along with my college

colleague

ballis kozak and nicholas kaplan we've

actually studied what's happened to

people's networks during coba

and we met hundreds of individuals

networks a year in june prior to covid

and then looked at them in june this

year after we were really in the midst

of social lockdown

and what we found are a couple of

different things one of the biggest

changes that we've seen in people's

networks is that the outer ring of

acquaintances has shrunk pretty

profoundly so the outer ring of

acquaintances has shrunk by close to 17

percent

which is equivalent to around 250 people

but almost

all of that shrinkage was due to the

reduction in the size of men's networks

so men's networks shrunk by more than 30

but women's networks have hardly shrank

at all during covid

and i think that that's a powerful

illustration of one of the

misconceptions

about how networks work and we think

about them um

it's not right women aren't spending

more time maintaining their social

networks

like women are incredibly strapped for

time between having to manage their home

life

and their work life right and you've

seen the downside consequences of this

across the board

and what i think this finding really

highlights is it's not that investing

more time makes you have a more

resilient network

it's thinking about how you connect and

the difference really boils down to how

men and women maintain their social

relationships so women tend to maintain

their social relationships through

conversation

versus men tend to do activities

together right so they

go bowling together they go fishing to

go they're gonna go skiing together they

do whatever they do together

but they don't really talk that much and

if we want to think about what that

means right it's not that we necessarily

need to spend more time developing our

network is we need to think more

carefully about how we do that

and the second piece of this of what

we've seen

during covet i think is illustrative in

that regard so during covert the other

piece of this is our

networks have naturally turned inward

that's part of the reason that we're

seeing a shrinkage

is that we're focusing more of our time

and attention on

our core connections our closest family

our closest friends

and what we found in our work is the

people who have their best during covet

in terms of loneliness in particular

have five or more strong connections

people who have

less than that have really really

suffered and have increased loneliness

even if you control for how much

how lonely they were before so it really

is this fundamental core

that provides emotional and social

support and i think for me this has been

an

important reflection on thinking about

who do i really need

and making sure that i maintain and

strengthen those connections and give

them

the attention that they deserve and it's

hard right because

for like i live in a i have kids i have

a husband right like

there are a lot of people in my house

but on a

minute to minute basis in particular

during this time

i may not have actually been connecting

with them at the depth that i

need and i think that they need in order

to get through this difficult time

and for people who don't all right have

a lot of people in their house the other

piece of this that i think is really

important to realize is there is

extraordinary value

in your existing relationships the idea

should now especially shouldn't be like

think trying to meet new people but that

trust

stays in our relationships for a very

long time

so you can get a lot of profound

impact and well-being both for yourself

and the other person

by reaching out to someone you may have

not spoken to or two to three years

and that reconnection i think is the

gift really

in the silver lining of this really

really difficult time

that's really interesting yeah and i i

read a little bit about reconnection in

the book and its possibilities because

especially when people are having hard

times when they've been fired etc

so um that's a really interesting

that's a really interesting insight it

also connects back i think that

when we want to make things real we tend

to make them

smaller i mean you refer to that and

we tend to break them down so that we

actually feel or

experience rather than just think about

them and

and that may also be related to why

fiber more close connections would be

important to us in this time and before

opening up to questions i just want to

read this

the last the last paragraph of the book

which i think kind of sums up what

we've been talking about um

in combination brokers expansionists and

conveners make the world small

they strike a beautiful balance between

order and randomness

this is how brains and ecosystems and

ant colonies work

and despite the differences in

personality and preferences of conveners

expansionists and

brokers they all contribute to creating

a brilliant

vibrant human order so i want to thank

you for writing

this book and for doing

the 20 years of work i'm sure that led

to it

but let's uh let's open it up now i'm

gonna

i'm gonna open up the chat box um

one first question is very where does

the person who wants to bring about

social change

fit into the three kinds conveners

brokers are expansionists

i think this line that you just read

sums it up perfectly that you need all

three

and that oftentimes i think the person

who wants to bring about social change

oftentimes will

default to a convening network

people with very strong ideologies um

and strong values actually

tend to do really well and thrive with

like-minded people who get them

they have a lot of trust a lot of buy-in

and a lot of commitment

but the truth is that you need all three

right you need

that strong convening network where

there's shared values and shared goals

but if you want to address a complex

social problem

like climate change or inequality you

have to really address them all

and so you need the brokers that can cr

broker between those groups and help

them speak to one another and i think

that that was one of the profound things

that happened during black lives matter

as you started to hear

people who are focused on environmental

justice to start to talk to people in

black lives matter right it's the same

thing that happened in 1999 in seattle

that was so

powerful but you also need expansionists

like you need people with a platform

you need people with influence but

expansionists can't do it alone

um and i think that that's one of the

misconceptions

is that it's a an extraordinarily large

network that will help

but in reality you need all three right

that's interesting i think it's one of

the uh

the one percent movement or the 99

movement rather that

if you talk to veterans of zocara park

they'll tell you that they felt the need

to

move on to make have different kinds of

discussions

than the ones that were just going on

between themselves

in the park um thinking

about how to make the abstract concrete

what can people do to harness the power

of networks

say if one was wanted to scale

sustainability in the world through

their networks

what might be some steps you'd recommend

for engaging our audiences

and institutions to have real impact

i think the first piece is starting to

understand what your own network looks

like in your own personal strengths and

i think that's

where that oftentimes people hit

resistance is that there's an idea of

like

thinking about right like they don't

want to look at their own relationships

because it can oftentimes feel morally

off-putting

but the reality is you have to

understand what type of network you have

because it's your greatest asset

that if we want change that it's going

