I came across Dr Chris Kerr through his remarkable TEDx talk, “I See Dead People: Dreams and Visions of the Dying.” I immediately contacted him to see if he’d accept to do an interview with me. He accepted and I am deeply grateful that we had this conversation that I recorded and transcribed below. Dr. Kerr brings a unique and necessary perspective on death and dying, a subject often shunned by both the medical community and society at large. With over 25 years of experience, Dr. Kerr shares insights from his research into the subjective experiences of dying patients, revealing the rich inner lives and dreams that comfort them as they approach life’s end. It’s a soulful discussion and, for me, it also felt peaceful. I’ve published this on my regular Minter Dialogue podcast as well.

Minter Dial (interviewer)

Dr. Chris Kerr, I am so happy to have you on my show. You're the second Kerr on my show. But you have a unique story, a unique perspective and one that the world needs to hear. So, in your own words, how would you like to describe who is Dr. Chris Kerr?

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, gosh. I guess I'd start off by saying, I'm a physician that specializes in hospice and palliative care for the last 25 years. And, as an aside, I also have a PhD in neurobiology. So, I have a research background and started researching the subjective experiences of dying, probably 15 years ago.

Minter Dial

What is remarkable about your trajectory, Chris, is that you started off as a physician. And you really talk very much about the way the medical community, the medical training, tends to avoid the topic of death. And what you did after you had the experience of your father's passing, is that you really lent into death. Can you talk us through that journey from, let's say, being a typical physician, to somebody who has another regard for and a need to talk about death?

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah, I actually I leaned away from it. I was in the traditional mainstream of medicine, and was absolutely enamored with acute care, loved emergency rooms, loved the intensive care unit, loved cardiology, and this was more an accident. I was just moonlighting to support my family at hospice, but completely untrained, and not knowing what to do. And so, I started working here on weekends, periodically. And that really forced me to be a different type of doctor, to be present, to worry less about what I was doing to somebody, but who I was to somebody. And the contrast between swinging from cardiology to a hospice inpatient unit was striking, but enriching, and meaningful. So, I changed paths. And it's 25 years later, I've never looked back.

Minter Dial

It strikes me that maybe, this is my opinion, that at the core of the issue is the Hippocratic Oath. I've read it, and or at least I've read portions of it to the best of my abilities in English, of course. And it seems that the idea of saving patients and ensuring everything to avoid them dying is what being a doctor is all about. Yet, what you have done is sort of gone the other side and looked at how to accept it and to make it a comfortable experience. Is that a fair statement?

Dr Chris Kerr

No, actually, the Oath says something entirely different. The intention and promise of the Oath is beautiful. It's two sides of the sword, and one side's been dulled. So, the promise is to treat where possible, but to comfort always. And what's happened as technical medicine has evolved, an origin-based approach to human suffering has taken over. We're obsessed with the intervention and acts of doing and when you are no longer deemed curative. First of all, we have a hard time recognizing that. And so, we've gotten more and more uncomfortable with our role as physicians, as being comforters. So, we're fine, as long as we're in a system that allows us to be interventional and to bill. The whole economics of health care is built along... it's not enough to be suffering, you need to do. It's transactional. And what that's done, it's created miracles on one hand, but it's forgotten the totality of the person, and particularly their experience. And when you are deemed no longer cured, which occur in the Western world, you kind of fall off the cliff, you go from getting a million-dollar treatment in a comprehensive cancer center, and then when you're low longer responding to treatment, you kind of fall off this cliff. So, the patient is seen as much as they're not dying. And of course, the irony is, when they need help the most, there's often the least amount to be received.

Minter Dial

Beautiful, thank you for the correction. And, I wonder to what extent this falling off the cliff, or this disruption, the transactional element, is more societal or medical school-led, if you will?

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, it's such a good point. It's both. On the medical school side, absolutely. We have become enamored with technology. And, they've done studies looking at how often the word dying is used in medical textbooks, and it's rare. In fact, when I was a resident, we would have somebody on our teaching service. And when they were deemed dying, we would sign off, because there was nothing more to learn. So, we institutionalized patient abandonment, as part of our educational system. As a society, we're obviously ageist. We're death denying. We're consumers of health care. There's always this notion that there's something you can do about something. And we've sterilized dying. You know, people used to die in their homes with their families, in a village. There'd be ceremonies around it and whatnot, and there were remembrances. And now you kind of go off somewhere, and you die in a unit, in a cold and dehumanizing space. So, you're right, it's both.

Minter Dial

As you said, in your speech, your amazing TEDx speech, there are two things people fear the most death and public speaking. So, I'm a public speaker, you're a death specialist. But this notion of society's ageism, and the billions of dollars that are being poured into anti-aging, anti-senescence, immortality, it seems like an illness in itself.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yes. And one that we can't evade. And I often see when the biology meets reality, and people get to that inevitable point, it's hard to age gracefully in the Western world.

Minter Dial

I think that the problem can also be existing in other countries in the East, where we only have one or two children. Whereas before, we might have had 10. It was like if you had a football team, well, soccer team, and one or two die, and oh, no biggie, whatever. Now, you have one or two, and they are obviously precious, and made out to be sort of godlike sometimes at the at the dinner table. So, it's all about them as opposed to us and community.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah, very much, right.

Minter Dial

So, in one of the sentences I extracted from your TEDx, you said "in our culture, the richest and most thoughtful discussions have always come from the humanities and never medicine, but from poets, playwrights and philosophers." And I was wondering, what kind of reading you do that inspires you, and the types of poets playwrights that that you enjoy reading?

Dr Chris Kerr

Gosh, it's a wide range. I'm a huge John Steinbeck fan. I grew up on Shakespeare. Yeah, I, I think that in the humanities, they ponder existence, they ponder the soul^. And so, they bring life to those dimensions, in a way medicine, at least modern medicine, can't. So, the base of the research was, I was trying to teach this to students, and we live in an evidence-based time and they would, of course, say, well, there's no evidence for it. And there was some truth to that there was anecdotal case studies, and third-person reporting, but it was rich in the humanities, it's rich within other cultures. So, it's in the Bible. Citizen Kane. That that's where the experience of subjective elements of dying are discussed and pondered.

Minter Dial

One of the things is going back to the medical community that we were talking about, and it struck me, was that you make a line somehow between doctors and nurses in their experience or regard on death?

Dr Chris Kerr

That's very perceptive. Yes. I learned this the hard way because it was nurses who taught me on this subject. The closer you are to the bedside. So, in less of a transactional way, a bit more present around the model of caring, rather than rounding, let's say rather than spot welding, the more likely you are to have a deeper appreciation for what the patient feels. What they see what they fear. All these other elements that nurses capture so beautifully. So, what I find is when I lecture to a group of nurses -- I've had this happen the same day -- the audience is all shaking their heads. I'm not really telling them anything they don't know. Because I've discovered nothing. I've just shot a light on something that's always been known but lost. I mean, it's still held on to in other cultures, indigenous people around the world these days. Whereas doctors who are more and more, only live in the sphere of the objective, don't appreciate what can't be biopsied or imaged or quantified. They're more, you know, as I mentioned, they're more comfortable with the brain than the mind. And so, feeling is something you compartmentalize off to spiritual care or psychiatry, but it's not within the toolbox, necessarily, of the physician. But if a nurse is doing their job, and they're present, and they're hearing what the patient has experienced, they tend to grasp this.

Minter Dial

I've done a few rounds with doctors. And what struck me was that, in the rounds that you do, especially when you're in a university or learning environment, you spend a lot more time off the ball than on the ball. And what I mean by that is talking outside the patient's room, conferring and talking, and then only a few minutes, actually, at the bedside.

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, my God, you're so right. I never thought of it that way. Well, it used to be worse in a when in a paternalistic version of a male-dominated medical culture. That extended to the point that there was one conversation with the patient that was fictitious, and one conversation outside of the patient's room that was accurate. So, when I started, it was not uncommon to get on the phone with a doctor. And the doctor said, you know, yeah, well, I know she's dying, but I don't want to take away hope. You know, meanwhile, it's that person's life to negotiate and to understand. And, you know, you're not protecting them from the reality. They figure it out. It's their body and their life. But what you're doing is you're taking away their ability to choose what information they have access to. But yeah, you're right, yeah.

Minter Dial

There are many cultural differences to death. And so, in France, I have a memory of someone near to me, who had terminal cancer. And rather than tell the patient, they told his son, because they wanted him to stay with hope, the father, and then the son had to deal with the mechanics and the logistics.

Dr Chris Kerr

Well, yeah, that never works. Because you can't be protected from your own reality. Even if you look at our work, they become self-informed. We've seen this with children who they often haven't had that discussion around mortality. They don't have reference points, but their end of life experiences inform them as they go. I once had a patient who was dying, who asked to go to rehab so he could get stronger, so he could confront the physician who had lied about his status. Because it had so many practical implications. He had told his daughter from California not to fly in. He owned a company, he wanted to have this party where he was going to make all these speeches. And he was deprived the ability to manage the own trajectory of his last days of life, because a doctor felt he could deceive him from the reality. And the reality is, the people who die worse are the people who are not prepared. The people who die best still hope for cure, hope for recovery, but also prepare for the worst. And people can do those two things at once, and they can do them well. Where this becomes important is not just for the patient, but for the family. So, a young parent, I've seen this many times who didn't know until the very end and had lost that window, to have those very important conversations with dependent children to bring in counselors or religious figures into their life. All that gets lost. There are practical considerations that people get deprived of all the time. And if you look at the prognostication data, it's horrible. You know, they're off by a factor of two to three, erring on the side of longer. And, unfortunately, what they do is they'll tell you when you're going to die, but not how you're going to die. So, you may live six months, but you may not know that four of those months, you may be bed-bound and need help. It's not like you're walking along, and you fall over. There's a decline.

Minter Dial

One of the things that's most mysterious to me is knowledge of when I'm going to die, or at least that I'm dying. You know you can have the hypochondriac saying, oh, you know, I've got a cold, I'm going to die. There are some people may have an illness and believe they're going to die, and maybe that then foreshadows what's going to happen, or at least it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. To what extent does someone who is dying, have a better grasp than you as a doctor. When can that happen?

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, often. It's fascinating. Typically, the older they get. Because you accept the inevitable differently if you have less dependent lives around you, as opposed to the young parent who can deny the reality. Oh, but it's very, very common that they self-inform. It's their body, you know. They used to be able to go up the stairs, now they can't. Then they used to be able to get their mail. Now they can't. They want to nap more. They don't feel like eating the same amount. They look at their arm, and it's half the size. So, they know. Illness has this way, at its root, of pulling you to rest and to sleep. And people interpret that. They know what that means. And some people welcome it, particularly if there's been a struggle within an illness. And it feels better to do less. So, they often are able to extrapolate. It's funny we're having this conversation because today was the first time in 10 months least that I had somebody who was truly unaccepting and they're actively dying, they'll probably be dead by tomorrow. And it was very interesting because they had signed on for a naturopathic management, which is often like joining a cult because there's not a lot of evidence necessarily, but you've got to have full and complete devotion and faith, which is great as an additive treatment. So, she had gone on to this naturopathic room, and she's actively dying, the family feels robbed, because they didn't have any conversation. But it's rare.

Minter Dial

So, I'd like to zero in on this notion of conversation. The society rejects it, denies it. Medical school never talks about it, also denies it somehow. And it can be difficult for somebody who's not dying to be talking with someone who is dying. For a lack of words, you don't know what to say. It's the same for grieving, you know, if someone loses something very close, I'm sorry, condolences. But you feel awkward. What kind of advice would you have for individuals who have someone close to them, who is dying? What roads into it? I mean, obviously, you talk about the idea of visions. That seems like an interesting topic. But what's your approach to that conversation?

Dr Chris Kerr

It's a great question. Thank you. Well, first of all, we tend to sterilize the dying, to put them on the shelf and treat them like they're frail and fragile. And the truth is, and dying patients will tell you this, dying is lonely, and it's isolating. And we don't need to make it more isolating by not engaging. It's shocking. When we went to do this study, the university didn't give it approval, at first, because they thought, "Oh my gosh, the patients are dying, you can't intrude." And I said, how many of you have actually cared for anyone dying. I said, they're lying in bed, they're looking at a white ceiling. And what they want to do is connect and to feel human. So, when everyone has an instinct to keep it a distance, actually what they want to do is feel less lonely, to feel connected, that their words matter. So, in our effort to humanize, we need to relate, not distance ourselves. And I think there's this tendency to over inquire about how people feel and everything. They get a lot of that, right? I don't meet many people who, except for the hypochondriac, who want to be seen, identified or defined by illness. They want to talk about other things. Things that make them feel human again, connected and mattering. So, I think that's the best thing is to be less fearful, to get closer, not farther from the bed. And to engage with as much normalcy as you're capable of doing.

Minter Dial

I love this word mattering. Professor John Vervaeke, he talks about the importance of mattering today. And the end of the day, relationships are the most important thing. And it sparks a thought, Chris, which in this transactional world, there are those who might say, "Oh, she's dying, there's no worth buying her present for Christmas." A reduction to the most transactional, consumerist of methods, where we don't know how to do anything else. You don't know how to do the relationship thing. Or what worth is it to make her smile today, right now she's going to die anyway.

Dr Chris Kerr

But let me contextualize this a little bit. So, when we were doing our studies, we've done probably seven or eight. The initial thought was people wouldn't want to participate. And they certainly didn't want to be in a video. So, we videotaped a lot of people. That's what became part of the Netflix series and the PBS documentary, as they thought, well, you know, they're disfigured, they're ill-appearing, whatever. And what happened was the opposite. Almost, with very few exceptions, did anyone not want to participate in the study. These are people sometimes days away from death. And this is what gets lost is: the thought is, well, there's no secondary gain. They are never going to read it, they're never going to see it, they're never going to be congratulated, recognized anything, no attaboys. But what happens with dying is that hope transitions, meaning transitions. So, it transitions from hopes of cure, to hope for others. So, the idea that people thought they were contributing, was enough for them to muster all their strength, to try to put their makeup on, smile, talk to the camera, and contribute right up until the last days. And I just think that's such a beautiful story. So, I think we need to worry less about what second secondary gain there is, the Christmas that's not going to be seen, what have you. But again, it just goes to the fact that they want to matter. And they still see worth in contributing. But, I just think it's an amazing story that really everybody wants to... and the university had predicted the opposite. Because we had a large number of people we wanted to capture. And they thought, oh, we'll never do that. And we did, very easily.

Minter Dial

You said, in your TEDx, "end of life experiences not only tied to our personal meanings, but they are tied to some of our greatest needs. The need to love to be loved, nurtured, forgiven." And in those elements, there's this other. The need to be loved by others, the need to nurture others.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yes. You know, life, as you're dying gets distilled into what matters. And what matters most is our greatest achievement, which is our relationships. And that's all. When you first get diagnosed, there are fears and there are practical concerns. You know, as you get closer to death, you're not worried whether where your car keys are, what your tax bill is. It's a vantage point that changes your perception and your perspective, and your focus. And you draw on the things that mattered most from living. And time seems to go away and you become very reflective, naturally.

Minter Dial

Present.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yes. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Minter Dial

You mentioned loneliness before. And I wonder to what extent, the issue with death is also the issue that society has with death. It's a reflection of the epidemic of loneliness that we have all along our lives these days. There are many studies that show that we are completely lonely despite being fully connected in today's world. And mental health conditions are spiraling. If you're a CEO, it's one of the loneliest jobs out there, we end up being lonely in our lives. And then all that to end up lonely at death.

Dr Chris Kerr

But I think that the dying don't feel ... I think illness is lonely. I'm not so sure as you get closer to the end they're still so lonely. Because, you know, the vast majority of people that we study are experiencing these things and they end up feeling very connected, maybe not to people that are present in front of them, but people who they're thinking about. We saw this during COVID, because the fear was, you know, there they are separated from humans that they love. But if you actually talk to the patients themselves, when they're my eyes were closed -- and dying is progressive sleep, right? People don't die awake, they just sleep more -- they report a very different experience. You know, they're bathed in memories, and recollections and remembrances. I think they leave us more connected than alone.

Minter Dial

And then there's this whole topic of the visions that we have. I want to dive in on that in a moment. But recently, I was just talking to my wife about how, for her great aunt, the doctor said, "Oh, she's delusional," just before dying. And and when I talked about your concept of visions, she said that's totally true. So, it felt real. But it was sort of shocking that the doctor would say, oh, delusional. She you know, she's flipping off, she's talking about dead people who don't exist anymore, which is pretty much all your topic. And the topic I'd like to sort of segue into is hallucinations. Because today, I work a lot in AI and they always talk about how Artificial Intelligence hallucinates. But I also like to talk about psychedelics. And there's a whole lot of body of work on how psychedelics help with fear of death. And I was wondering to what extent that's part of your work and the idea of visions and psychedelic hallucinations? Is there any relationship in there?

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, yeah. In fact, we're working on part of a documentary that's been done by a two-time Emmy Award winner an Academy Award nominee. And they were working with indigenous people on something else, found out their beliefs around dying, and then she read my book. And then she phones me and says, you know, these guys have language for this? Oh, yeah. I know, I didn't discover this^. And so, she's pairing that with our work. That led into the psychedelic space^. And so, they've done some fascinating work, where -- I wish I could share the trailer, it will be out at Sundance in 2025 -- but they gave psychedelics to dying patients. Absolutely, it addressed their fear and it gave them a whole new view. And the indigenous have been doing this forever. We are involved in some work, here. The problem, in the state I'm in which is New York, we're very behind^. And so, there's three pieces of legislation in front of the state to make it more legal. So, the work that's done here is underground. So, I'm not directly experienced with it, but indirectly through the film, and obviously, through talking with others. It's the experiences are very similar to what happens endogenously, at the end of life for people. I think they're amped up a little more, a little more colorful. But yeah, they're similar.

Minter Dial

I interviewed a friend who runs a ketamine-assisted therapy session in New York City. So, hopefully, we're getting there.

Dr Chris Kerr

I've been doing ketamine for 20 years. Ketamine we do. I just took a patient off of it last week, after seven days. We use it as a as a treatment for pain and opioid tolerance. Secondarily, it manages very well existential or psychogenic distress. The problem with the ketamine clinics and everything, is the effect is brief. Not sustained.

Minter Dial

Yeah, the whole notion of integration is the challenge, right?

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah. But it gets people, typically people who are severely distressed, back into a workable space.

Minter Dial

That's progress.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah.

Minter Dial

And in terms of the visions that you talk about how, as we get closer to death, we have these visions that are reconciling ourselves with past problems, maybe a lot of visualization of people who we've missed, who have died already, and those type of visions. To what extent is there a correlation between the psychedelic visions and those type of non-psychedelic visions. Are they just a colorful version of seeing my dead mother again or other dead person from my past?

Dr Chris Kerr

No. The psychedelic version is turbocharged. The end of life dreams and visions are pure in the sense that they don't include great pronouncements and epiphanies, right? They're sitting around the kitchen table with those you've loved and you've lost. It's seeing the dog from your childhood. It's self-explanatory. It feels natural. The psychedelic-charged experience opens up channels of consciousness and awareness that, it's like an acid trip, in the sense it's powerful stuff. It's colorized. You come out of it with the same therapeutic experience, in that it's relieving. It's comforting. It's insighting for you. Something happens, but they're different. They're very, very different.

Minter Dial

The way I'm interpreting that, Chris, is that you've got the one, which is the conversation around the table in the kitchen, which is sort of simple. And the other one, which is a million thoughts at 100 miles an hour, in multicolor. That's the acid trip, which is just too many things. And it's far less simple in that respect.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yes, yes. And, you know, I've never had a patient come out of end of life experiences and ask, what does this mean? Like, there's no... the time for therapy is over. There's no work to do. If you lost your mom, when you were a child, and you see your mother, that's self-explanatory. And it's yours. So, there's no interpretive work. There's no work at all. It's a very peaceful, soothing process that doesn't require additional input. Whereas, I think people sometimes, like near death experiences, which is kind of fake dying, I think they come up with all sorts of puzzles need to change or proselytize or whatever, right? That's very, very different than people who are actually died. It's more passive, and more obvious. And I think the psychedelic ones, it's some heavy, heavy stuff. I mean, you're opening aspects of your mind that you weren't aware of.

Minter Dial

You can't control?

Dr Chris Kerr

No, no. And that's a little worrisome, in a way. I mean, one of the problems when the sort of drugs emerge, less from a scientific way, as you know, what's the quality? What's the dosing? Who's a good candidate? Who's not a good candidate? So, I'm talking to people who've done this for a long time, and they're seeing some potential for misuse?

Minter Dial

Of course, yeah. That's no doubt. I'm interested, of the different cases you talk about that, this visioning happens when you're young as well. You talk about a 10-year-old boy, who has his vision and it synchronizes with the death of somebody that he didn't even know had died. I think that's the story. But I was shocked. You did mention before that sometimes younger people will have different types of existential issues about dying versus an older person. But this vision idea, these visions happen, even in the younger people.

Dr Chris Kerr

Well, they do it better. It's the same way that people who are neurologically different, cognitively different do it better. Well, because there's no edification. Children can imagine better. For example, they don't distinguish between the animal and the human world in the same way. A doll

Minter Dial

Puppets.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah, yeah. Right. And, then they're also not fearful of ridicule or judgment. So, they ease back and forth. The children that we've studied and filmed, are the most impressive. They're not worried about judgment. So, it just comes out naturally. Right? They tend to do it better. And we've seen the same thing with the demented, people who have pretty advanced dementia, almost having had an easier access to this.