to take right it takes a

movement so if i know for instance that

i'm a convener there's extraordinary

strength in that network

but i if i want to reach out and expand

that movement right like if i want

you know i primarily tend to think about

social issues and social justice if i

want to

for that to happen right i need to be

able to find

a way to connect with you vincent or

with cba right we need that those

connections and that happens through

broker so

figuring out what type of network you

have and then figuring out who can you

put get on board for allies and being

really clear about

who's doing what and what those roles

are that's how you start to create a

movement

and those connections don't just happen

naturally right those alliances are

really really difficult

to maintain you spent a lot of time at

yale trying to create these

interdisciplinary cross-disciplinary

alliances to promote social good

and despite how many brilliant

scientists there are at yale

if you don't understand the human

element and how to maintain those

connections and build them

like we we we

our default is to go back into our own

small

little world and talk right and to talk

to people who already think like us

have you had any um experience when

you've been having these discussions and

so say for most so the terms were new to

me

uh convenience brokers and expansionists

and if i were as a

part of a network how would that

correspond to

say if i were in a uh

same i'm i'm in the city of miami and

i'm trying to

work on i'm trying to work on sea level

rise and i'm trying to work with others

and

how do i think about conveners brokers

and expansionists in relation to

the needs of the network that how do i

go about finding those folks who are

saying

or establishing the norm within the

group this is this is what we need and

this is

this is ed bed over here and jane over

here and

and they're doing performing that

function

yeah i think one of the starting points

is to realize that your network is a

form of capital right like

social capital is a form of capital and

being really thoughtful about what you

bring to the table and oftentimes when

we're trying to do

some type of work or trying to do some

type of good we're oftentimes focused on

our human capital our expertise and what

we can bring to the table

but thinking about getting back to your

example um

if who do you know in my ama and it may

not be actually someone in miami

it's most likely actually someone who's

working on a similar issue

in a different geographic constituency

they can create that connection for you

and the

power i think really realizes in how

much people

want to connect and want to help and

being willing to leverage those

connections and one of the most powerful

ways to actually forge a connection

is simply to ask for help it gives the

other person a sense of mastery it gives

them a sense of purpose

and so realizing people want to help and

just asking simply

who do you know it's easy to identify

expansionists they know tons of people

when you think of

someone who top of mind is most likely

an expansionist

conveners are deeply embedded so if you

can find one of them

you can find them all and so it's

starting to think in this way

it starts to make it much more tractable

okay

the very common question um is

and is the bad apple analogy

um about how uh

how does it work with the idea of

radical candor when people may need to

express

negative thoughts in groups and

organizations

how does that get reframed in some way

to be

productive rather than negative yeah

that's a really important question

and because the idea isn't that you

never say something negative right we

need to be able

to ask questions and we need to be able

to give advice

and a lot of that is thinking about gets

back to this issue of

is an action blame were they are you

blaming someone

are you approaching a question to try to

understand what

what happened to make a situation

negative so

the first question is simply to ask with

an open mind

what so what happened um but be open to

the possibility and then recognize there

are all sorts of reasons that things go

wrong

most of the time it's actually that

someone didn't have the resources they

didn't have the support

they didn't have the information they

needed and so starting to address those

questions

through open and honest but kind right

conversation and so it's really

important to say that it doesn't

there has to be accountability and there

has to be an opportunity for advice and

feedback

but it can be done in ways that aren't

inducing blame

and that's really where things start to

go really wrong

right so directness but kindness

so in curiosity and curiosity

that's great curiosity i think is the

key there

um and

how would you how would one start

building your thinking into teaching

your learners what can i teach my

five-year-old

about related to your ideas how would

you boil it down for her

oh that's beautiful one of my favorite

um stories in the book and if

i had one like human interaction

superpower

to give people it would actually be

listening

and i think it's so rare that we're

truly listened to

and heard it's an incredible gift and

how this boils down back to the

five-year-old as

ralph nichols who is really known as the

father of listening and did early

studies on this

when he looked at who is a good listener

it depends how we define listener i'll

give you that but who is a good listener

it turned out that he found first

graders so not five year olds but first

graders

were actually the best listeners of all

and the reason that that was true

gets back to this idea of curiosity is

that they listen with an open mind

and so i think actually in many ways

it's that five-year-olds have so much to

teach us

because they're able to be present and

they're able to be open

in a way that as adults i think that we

tend to close down and we have to

relearn so i would flip the question and

ask what can you learn from your

five-year-old

instead of what can you teach them

yeah that's that's wonderful i remember

the

a section from the book too where you

talked about martinez

uh who at the met stood i saw her she

was

at the on a wall sort of silent but

would engage

people's gaze and they were so

uh moved people were moved to tears

by having this

it wasn't actually there she was

listening but not not to words

and i know that we're approaching the

end of our hour together and i think

that that's such a powerful

example because it shows they

one of her messages was just how starved

we are for human contact and i think

that that is

one of the we're at a moment where

that's more true than ever

um that we all deeply need social

connection and what i

hope that people will take away from our

conversation today

is whether it's an hour of conversing

with you or just reaching out to someone

right that you may not have seen in a

few

years right there's extraordinary value

for both for you but also for the

possibility for creating social change

it already exists within your network

and the key is really actually figuring

out how to tap into that and many of the

actions that you can do to are most

effective are really quite simple

you know ask for help give someone or

simply take the time to thank

someone for the role that they've had in

your life and in shaping your thoughts

so

um i'm particularly grateful and

thankful for the opportunity to have a

conversation with you today vincent i've

learned so much from speaking with you

well i've learned so much from speaking

thank you so much for your work

and i think this is a

good place to end thank you everybody

for your

out in the ether there for your

engagement answer your questions