Minter Dial

I want to get into this other topic which is assisted suicide and euthanasia. Because at the end of the day, this is less natural, at some level. What is your opinion on that area? Of course, it depends. There's a legal issue in here, but from a societal standpoint, there are many countries that have gone much further along the path of allowing it. I've seen the disadvantages of not having the option for that, in terms of end of life, quality of life. What's your opinion on that? I want to get into the vision portion after that.

Dr Chris Kerr

I'm Canadian. So, it's pretty far evolved in Canada. So, I have a lot of friends, loved ones. But I live in the United States where it's a very different view. I'll tell you what, we were sitting at a medical meeting of palliative care doctors, there was probably 200 years of experience taking care of complex ill and dying patients, and between us, we maybe had five patients in our careers who had asked for a hastened death. And so, there's a disconnect between the mainstream culture's discussion of this as an issue and those of us who actually do this work. And one of my concerns is that how many people who choose this as an option have not received good palliative care. Because we see an enormous amount of suffering, and it's really is a failure to treat. So, there's not many symptoms that we can't get an upper hand on. So, I'm struck by how is it that those of us who have lived this day-to-day don't hear this much, but it's so common in the literature, so common in the portraying outside of us. So, that I worry about. All throughout that, where I fall is patient autonomy. I have trouble with it as a doctor here, because I think I need to be respectful of everybody's view, including those that may have a religious commitment that's different from ours. So, I'm very reluctant to make a policy of it for us here. But at the same time, I respect individual choice. I am just fascinated that we don't see it in practice. There is disease exception for me, personally. And I'll give you an example of what it is. It's ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, because that's a disease where you can anticipate what lies ahead, right. So, you're having escalating loss of function, including the ability to swallow, protect your airway, speak. And, I think that's there is no lessening of that symptom burden. And psychologically, I can understand that not meeting the criteria of any quality of life for somebody. So, I don't think we should look at disease as a monolith. I think we need to appreciate patient autonomy. Ultimately, it's their life, you know. But I just think the caveat should be, you know, is this unmanaged, malignant depression? Is this pain that hasn't been properly addressed? You know, is this nausea that's unremitting? Has everything been done? We see so much poor symptom management, that it makes me worried, you know, who's out there, and why are they suffering so much?

Minter Dial

Well, would you not also add into that mismanagement, how families manage around without knowledge of it, fear of death. And it makes me think of [Atul] Gawande's book, "Being Mortal," how, even as a doctor, he was less good at managing his father's last ways. And sometimes, selfishly, as a child, "Oh, I wish you would live on for longer. I want you to see my, my babies." They are grandparents, you know, I want you to do this as opposed to the other person who's dying.

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah. Oh, absolutely. But some of those conversations need to be brokered. So, we do a lot of that. And there's a lot of miscommunication between what the patient's experience and what the families see. So, that's but that's one of the objectives of palliative care is synthesizing the case, understanding the wishes and fears of the patient, understanding where the family is, are they and are they plugged in properly? A lot of it too, I should mention is that, the process of dying is so poorly addressed, that it's a void that is filled with fear. When in reality, if you saw most of our dying patients here, they're sleeping comfortably. They're not medicated-induced sleeps, but their symptoms are managed. Oftentimes, it's not sexy things like you know, their bladders emptied and they're not constipated anymore. Their cough is controlled. But I think that because it's not addressed, very few people come in here, knowing what to expect. So, one of our first interventions, is having discussions around what this process looks like. And you can watch people just go, "Oh," because they just assume the worst and their experiences of illness is often bad. So, they project out, that dying is going to be far worse. And usually, it's quieter. Nature takes care of this pretty well.

Minter Dial

So, I've had the extraordinary experience of talking to two individuals who were sentenced to death, and actually executed, except they survived the execution, Oh, and one in Iran and one in the Ukraine. And, then there's the other one, the assisted suicide where there is sort of a premeditation of the death. There are also near-death experiences. And all along those, I was wondering to what extent visions might happen, when it's more like forced, or unexpected at some level, you know, like the car accident, the kills you just is there? Do you think there's flying through visions as you're dying?

Dr Chris Kerr

Totally, I mean, it's impossible to study. But, you know, the expression, "My life flashed before my eyes." When George Floyd was having the air squeezed out of his chest, he calls out for his mother. Men in the battlefield were often crying for parents, not there. So, I think there's a suggestion that even in the case of acute or subacute dying,, that they're plugging into something. They're flooded with something experiential that we don't necessarily know or appreciate. It's great question.

Minter Dial

I just have two last questions, Chris. One is sparked from your presentation when you were talking about this World War II veteran, John, who was in Normandy. And I've done a documentary film myself from the Second World War, and interviewed 130 veterans of the Second World War, most of whom were prisoners of the Japanese. And the link I have is this notion of humility. Not that they were all Humble Pie. But there was a greater sense of humility and community, it feels, in the past. Maybe it's romanticized. And to what extent that sense of humility and community is a greater gateway to accepting death as opposed to the type of narcissism, loneliness, and fear that seems to be predominant today.

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, absolutely. That's very well said. I wouldn't have used the word humility, but something humanizing takes place. The layers become removed. There's something in the process of becoming ill and dependent, losing physicality losing autonomy, that forces you to stop, to consider, to reflect. You end up in a very different place, perspective-wise, when you're no longer in control. I think that's an awful lot of it.

Minter Dial

So, the last question, Chris, is where do you sit now, with regard to your own mortality? I have to imagine you've reflected on this. And, do you imagine yourself taking a bunch of psilocybin, moving in towards the last steps? So, how do you approach? What have you learned, for yourself, from your entire bank of experience?

Dr Chris Kerr

Oh, well, I'm a cancer patient. So, I can tell you that being a hospice doctor, and also a cancer patient that I'm as scared shitless as the next person. The issue is not, I'm doing better, but in the dark moments, around diagnosis, etc, that my concern wasn't myself. My concern was that I had people who depended on me, whose lives are incomplete with me^. And so, that strikes a trauma that's hard to put into words. So, there's that. The actual processing of dying doesn't make me fearful. So, where I end up is thinking there's a better story. I'm not religious. We don't do this work looking through a keyhole into afterlife or paranormal. But after doing it for so many decades, you can't help but recognize that the love and meaning that we've experienced for having lived, seems to be accessible to us, to the very end. And the things that really secured us, and loved us properly, are still there. And so, we see it all the time, people who have lost someone from eight decades ago, still feel their presence. So, I think there's something there. We're put back together in a way that's very beautiful. And what I'm struck with is the absence of fear. You see in our videos, you know, we videotape a lot of patients, the biggest takeaway is the absence of fear. This whole notion of you know, fighting, the dying of the light is for people who aren't yet sick. So, perspective changes. So, yeah, I am not fearful of the dying. Just not now.

Minter Dial

There's also the epigenetic elements. Sometimes, it passes along. I have to imagine, Chris, that in your conversion to hospice care, and the entire message that you're bringing out to the world, the work you're doing, the book, the documentary, that must be very fulfilling and meaningful for you. I mean, at another level, than just being a physician,

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah, it is. What's interesting, it's kind of a funny story. So, this work was all meant for a medical audience. We film patients, because we thought we knew people would have preconceived notions that these were feeble-minded, frail people who lost their sense. So, we filmed them. And what happened was, we published it and never heard a word in the medical community. But what was interesting is that it went in to the non-medical community, you know, ended up in The NY Times, The Post, everything within weeks. And so, what is rewarding is that it may not matter to the providers of care on the medical side of the equation, but it matters to the recipients of care, whether today or in the future. And I love that I'm part of that voice that is asking for something other than the doctor's death. Where it's a more humanized approach. Instead of dying of organ failure, it's life closure. And I think that's fun to be part of.

Minter Dial

Is there room for us to move back to the old way of dying at home, more often?

Dr Chris Kerr

Yeah, it's happened. It's actually happening in this country. So, 10 years ago, 75% of Americans wanted to die at home. 75% of Americans didn't. It's now we've crossed the 50% mark. And what's happened is the baby boomers are reclaiming dying. And, we see it in death cafes, we see it in the receptivity to our work. They have questions. They don't tolerate a medical model, where they're being told to. They want choice and options. They want to have a say. So, we're seeing the arc bend. Absolutely. Yeah.

Minter Dial

And that is a wonderful place to close. I want to take one last sentence which I had wanted to sort of conclude and I loved it from your TEDx. It says, "I hope they leave [these are your stories that you are sharing] leave open the possibility that there is light within the darkness of dying." Dr. Chris Kerr, it has been an absolute pleasure deep down. To listen to you, get a chance to talk with you. You are on a mission, I feel very necessary for life, as a man who has followed the Grateful Dead and always thought that once we embrace death, we are more grateful, that this is what we should be thinking about and not rejecting it, not denying it, but embracing it.

Dr Chris Kerr

Very well said. So, perfect.

About Dr Christopher Kerr

Dr Christopher Kerr is a hospice physician and an end-of-life researcher. He’s also the acclaimed author of Death Is But a Dream (via Amazon), which is based on his extensive research with hospice patients and their families in Buffalo, NY, highlights and validates the powerful dreams and visions often experienced at end of life that bring comfort and meaning to the dying process. See his site here.

As part of my quest to spur more meaningful conversation, I’m keen to explore subjects that are more sensitive, even difficult to have. In this long-form article, I wanted to investigate — at the outset of 2024 as we contemplate the arrival of a new year — the subject of how parts of our society are investing heavily to find ways to put off aging and death. It’s my thesis that part of the reason why society has gone off the rails, where conversations are either altogether bland or entirely too volatile, is that we lack self-awareness and have an un-acceptance of our failures and imperfections. In pursuit of “good” and in search of Instagrammable moments, we’re designing a life and society that is overly sanitised and detached from reality. Let’s bring back some wholesome debate and allow ourselves to discuss and learn from one another through discussion of deeper, more challenging topics, like our frailties, imperfections and mortality. This article was originally published on my blog here.

Watching time pass by?

I don’t know about you, but I inevitably think of time passing when we chime in the New Year. That said, I’m definitely not one who musters up new year’s resolutions. But changing a digit of the year, i.e. when I have to fill in the date on a form, makes for a cognitive wake-up, if not a shake-up. At the end of the day, new year’s day is just another day, albeit made with a lot of fanfare and midnight noise. It makes me think of the funny remark some have about how time is passing by so fast. I’m sure you’ve heard someone say as they sit watching over or talking about their kids: “I don’t know where the time has gone!” I believe that time passes in accordance with how we live. The more we are present, the more time is one our side. On the other hand, if we live our lives fretting about the future, or regretting the past, it’s sure to have an effect on our impression of time. In our society today, between a heightened sense of self-worth, diminishing religious affiliations and improvements in technology, there’s a growing interest in the ability to move beyond death. Whereas religion has always served as man’s greatest response to death, without it, we no longer have a satisfactory answer as to what happens once the body dies. As there’s a burgeoning sense of entitlement and the technology seems available, funds and energies are being ploughed at unprecedented levels into a quest for immortality. If you’ve read Matt Haig’s book, “How to Stop Time,” the dream would be to develop the “rare disease of immortality” suffered by the main protagonist, Tom Hazard. Today, there’s a fanciful surge of interest in curing aging as if it were a disease, with others seeking to eliminate death. In this article, I’d like to review this trend for longevity and eternity, and suggest we’d be better off putting our energies to other areas, such as figuring out how to make democracy work, deal with the basics of healthcare, seed more empathy in society, and rehabilitate values of community and sacrifice.

When progress turns to hubris

There are, in the human condition, two interesting drivers. First, a need to analyse, codify and dominate things around us (science) and, secondly, a hunt for progress (expressed as ambition). In each, there is a tremendously positive force. But, taken too far, there is always going to be danger. We develop a sense of self-worth and power through advancement. For example, we are constantly looking to tame nature (e.g. ways to change the weather) and to make faster, better animals, plants and machines, such as with GMOs and artificial intelligence. It inevitably tumbles into hubris. In the face of an explosion of artificial intelligence that are moving inexorably closer to life forms, it’s only natural, some might posit, that human beings will seek an artificial existence. With the background of sprouting AI and a foreground of spiralling mental health, the current human story seems on the verge of becoming unhinged. There is no greater example of the derailment of humanity than the burgeoning quest for everlasting life. It’s tantamount to a request for divinity, with the irony being that those who are most interested in this are not religious. Or perhaps it’s come about precisely because they aren’t religious and, therefore, don’t have a God-given answer to what happens after death. This is the fundamental story of the avatar trap, about which I have written before, where we try to escape the human condition to create an alternative reality, one where we imagine ourselves as perfect, godlike beings.

An eternal quest

Granted the ideas of eternal youth and immortality have preyed on people’s minds going back many centuries, most notably in the story of Calypso (image source), featured in the Greek epic written by Homer, who offered immortality to Odysseus in return for his company. But, these days, the way some people are talking about defying death and curing aging, it seems that there are many genuine believers. It’s another area where Silicon Valley is happy to push through the limits, in view of a limitless life. Many strains of society are keen to remove all limits. Concepts of discipline, commitment and rules are all malleable. Kids are given innumerable, unending and ultimately unappreciated presents at Christmas. They are handed grades of over 100%. They are hallowed for good effort after finishing last in the race. They’re allowed to feel whatever they wish and identify however they want. They are encouraged to believe the sky’s no limit and to dream big. However, I’m not sure that such beliefs and practices set us up for resilience and an ability to overcome life’s inevitable challenges.

The business of life… everlasting

In the world of cosmetics, there’s always been a pretty penny to make with anti-aging creams and potions. Apparently, the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra, famously enjoyed having daily donkey-milk baths, requiring over 700 donkeys to accomplish each time. {Source} Today, more prosaically, the anti-aging cosmetic market, according to Custom Market Insights (CMI), was estimated at a plum $60 billion in 2021. And it’s expected to double in just nine years, to reach c. $120 billion by 2030, led by the likes of L’Oréal, Estée Lauder and Beiersdorf. {Source} By the same token, Man’s wish to live forever goes back a long while too; to wit you will find a slew of books with the title, “Man’s Search of Immortality,” documenting our long interest in the topic. Today, Precision Reports wrote that the global longevity and anti-senescence therapy market size is projected to reach $566 million by 2028, from $318 million in 2021. {Source} I note that both this industry and the anti-aging cosmetics industry carry the same projected compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of 8%. But the quest of longevity, getting rid of old age, and the hope for eternal life are deeply flawed concepts. They speak to an outlandish and widespread narcissism, an implausible world condition and, most saliently, a complete misunderstanding of life. As Viktor Frankl wrote in his gem of a book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” life is about making sense of our short passage on Earth. As the folk tale that gave rise to the name of the psychedelic rock band that I’ve followed for many decades, The Grateful Dead, once you embrace your mortality, you will appreciate better your life in the now. Without even attempting to imagine whether these longevity funds and research centres have entertained if it’s better we all stayed the same age or just got older without dying, let me lay out the reasons why I find the quest for this “holy grail” as an errant and, worse, unhealthy fool’s errand. It’s quite obvious that people striving for immortality have not thought through the unintended — much less obvious — consequences of a world full of immortal human beings.

(1) First mover advantage to hold on to power

Let me lay out a pretty picture. Just say, for example, the miracle “cure” happened tomorrow. It’s likely that the people with experience and already in power will be best suited to continue ruling, no? In any event, they might find less good reason to stand down. We could end up with Trumps and Bidens competing against other … forever? And, anyway, who will be the arbiter of who gets what? In a world where the divide between the have and the have nots is getting wider, access to any death-defying remedies at first will surely be the privilege of the uber wealthy. So, to any extent the money flowing into this industry were successful, it’s likely to be the dominion of a very small group… potentially fulfilling their demi-god status and making only them immortal. And those who first gain access to this potent potion will likely have a first-mover advantage in that they will also wish to control its spread. As with pretty much every dystopian world view, the people wielding the power are typically a select (and distorted) few, e.g. the Elders in “The Giver”, ten world controllers in “Brave New World” or Big Brother in “1984.” The ones to become the first ever immortal human beings would likely wield a power that they’d surely not wish to give up. There is a list of marquee billionaires including Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel who’ve bought into the pipe dream that 90 is the new 50… I think it’s worth noting how it’s a list dominated by men. I also highlight a less well-known tech entrepreneur, Bryan Johnson, currently 47, who has been paying $2 million/year for, amongst other actions, getting infusions of blood plasma from his son {Source: The Guardian}. One gets the distinct impression that none of these entrepreneurs are actually doing these investments for the benefit of the world. The intended beneficiary is inevitably the self. The ‘chosen’ immortals, should they ever reach their Valhalla, will likely fall into the role of everlasting dictators. And, as we know, once a dictator gets into position, he is not wont to let go of that power {think: Putin, Bashar al-Assad, Kim Jung-Un and probably Xi…}. So, once the elixir is unlocked, will the first movers relinquish control? And to whom would it be allocated?

Share DIALOGOS - Meaningful Conversation

(2) History can repeat itself

I am reminded of the story of the Kykeon, a mythical mixture of natural ingredients with psychedelic properties that used to be doled out to the masses thousands of years ago, notably in Ancient Greece. It was said that Elysium, home of the blessed after death, promised the likes of Plato immortality by drinking the potion and seeing god. As recounted by Brian C. Muraresku, a lawyer and classicist, in his acclaimed book, “The Immortality Key,” once men in power got wind of the formula, they preferred to restrain distribution and keep it and its magical properties to themselves. It’s a powerplay. Were an elixir of youth ever to be developed, you can imagine the titanic struggle to retain and monetise it, not to forget the bureaucratic urge to regulate it.

(3) Adaptation through generations

Evolutionary biology teaches us that species learn to adapt over time. If we were all to become immortal, would we not lose our desire — much less need — to adapt? I mean, have we reached such a level that we are designed for all future life? I seriously doubt it.

(4) Adaptation of the economy, health care, government…

If we all stopped aging and/or dying, imagine the sea-change effect on our society. Depending on what age that “gift” happens, we’d be stuck in time, so to speak. Given the pyramid of ages today in most western countries where the older population (over 65 years old) is at historic levels and well above the world average of 10%, we’d have a titanic struggle to manage the needs of multi-centenarians. In the USA, the proportion of the population over 65 is presently at 17%, while it sits on average at 21% for the 27 members of the EU. Meanwhile, China is presently at 14% and India at 7%. Imagine what would happen just for a second if the world’s population stopped aging. How would state-run programs be funded? How would the health care systems have to change? In this fairy land, do we get to do away with all health issues, therefore with no need for doctors and hospitals? Would some populations be allowed to continue reproducing while others would be blocked? It would, to understate the case, cause a seismic revolution.

Age pyramid USA 2020

Age pyramid European Union 2023

Age pyramid India 2020

Age pyramid China 2020

(5) Excitement. Boredom. Deadlines.

If the prior arguments haven’t won your favour, I posit that a life of immortality will be eerily unfulfilling. Imagine a life (or work) without deadlines? How much would we ever get done? As I like to say, an adventure without risk is not an adventure; and a life without adventure, is a life less complete. Although, I’m mightily tempted to go further and say that a life without adventure isn’t a life. A life that doesn’t have an end or include risk seems utterly boring. As it is, many people are bored with their current existence. There’s a thrill in risking things, including your own safety. Think of skiing. It doesn’t have to be life-threatening, but every skier or snowboarder knows that these activities entail dangers, and yet they continue to seek the thrill (until, like me, you end up with too many ACL injuries!)

At the end of the day, life is in function of death. Without death, there would be no life.

Our generation deserves it?

I don’t know anyone who doesn’t look at the passing of time without a bit of curiosity, if not doubt and fear. It doesn’t need a new year’s celebration to put ending of life on Earth on the agenda. After all, death is about as scary as it gets (other than public speaking, some speculate). Aging and death have accompanied life from the beginning of time. It is what characterises our life: that we are finite in body. Then, on what basis, I ask, does ‘our’ generation deserve to have everlasting life? We have an epidemic of loneliness in many western countries, and record levels of anxiety and depression, not to forget suicide rates, in the US (per the WSJ). If you were to scan the headlines over the last few years, the world seems not to be a safer, better place. What makes this current world population — or at least its figureheads, billionaires and celebrities — merit a painfree, ageless life?

The individuals that are scrambling to prolong their lives and/or defy death all seem to share an an outsized ego. I’m sure you will have noticed — or read about — a seeming rise in narcissism? As explained in this HBR article, “[n]arcissism (diagnosed or undiagnosed) is a personality trait characterised by high levels of entitlement, delusional and inflated self-views, and a general disregard for the interests, feelings, and wellbeing of others.” While the existence of a narcissistic epidemic is hotly debated, this HBR article documents research by psychologist, Jean Twenge, using a clinical measure of narcissism, that shows that “narcissism increased by 30% in the U.S.  between the late 1970s and the mid 2000s.” And I think it’s safe to say that levels of entitlement and self-aggrandisement haven’t decreased in the past twenty years. If anything, the trend seems to continue inexorably higher, in proportion to the presence of social media, the increase of families with two or less kids, the lack of community, and a decline in a sense of service. With so many people showing signs of narcissism (i.e. not necessarily diagnosed with a Narcissistic disorder), the hubris is palpable. It would not be surprising to read that many people would be in favour of living longer or forever. To that end, I put out a poll at the very end of 2023, to see what people would say. I posted it on both X/Twitter and LinkedIn, where I asked the following question:

If you had the possibility today, which would you choose?

• Stop aging (stay mortal)

• Be immortal

• Stop aging and be immortal

• None of the above

The answer from 122 respondents, shows that, like Odysseus, a little over 1/3 (35%) are not in favour of this anti-aging, immortality kick (none of the above). Meanwhile, 38% said that they would seek to stop aging, while staying mortal. One quarter would like to stop aging and be immortal. If a total of 27% are in favour of their own immortality, it stands to reason that nearly 3 out of 4 are ok with their mortality.

But the truly galling point here is to believe that in the history of humanity, any of us believes that our generation deserves to live forever? The very thought of it seems improperly selfish and totally deluded.

A lack of mattering

How does one have coherence and meaning in our terrestrial (merely mortal) life, when what we are vying for, spending our dollars and (ironically not un-) limited time, is to have eternal life? Clearly, if the project of postponing or eradicating death doesn’t happen, it will create a whole other level of an existential crisis. In a world where many people are suffering from a crisis of meaning, this chase for the golden elixir is not only elusive, it’s destructive. To use the term of John Vervaeke, the Canadian psychologist, this is the antithesis of “mattering.” Vervaeke described mattering in his podcast on Unherd, as “the sense of being connected to something beyond yourself that has a reality and a value independent of your ego-centric preferences.” Vervaeke suggests that, to find your own meaning (or mattering), you need to be able to answer at least one, but preferably both of these questions:

• What do you want to exist, even if you don’t?

• How much of a difference do you make to it [i.e. your intention or purpose] now?

In the case of anti-aging and death-defying potions, the intention of the billionaires is singularly egocentric, and is lacking in reality. Not only is this ‘hope’ a case of wild hubris, it smacks of artifice. With Silicon Valley in the San Francisco area casting its venture capital and vast angelic investments into the science of immortality, down south 380 miles, Hollywood is turning out films that pander to our fears and wildest dreams around artificial intelligence. Films such as “Her” (2013), “Ex Machina” (2014), “Zelos” (a Dutch film made in 2015), “Zoe” (2018) and the 2001 Steven Spielberg film, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” (featuring William Hurt, Frances O’Connor and Jude Law) worry about the humanisation of machines and AI. Forgetting the phantasmagorical and generally absurd aspects of this latter Spielberg film, it does bring up a number of legitimate existential questions and issues, as when the AI kid, David, implores his mortal mother, Monica, “I hope you never die.” The film ‘twist’ is that the “real” son, Martin, who suffered a critical but not fatal accident, essentially comes back from the dead and is augmented by mechanical legs. Throughout the film, the line between machine and human is indelibly blurred. What is the difference between an immortal kid and an infinite robot in the anthropomorphic form of a child?

The big issue with adults seeking immortality is that it sends the entirely wrong message to the world, and to our kids. It rejects the idea that we are finite. What worse lie than to suggest to children that you’ll live forever. If there is one big old pink elephant in the room, in the way society is developing, it is that we are encouraging our children to believe only in convenience and efficiency, to seek a painless and risk-free existence, and ideally to strive for immortality. I’ve been stunned to talk to young men in their late 20s, early 30s, who have latched on to the immortality thread. They are excited at the prospect of (a) making money and (b) possibly living a lot longer. And yet, they have never produced anything. They typically don’t even have a family yet… The belief that these young men deserve to live forever strikes me as quite preposterous. Moreover, I feel they are in for a chronic, if not catastrophic disappointment of a life.

In Spielberg’s film, “Artificial Intelligence,” mentioned above, the mother Monica presciently says to her “mecha” son, David, “I’m sorry I didn’t tell you about the world.” In other words, she didn’t prepare her child for the realities of life. I would add that society in the west, today, is ill-preparing its offspring to deal with the harsher realities of the world. If media is constantly fanning the flames of fear, the rest of society (read: politically correct zealotry, virtue-signalling do-gooders and social justice warriors) is propagating a vision of the world that does little to prepare children for the true challenges of life. The biggest frame of all is the assurance of death. Along the way, we should understand that life is about handling challenge, managing pain, hardships, and loss, and coming to grips with our mortality. As the Stoics wisely say, it’s not what happens to you that matters, it’s how you react to and deal with the hiccoughs that makes life fascinating, troublesome and, yet, worthwhile. The best advice I’ve heard is to focus on what matters and on that which you can control. This is the key to a good life.

Let’s discuss!

I have decided to post this article on this Substack… It shows my current state of thinking while I continue to work on the editing of the upcoming book!

To what extent do you believe you know yourself? How closely do you think your outward-facing image is aligned with who you are down deep inside? From my own observations (starting with myself), being fully aware of who we are is generally an elusive task. As author and professor, Michele Nevarez, said on my podcast: “It takes more than a lifetime to get to know yourself.” But without digging in on this question, the challenge becomes in sorting out one’s own identity versus the larger groups with which we affiliate. This speaks to the core of one of the four major paradoxes with which we must all deal: the need to belong and yet feel different. It is typically easier to join a group than to unpeel the layers to know oneself deeply. Being part of a group is comforting, as it provides a sense of belonging. But more often than not, the group is a confederation of people with loosely defined perimeters. For example, say you support a certain football team (in my case, Liverpool FC). Sure, everyone believes in and throws themselves behind the Reds. But what are our shared values? Can we name one thing we all have in common other than our support for the team? When we are part of a group, it begs the question: who are we?

A false sense of belonging

What do we mean when we use the term “we”? And, to what extent do you really fit in? Does your association with a bigger unit of people help you to identify yourself? If you feel like you belong to a group, to what extent do you exist within it as a fully developed individual? On the other hand, if you don’t feel like you belong to a group (a bigger “we”) then how does that make you feel? If you haven’t got a well-defined understanding of who you are nor do you connect with any well-knit group, you are at risk. The risk is one of becoming untethered, disassociated, lonely and disappointed. You might seek to find solace – even meaningfulness – in vacuous or amorphous groups and causes that appear exciting, but in reality, have ambitions that are impossible to fulfil (e.g. fix world peace, end world hunger, equality for all…) and are far from nourishing your deeper soul. These affiliations are generally well-intentioned but hopelessly misguided and are bound to fail. As a result, many people are experiencing a crisis that harms their well-being and is deeply existential. We are living in incredibly dynamic, if not “interesting” times. However, it can also feel like we are headed toward a frighteningly dystopian world.

Dystopia? Take your pick!

What dystopian novels come first to mind for you? 1984? Brave New World? Fahrenheit 451? Do you remember feeling nervous while reading them? Did you find any of them enjoyable? While one might say dystopian novels aren’t to be enjoyed, lately it feels like some of the ugly visions may be coming to fruition. It’s probable that you read one or other of these when you were at school (back in the “good old days”, eh?). Did you ever read the story We, about the protagonist D503? If you didn’t, I highly encourage you to read it! If you already read it and it’s been over a decade since doing so, then it might be time for a re-read. We was written in 1924 by the Russian Evgeny Zemyatin. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, he invented the modern dystopian literary genre. Zemyatin preceded Huxley and Orwell, and undoubtedly had an impact on these later authors. Next year, We will celebrate its 100th birthday, and although written in a very different context, it has stood the test of time in terms of providing a vision of how a society goes bad. It lays testament to how ‘good’ intentions go wrong. To be sure, it is scarily relevant for today. We love to believe in doing good in the name of progress, but without a sound measure of reality and healthy level of debate, the one-sided almost authoritarian version of what is “good” will have many unintended consequences. In a world locked in discord, dwindling conversation, and disconcerting incivility, we should open our eyes to what may lay in store ahead.

A wide-ranging existential crisis

At the core of today’s issues is an existential crisis -- both at an individual and societal level -- unlike ever experienced before. This situation has arisen because of a confluence of events and circumstances, not least of which is an extended – dare I say unprecedented -- period of peace and prosperity, in the developed world. Although, between the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the ongoing Jihad, seven military coups in Africa over the last three years and several score violent civil and drug wars, one might be tempted to say that the world is teetering on broadscale strife. But for those not directly involved in a conflict, I have a tendency to believe that people are bored – and yet scared -- in the West. There is no big bad mortal enemy to pursue, so we end up having to conjure up new ways to feel enlivened, to be important. In the absence of sticks and stones, we have turned our attention to words that hurt. As a result, cradled in our pristine, convenient and safe lives, people’s resilience toward true hardship is tanking. Meanwhile, narcissism has been trending ever higher. The news cycle and social media have helped to make many people consistently feel anxious and/or bad about themselves.

A decline in resilience

The sage Viktor Frankl, author of Man’s Search for Meaning, said that “Nobody is spared suffering at one time or another. But everybody in the midst of suffering is given a chance to bear testimony of the human potential at its best, which is to turn a personal tragedy into a human triumph.” What Frankl and millions of Jews faced, what millions of soldiers experienced in war, what the citizens of London, Manchester, Dresden, and Hiroshima suffered during the WWII bombings… make the suffering we are experiencing today in the West pale in comparison. But, as a society, we’ve lost perspective. To wit, in schools across the West, we no longer study history in its context. We take apart history and, in its retelling, we ignore the thinking and circumstances of the time. We judge past events and people through modern mores that make it difficult to tolerate anything that happened. As Douglas Murray points out in his brilliant book, The War on the West, the damage is coming from within. To paraphrase Murray, we seem hellbent on annihilating all the institutions and former heroes of the West, from Gladstone and Churchill in the UK to Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln in the US, in a desire to recast them as villains and establish the victimhood of those who, generations later, didn’t suffer the true hardships. In this sense, the way that cultural memory of the past is effaced in The Giver by Lois Lowry shows what happens when we no longer understand our past as it was.

To a loss of meaning

Without true turmoil or hardship – much less war – we’re left to find meaning in an uncomfortable serenity. We’ve little to push up against. As the speech pathologist and author of the bestselling book, Raising Victims, Leonydus Johnson, described it in my podcast, there’s a group of vocal people, so-called Social Justice Warriors, who could otherwise be identified as modern dragon slayers. Having eliminated the original dragon, they are now having to invent new dragons to chase to justify their existence. In other words, to be worthy or to feel like they exist, they have had to fabricate a new challenge. It sounds very much like apophenia: the attribution of meaning where none exists. Especially as an idealistic youth, we strive to get animated through and excited by doing good and/or seeking justice. Almost any “good” and “big” cause will do. We attach ourselves to that cause regardless of any profound link to the self. I would say the same thing for many companies donating profits to charities (e.g., CSR) or wealthy individuals who late in life convert to philanthropy (i.e., to recast their reputation). Rather than settling on a congruent long-term purpose that genuinely resonates with core business, the company seeks meaningfulness elsewhere. Similarly, when the cause we espouse isn’t connected to our inner self, we are disproportionately keener to express our sentiments and seek happiness through short-term hits of pleasure. Notwithstanding the decency of the cause, the relationship between individual and cause is not bound by an authentic emotional connection. Without being properly introspective – and recognising our own frailties, imperfections, and inconsistencies – we are not grounded. As a result, our attachment to these causes is at best weak, if not illusory. It may look good on the resumé or on Instagram, but these causes don’t reflect our authentic reality. Consequently, we are experiencing not just a wide-ranging existential worry, but a profound crisis of meaning. Where Abraham Maslow proposed that the highest state of being was through self-actualisation, in our heightened narcissism, we’re so imbued with a need to elevate the self that we’re pushing the boundaries all the way up to self-deification and immortality.

To wit, we constantly see perfectly posed individuals representing themselves on social networks. For those with an over-sized sense of self, and in particular for those who are part of the transhumanist movement, it can lead all the way to a quest for immortality. The underlying belief is that, unlike any generation or civilisation past or future, we (or more specifically, I) deserve to live forever. The number of start-ups and venture capital funds content to spawn longer lives or recast aging as a disease to cure is staggering. I cite, for example, Humanity, the AI Health Coach; Human Longevity, whose mission is to live a healthier, longer life; or Altos Labs (stacked with many heavy hitting scientists) that is “dedicated to unravelling the deep biology of cellular rejuvenation programming,” and that raised $3 billion with just a team and a website. A 2022 fund, Life Extension Ventures, raised $100 million “for startups focused on building tools for “longevity for people and planet,” such as disease prevention or organ regeneration.” In early hype, Bank of America analysts in a CNBC interview in 2019 projected that the longevity market would be worth $600 billion by 2025. In any event, several magazines, such as Neoscope and Inc., have seen fit to promote the topic of immortality as a potential gold mine for investors. Leading the parade, there are a number of “rich & famous,” who are actively seeking to “cure” aging and live forever, including the likes of Jeff Bezos (founder and CEO of Amazon), Sergey Brin (cofounder of Google), Elon Musk (founder and CEO of Tesla, SpaceX), and Larry Ellison (founder, CTO and executive chairman of Oracle). Peter Thiel (entrepreneur, venture capitalist and political activist) reported in an interview with Business Insider in 2012 that he believes that “death is a problem that can be solved.” Steve Jobs, the deceased cofounder and former CEO of Apple, said in his famous Stanford commencement speech in 2005 that mortality is “the single best invention in life.” To my thinking, not without a little irony, these individuals are creating unrealistic dragons to slay.

Alongside plastic surgery and a vast industry in anti-aging creams that’s projected by Precedence Research to hit $90 billion by 2032, venture capital funds and initiatives around immortality abound, such as the Longevity Fund, Korify Capital One and Immortal Ventures, which I note is still “coming soon.” All the same, the area is attracting a lot of interest, notably from baby-boomers who now have death in their sights. According to this Futurism article, “Bank of America analysts say that companies focused on immortality and longevity — extending the human lifespan as much as possible — are going to grow in coming years, with the market expected to be worth $600 billion by 2025.” Granted a large percentage of these initiatives around “immortality” is focused on improving life and/or curing illnesses other than aging! Such fantastic thinking is a sad statement of our times. I have met numerous 30-something (usually men) who have excitedly joined the bandwagon and are excited to have much longer lives. But, for what end? And why them?

In her white paper, “The Fantasy of Technoimmortality and the Psychoanalytic Infinite,” Alla Ivanchikova wrote about some of the wildly optimistic forecasts to beat death:

“Technoimmortality,” Martine Rothblatt writes, “means living so long that death (other than by suicide) is not thought of as a determining factor in one’s life.” Rothblatt, an inventor, the founder of Sirius satellite radio and a biomedical company United Therapeutics, and an influential member of the global transhumanist movement, is unapologetic in her belief that death, as humans have known it, will one day be overcome. Another future and director of Google engineering Ray Kurzweil predicts the advent of digital immortality (form of brain uploading) by 2045. And Aubrey De Gray, a California-based gerontologist, is known to have proclaimed that the first person to live 1000 years had already been born. “

Ivanchikova is right to call it a fantasy. On balance, this desire to conquer aging and defy death smacks of an alternative version of reality. The most impressive element of these individuals seeking to deify themselves and live forever, as mythical gods might do, is the belief that they are the chosen ones, the most important individuals in the history of humanity. Should we “fix” aging and death, we’ll no longer need to have new stock to follow us. With the plunging levels of fertility, maybe that might seem desirable. But what sort of a world would that leave us with: immortal (and highly narcissistic) human beings interlocking with artificially intelligent ever-ready robots?

As is portrayed in many of the dystopic visions of the future, there’s usually a certain elite – characterised as benevolent and all-knowing -- that runs the show all the while benefitting from another set of rules. The state structure is omnipotent and always positioned “for the good of the people.” In We, it’s OneState; in 1984, it’s the World State; and in Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, it’s the Gilead or the Divine Republic. The “benevolent” overlords have titles such as the Benefactor (We), Big Brother and his “Fordship” (1984), and the Chief Elder and the Giver (in the book of the same name by Lois Lowry), who are supposedly well intentioned, but their benevolence inevitably goes awry. In 2023, the quest for everlasting life is led by a super elite (with a high concentration in Silicon Valley) … another way of widening the divide between the haves and have nots. But there are plenty of individuals, with lower levels of privilege, who are keen to be immortalised if their body can’t outstrip death. These people subscribe to the Model of Infinity.

It starts with a powerful sense of hope, to make the world a better place, to do good and to make life safer. The issue isn’t that hope, progress or doing good is bad. Offering efficiencies and improving safety are indeed useful. They are laced with decent intentions. It’s just that some people have preferred to focus solely on this Model of Infinity without wishing to take into account the Model of Finitude, which incorporates a significant dose of reality.

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with hoping for a better world. It’s just that it must be put in the context of our deeper reality. The Model of Finitude is foundational to our existence. Without being grounded in this reality, we are bound to have fantastic ideas of ourselves, that are unbounded, untethered and ultimately unhealthy. Part of our human condition is to have constraints, to deal with challenge and suffering and to push the limits. That’s what makes our lives richer. That’s the core ingredient that makes our lives more meaningful.

A recasting of reality

With people striving to move past self-actualisation, we have seen the links with community ruptured. Whether there’s a causal relationship with the decline in religion is up for debate, but we have also manifestly lost touch with reality. We’re no longer interested in risk, having broadly adopted the principle of precaution. We shun pain and suffering, taking refuge with medications (or worse, addiction to pain killer drugs or alcohol). As a society, we avoid the topic of death and whenever possible put old-aged parents into gated – if not isolated -- communities. In this latter case, I must admit having done the same, so I can say I am part of the problem. Our sense of reality is conditioned more by the emotions we feel than the hard facts of life. With everyone so preoccupied with themselves, no one has any time left to listen to others. Despite the extraordinary conveniences offered by modern life, improvements in healthcare and extraordinary ways to do everything quicker (travel, communication, date, shop…), we still want to have more. In a never-ending cycle, it’s because we have – and know of – more, that we want more. It seems ironic that we want to live longer lives but don’t have the time today to be with one another or to be of service to others. In this exaggerated self-aggrandisement, we have lost touch with our surroundings and community.

With most developed countries seeing fertility rates well below 2.0, the lineage of many families relies on a single child. With media and governments alike fanning flames of fear with worldwide and unfathomably difficult challenges such as climate change, eliminating all forms of bias, fixing all forms of injustice, and making society forever safer, it’s no wonder that many – especially among the younger generations – are suffering from a sense of disenchantment and ever-worse mental health conditions. There is a reduced tolerance of risk and a corresponding anxiety with anything that could unsettle our precarious balance.

The breakdown of a proper community

The detachment from the Model of Finitude has contributed to the breakdown of a fundamental and necessary paradox that describes the human condition: our need to belong and yet be different. The challenge is in trying to find an equilibrium between a sense of individuality and contributing to the greater common good of a broader community. Notwithstanding good intentions, how can we adequately put limits on our goodness? As the proverb goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. How do we graciously put a cap on the goodness? Any form of limitation can be seen as un-good or exclusionary. How can we define what is the right community to serve (and by extension who NOT to serve)? Who is to decide what is good? Who is to decide on the outer bounds of your community? As depicted in the figure below, we are faced with an ever-broadening choice of “communities.” For those who follow spiral dynamics or profess conscious evolution, the supposition is that the more enlightened one is, the wider the community. Ultimate enlightenment is equated with reaching complete one-ness with all. The catchy epithet that is sometimes uttered is that we are all part of the same Human Race. To say so is simple but, in practice, it is meaningless. Building on spiral dynamics, Ken Wilber developed the “integral theory of consciousness” to reflect the highest states of enlightenment whereby we incorporate all stages and identify with everyone. But, when we are everyone, we are inevitably no one.

In the case of Zemyatin’s We, this “broader community” is an all-encompassing society called OneState. The term “Integral” is used in We to refer to a rocket to be sent off by OneState to bring its ‘mathematically infallible happiness’ to other planets and civilizations. In essence, there is one group that gets to dictate what is good to everyone else. But this “we” to which we belong has become so distended that it has become foreign, at least to many civilians. The OneState that is being proposed is suffocating liberties. The more a state imposes a singular way of being (and thinking), the more the individual will feel left out. On a very wide scale, the individual is becoming more individualistic and the sense of belonging – to any real sense of community – is being lost. We rationalise that our inflated egocentrism is mitigated by an attachment to a global project (i.e., like the Integral). As politics has become more divisive, fuelled in part by the murdochisation of media, we’ve seen both ends of the spectrum ripped further afield. In figure 5 below, the dominant story in progressive circles has led to the breakdown of traditional communities toward more abstract, pan-national associations that struggle to unite because of a non-defined set of shared values and behaviours. Some have characterised these associations as the new modern-day religions. As in: something bigger -- and moral -- in which to believe. As my friend Louis Elson pointed out, this may not be a linear continuum, but sit on a full circle, where the narcissistic self has set out a limitless attachment to the widest possible world.

On the right, the notion and perimeter of the “community” has been extended so far as to include everybody… as underpinned by the globalist philosophy or Universalism of Christianity and Buddhism, where we are all one world, one human race. This, too, is captured as part of the teachings of spiral dynamics with the movement from Me to We to Everybody, positing that the acceptance of everybody is the highest form of enlightenment. In this vision, there should be no boundaries, no nations, no exclusion, no discrimination … no differences. One version of this can be found in shopping malls around the world where the anchor stores, baristas, and luxury brands are systematically the same, (virtually) everywhere. The universality of businesses and retail stores is even more obvious online; to wit: Google, Amazon, Apple, and Wikipedia. In the middle of the Me-We-Everybody model lies “We.” But, as I asked at the outset, who are we? Is there no way to find serenity, dignity and prosperity in a smaller collective “we”? Must true enlightenment only be bound in belonging to everyone? And is the highest form of progress living forever or is it not about being the best version of ourselves during our finite-bound lives?

We are everybody and nobody

In our quest to accept and be like everybody, we inevitably lose ourselves. To no longer have a defined community, we end up belonging to everybody and nobody at the same time. Our sense of self is indistinguishable from the mass of everyone. To the extent we live in a duality, it is said that we can achieve one-ness when we are consciously able to move out of the skin of our own ego, as described by the French psychologist, Didier Anzieu. Only at that point, we can truly love everyone (else) because otherwise, we are merely only really loving ourselves. However, that dissolution of self is complicated. While I’ll accept some can achieve this state, I observe that the vast majority of people cannot and will not be able to peacefully cede their own identity. Frankly, I don’t even think it’s a healthy thing to do. To my thinking, an inherent part of the human condition is inscribed in the need to survive, to perpetuate your genetic code and to feel unique… and yet have a true sense of comradery and belonging. When philosophers who promote a higher consciousness talk of the supreme activities of cooperation, transcendence, and creativity, there is yet a distinct need to express one’s individuality through unique creative process (e.g., a work of art, an invention, or offspring).

What’s needed?

For sure, we need to recognise our latent paradoxes. But more importantly, we need to reinject a dose of reality in our frameworks and exigencies. We need to add perspective to recalibrate our level of suffering. We must find ways to exist through a more meaningful life where we allow the individual to flourish all the while being of service to a bigger – but not overwhelmingly so – cause. We need to be more self-aware, more truthful about ourselves, embrace our imperfections, and understand that challenge and risk are part of life, that suffering is not to be invented nor to be run away from, but to be experienced as a natural part of life. Safety, convenience, and efficiency is a trifecta that sounds distinctly soulless. I have otherwise cast this pervasive problem as the avatar trap, which I discussed in my last book, Heartificial Empathy, where we are caught up in representing an image of ourselves that is not just misaligned with who we really are but is also basically unattainable. We must stop chasing illusions and relish the challenge of our gritty, messy and imperfect lives. We must appreciate the digital but remember our manual history. If we type quicker and more efficiently with a keyboard, new studies (see in ScienceDaily and Neuroscience) have shown that handwriting is more effective in note-taking, committing to memory and learning. As Johann Hari encouraged in his book, Lost Connections, we would do well to reconnect with our deeper humanity, walk in nature, touch the earth, and do meaningful work. To be sure, I’m not promoting to jettison technology and return to an archaically simple life. We must embrace the changes, but not without forgetting ourselves and our deepest truths.

Previously published on Minter’s blog here.

I know that I had said I’d be stopping publications on Dialogos. However, I was fortunate enough to get a delightful contribution from Amanda Luterman, a friend and therapist in Montreal. I love how Amanda describes herself on her LinkedIn page:

“I am a sex-positive, kink-knowledgeable, inclusive Psychotherapist with an MA, MEd, in counselling psychology.”

In this piece, Amanda explores how to engage in conversations around intimacy and sex. It’s the type of conversation we should all be engaging in with our partners… yet, it’s not so easy. Please enjoy Amanda’s wonderful contribution!

Asking a therapist what makes for meaningful conversation is like asking a chef what makes food taste good. It seems simple enough but where do I start?

Being a therapist has taught me that I have a felt sense when conversations are profound. Time goes by faster but feels steady, directed, purposeful, and leaves me energized. I have often wondered if others feel it, too. No conversation will resonate the same way for everyone involved, but there are common ingredients in conversations that leave all parties with something meaningful.

I will begin by saying that nowhere are our expectations higher when it comes to deriving meaning from a conversation than in our romantic relationships. In no conversation do we crave being satisfied by words more than with our significant others. In no other adult relationship do we run a higher risk of being left hungry for more.

Meaningful Conversation in Couples Therapy: A Vignette

When Dana and Greg (names changed for confidentiality) first came to see me, their arms were crossed, legs crossed away from each other, blatantly incongruent from the friendly, charismatic demeanors they gave me individually as they entered the office. Within a few minutes of taking their seats, they were guarded, posturing, with teeth-grinding resentment and meticulously unforgiving composure. If these sessions were going to be meaningful to them, I was going to have to crack the veneer of perfection and protection shellacked over disappointment. If they were going to show each other their respective hurt again, it was going to need to go far better than it typically had.

When a couple first begins therapy, they typically look to each other for validation and approval as they provide limited answers to my questions. I am the stranger, and there is a semblance of them each not wanting to throw each other out of the covers. I note their bond; despite hurting each other, they will protect one another from others. This is normal, and I like seeing how couple's have each other's backs despite waving fingers at each other. I use normalizing statements to invite their adaptive defensiveness with me and we move forward. I am curious about their uniquely separate experiences of each intimate moment. They do not have to be a unified front with me; even if they have similar values, we need to capture their differences. I want to know what makes them invest in the process with me. Sell me your relationship, and I will help you fix it.

I learned that Dana and Greg had a complex power dynamic at play; not between each other but within themselves individually. They each felt they vacillated between producing "amazing excellence" experienced as relief, not accomplishment, one minute, and "utter failure" felt as hopeless inadequacy the next. Their words. Thus, their relationship was often ripe for projections of judgment, criticism, defensiveness, rejection, and resentment.

Yet, their meeting story brought sheepish grins out of both Dana and Greg. As she described him asking her out, he rearranged in his seat. I felt him shift his want to touch her like a momentary lapse in judgment as he slid his hand under his thigh.

I asked, "Did you want to touch her just there?". With a polite smile, he shook his head, no. I'd caught his hand in the cookie jar. He denied wanting a cookie. Fair enough.

Just then, she touched his hand. He didn't pull away. She validated his feeling of love about their beginning, too. I asked them to observe a momentary lowering of the shields; we could agree on their beginning being worth a few therapy sessions without denying the pain of their now.

What helps connected moments maintain significance? As it turns out, I have found that meaningful moments in relationships stand the test of time; they do maintain their significance. They are the ones you remember. And the good news is that many people forget what they have fought about and don't forget meaningful conversations.

Homework one week early on in Dana and Greg's process was a simple exercise: arrive prepared to describe one instance in which you felt supported by your partner; one instance of service or affection well-received. Meaning, one instance you felt your partner was on your team in which you felt the communication of affection they intended to convey.

Dana described coming back into the house after a frazzled departure one morning. Greg was at the door holding her forgotten phone and a granola bar. He said, "Don't forget to eat. I hope you have a good day". She remembers eating the granola bar and it tasting better than it should have. He had surprised her with care and thoughtfulness. It nourished her.

Greg got home from playing a sport with a buddy and Dana offered him the gel ice pack for his elbow. This time, he didn't have to swallow the annoyed tone reminding him she wouldn't want to hear how sore he is tomorrow. She placed it on his elbow. The gesture lessened inflammation in his mind more than his elbow.

These meaningful moments occurred in calm. They occurred in moments of witnessing more than those of intellectual banter or romantic intention. Dana and Greg went on to briefly abandon the therapy process once or twice, and threatened separation a few more times. Their exchanges of hurt and frustration gained traction; the recipes for the same disagreements became clear and increasingly preventable. We were able to identify how they each prefer to be sexually satisfied by the other, never having been openly corrected more accurately or productively. The frustration of unmet needs lessened as their conversations began to serve up more complex dishes of their personal truths without complaint. No resentment went unvalued, not a single special occasion would go under-celebrated again.

Broad Strokes: Erotic Empathy in Practice

As Emily Nagoski's well-known dual control model for women's sexuality explains, it is just as important to have one's foot off the brake pedal as it is to have your foot on the gas. To have meaningful conversations, it is not enough to have sincere feedback and a loving approach, you also must feel unconcerned with regretting the conversation. You can not fear being judged, ashamed, silenced, resented, or hurt. Many couples remain stagnant despite sincerely wanting to move forward.

The therapeutic conversation is designed for the couple and the therapist to have a meaningful and helpful conversational dynamic. As early as possible, I encourage the couple's conversations to occur in front of me, compelling them to honor their own distinct vulnerabilities toward each other. I stir, I facilitate, I usher along, and expand on their interactions; they add the ingredients.

Prompts like, "Let's pause here, and check: what feelings do you observe in your partner?" can help add empathic insight and mindful attunement to the couple's communication. We often react to what we assume our partner is feeling, maybe not what or all that they are actually feeling. Similarly, furrowed brows and internalized frustration may be better served outwardly as acknowledged hurt, for example, or confusion, rather than accusation or impatience.

Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz, author of Magnificent Sex, has been known to say, "lovers aren't born, they are made". Somewhat of a controversial statement, it challenges the serendipitous nature with which some like to view romance. Sex is not going to magically be perfect because you're in love. Love doesn't save us from the need to express our yearnings and instruct our pleasure. As it turns out, eroticism can significantly improve with education, mindfulness, and feedback from the specific partner we want to arouse and by whom we hope to be pleasured.

The key to optimal erotic connection and sustainable sexual fulfillment in long- term relationships does seem to be, amongst other things, curiosity, meaningful conversations, a non-phallocentric sexual script, and respect for the subtleties of variation in boundaries and preferences depending on the day. A repertoire of skills I like to call, erotic empathy.

On the surface, I have found that there are ingredients that, however subjective, when not over-stirred meld into mutually meaningful conversations. And in the context of long-term devoted relationships, being seen and valued through a lens of ongoing curiosity contributes immensely to sustainable eroticism.

In fact, one of the best ways to love each other forever without self-effacing for the sake of the relationship is to never presume you know each other completely. You might say: keep the conversations meaningful. Filling in each other's sentences sounds cute and all, but it doesn't keep things interesting nor accurate.

Meaning can be optimized by the setting in which you're talking; if you're sitting on the couch but where you live is winter more often than not, and it's July, go sit outside. You're more likely to remember the conversation and contribute to its essence because it will feel more special even before it starts.

Notice your tone, volume, and pace of speech. If one person talks louder, faster, and more than the other, the interaction will manifest as an unfortunate power dynamic rather than anything potentially meaningful. Try to match each other. Allow effusive sentences to end without interruption: no one likes to feel shut down while enthusiastic. I also believe people like to feel permitted to swear or 'cuss' and yet like to feel an absence of gratuitous vulgarity.

Euphemistic language is common and unhelpful when describing what you need. If someone refers to their vulva as “down there”, chances are they aren’t communicating their sexual needs with as much clarity as they could be. Choose your words by honoring their intended meaning and ask for a paraphrase to see whether your desired message was received.

Be mindful of the length of the conversation. Relationship talks needn't be over an hour ever and are probably most effective at 20 minutes. If your partner wants to share an important dream with you but only seems to remember a few specifics from the actual dream, be mindful of how much they want to share and for how long. Perhaps give an open-ended, "I'm all ears for whatever you'd like to share about this" statement for unpressured continuation taking note of your saturation point. When feeling impatient, say something like, “I wouldn’t want to seem impatient, but this feels like all I can process right now. I’d like to continue this at another point (and suggest one). Further inquiry shows respectful interest but can quickly become frustrating prodding for more than your partner needs to elaborate. To keep it well done, don't overcook it.

Meaningful conversations can be about absolutely anything. From the relief of confessing long-tolerated foods one secretly always hated, to the late-night writing of a parent's eulogy together by candlelight in a power outage, meaningful conversations cover the gamut of topics and circumstances. From sweet nothings to daunting vulnerabilities.

So, to a couple's therapist specialized in the erotic dynamic of relationships: what makes for a meaningful conversation? Curiosity, willingness to learn something new, willingness to stand corrected, ability to give and take feedback, anatomically correct language, open-heartedness, non-judgment, good conversational etiquette, attunement to each other, and the desire for ongoing mutual fulfillment.

The lesson we can learn from couple therapy is that accompanied discomfort isn’t nearly as difficult to swallow as ongoing avoidance of relationship difficulties. If your toughest times are approached without opposition, and perhaps with therapeutic support, you can be left a more pleasant aftertaste.

Above all, the decision to savor, intentionally create, or spontaneously experience meaningful moments, will allow the most sensuous, gourmet conversations.

About the author: Amanda Luterman

Amanda Luterman, M.A., M.Ed., (Columbia University) is a licensed psychotherapist with a clinical interest in the erotic dynamics of relationships. Her defining emphasis is on Erotic Empathy ®, a therapeutic approach designed to cultivate sustainable erotic intimacy. It is a framework that welcomes discrepant needs, wants, and conflicting experiences of the very same erotic moments. She is frequently interviewed on the topic of Erotic Empathy and has been quoted in numerous publications including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Men’s Health, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Psychology Today, and Refinery29, among others. Amanda Luterman's mission is to provide, as well as promote the provision of, sex-positive, queer-friendly, and kink-knowledgeable treatment of all individuals and relationships by focusing on connection rather than dysfunction. She enthusiastically collaborates for innovative opportunities for dialogue that reduce the systemic inhibition of erotic fulfillment.

Follow @EroticEmpathy on Instagram and find all her relevant links here.

This is the last post that I’ll be writing for this Dialogos Substack. It’s been running pretty much every week since the beginning of January 2022. Seventy-nine weeks on, I’ve published around 100 articles and threads, for a total of something close to 400,000 words. It has been a rich and rewarding experience, if a little nerve-wracking on occasion to meet the deadline of Thursday 5pm every week! And I didn’t always succeed. My desire was to see what it’s like to try to publish a book episodically, as was done in the late 18th and 19th century. Charles Dickens is widely considered the writer who made episodic writing famous. He did so with bravado (and not without consequence for his unfortunate illustrator, Robert Seymour) with his Pickwick Papers, in 1836.

But Dickens was neither the inventor, nor the only author to have done so. The practice was widespread in the UK (before him), and in many other countries including France (Alexandre Dumas, Gustave Flaubert), Russia (Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky), the US (Henry James, Herman Melville), Germany and Poland. I’m very thankful for those of you who felt inclined to support me financially. For you, I’ll be going off line with some personalised words.

I also want to call out the wonderful contributors. Among the 79 major posts, there are 17 deliciously different articles from people who hold all sorts of varied conversations, such as with a tree, a hostage taker, an ancestor or between musicians. Below is a complete list of all of the contributors (with a link to their post) to whom I’m deeply thankful. This list is in alphabetical order using the first name!

1. Christopher Lochhead: The Dialogue Depression. A Deep Dive into the Roots of Ineffective Communication - https://minter.substack.com/p/the-dialogue-depression-guest-post

2. Dr Emmanuel Nuesiri: Conversational teaching at the African Learning College Mauritius (ALC). The five keys to making conversational teaching work in the classroom - https://minter.substack.com/p/conversational-teaching-at-the-african

3. François Jacquet: How to make conversation sublime through music - Interview with François Jacquet, member of the Quatuor Annesci. The remarkable ways that, through music, this quartet has created both unity and a larger presence. The musical conversation is at the heart of what they do - https://minter.substack.com/p/how-to-make-conversation-sublime/

4. Gair Maxwell: A Meaningful, Internal Dialogue. Bare-Knuckle Branding & Leadership - https://minter.substack.com/p/guest-post-by-gair-maxwell-a-meaningful

5. Hervé Franceschi: What We Can Learn From Dialoguing with Nature, This is a transcription and translation of the interview I had with Hervé who has spent his life talking with trees and animals. So much we can learn! -  https://minter.substack.com/p/the-art-of-dialoguing-with-nature

6. Jo Petroni: How designing a home can become deeply meaningful. How to create a meaningful exchange as an architect with prospective home buyers - https://minter.substack.com/p/how-and-why-designing-a-home-can

7. Joshua Shelov: The Music of Vulnerability. Exploring meaningful conversation through dialogue in the movies - https://minter.substack.com/the-music-of-vulnerability-guest

8. Laurent Combalbert: How to negotiate a conversation with a hostage taker, How to deal with intense emotions, high-stakes situations with a world-renowned negotiator and author - https://minter.substack.com/p/how-to-negotiate-a-conversation-with

9. Murphy Barney: Conversations with our Ancestors. What we can learn from conversing with our ancestors and how to carry on their wisdom - https://minter.substack.com/p/conversations-with-our-ancestors/comment/10119483

10. Nicci Kadilak: Creating Meaningful Dialogue Out of Thin Air. How to learn to write meaningful dialogues and what that can teach us all in real life - https://minter.substack.com/p/creating-meaningful-dialogue-out

11. Patrick Jinks PhD: The Conversation Not Held - https://minter.substack.com/p/the-conversation-not-held

12. Philippe Pierre PhD: The Power of Conversation in an Intercultural encounter - https://minter.substack.com/p/the-power-of-conversation-in-an-intercultural

13. Reena Kapoor: Conversations with a Citizen Historian, What I learned about myself by listening to my people’s history - https://minter.substack.com/p/conversations-with-a-citizen-historian

14. Rob Schenck: Conversations and Confessions with Reverend Robert Schenck, Between talking with God, US presidents, Supreme Court justices and senior politicians, we have the inside story on how Reverend Schenck masters the art of conversation - https://minter.substack.com/p/conversations-and-confessions-with#details

15. Steve QJ: How to have a meaningful conversation online. Decoding online discourse with numerous punchlines - https://minter.substack.com/p/how-to-have-a-meaningful-conversation

16. Ted Rubin: Is Executing Really the Only Thing? How thinking and brainstorming convert to powerful strategy making - https://minter.substack.com/p/is-executing-really-the-only-thing

17. Valerie Desclerc: How to make a successful first appointment when you are a consultant? How to use conversation to establish a connection with a stranger in the context of a prospecting call - https://minter.substack.com/p/how-to-make-a-successful-first-appointment

Through the process of writing this Dialogos, I have learned a lot about the art of conversation. I’ve had some remarkable discussions about conversation, improved some parts of my own repertoire and, in general, feel entirely reinforced in the conviction that the world needs — and many people are keen to experience — more robust and meaningful conversations. Not only is open and contrarian discussion and debate a critical component of democracy, it’s how we learn, and it’s how we get to know each other deeper. Bottom line, meaningful conversation is the linchpin of our relationships with one another.

Finally, I can also say that being part of the Substack community has been rewarding in itself. I’ve met many great Substackers (several of whom were among the contributors above). I want to thank Substack for their dedication to making us writers better and for giving a platform to voices that might otherwise be shut out or shut down.

For my next steps, I’ll be sifting through my writings and looking to see how I might bring to a book format this collection of essays and posts. For now, I’m happy to leave my posts online and I hope that they can be a useful resource for any of you wishing to have more tangly, messy and interesting conversations. No doubt, I’ll have to sunset this Substack in the future. But, whatever happens let’s continue to fight for having stronger, more exploratory, more incisive dialogue. May we find greater meaningfulness in the subjects we treat and the relationships we forge.

As Dickens said in Doctor Marigold's Prescriptions, 1865:

I’ve known Laurent Combalbert for a couple of decades. He’s an excellent speaker and is the very embodiment of someone who walks the talk. We’ve collaborated in several different events over the years and he’s someone I deeply respect and appreciate. I wanted to have Laurent break down how he plans and holds conversations in the high-stakes situation of a hostage taker. How does he plan them? What sort of team does he use? What are the techniques he uses? What’s the best mindset to have? I interviewed him in French then translated that interview into English. I think you’ll agree, this interview provides a fascinating insight into the mind of brilliant negotiator.

Minter Dial

Laurent Combalbert, what a pleasure to have you on my show. We have known each other for some time, but for the listeners, can you please introduce yourself in a few words?

Laurent Combalbert

Listen, I'm a negotiator with more of a crisis negotiator streak. For my first job, I had the chance to be part of the first negotiation team of the RAID, the police intervention group in France. And then I practiced this trade of negotiator in a whole bunch of situations. But it's true that I’ve always leaned toward the notion of crisis and now I have to manage complex negotiations all over the world.

Minter Dial

And so, sometimes, you have to jump up and leave a little quickly.

Laurent Combalbert

So, I try to do that less and less. I like to work from my crisis unit here at home, but actually I travel quite regularly and meet different cultures to lead somewhat special conversations.

Minter Dial

And, therefore, in addition to being one of the most famous negotiators in France, you are also an author.

Laurent Combalbert

Yes, it's true that I've penned a few books.  I've written quite a few technical books, of course, on negotiation, on crisis management, on teamwork. But I just finished my last 2 technical books, and I won't do any more.

Minter Dial

Never say never!

Laurent Combalbert

No but, really, I always keep my promises as you know and, and I will not publish any more technical books after these last 2 that will be released by the end of the year. On the other hand, I have found a passion for detective novels. I write detective novels. I did two for the Calman-Levy Collection Noire and I am preparing a third that will be released in early 2025.

Minter Dial

We'll put it all these in the show notes! Laurent, well done! So, as you know, my interest is essentially in conversation, the notion of conversation, typically those we have in society where, today, it is difficult to have interesting conversations. With strong debate, et cetera. Thus, I wanted to do this interview with you around your work, focusing on when you're in a crisis or negotiating with someone who is a hostage taker. Can you tell us a bit about your experience in that, just to give us some context, your background in relation to that?

Laurent Combalbert

Look, it's true that when I got interested in this role of negotiator, I discovered it because what interested me in this profession of police officer was the intervention side. And so I always wanted to join the RAID for this aspect. I found myself at the end of the 1990s having to choose, either to wait to pass the RAID tests and integrate the intervention office, or to join immediately without passing the tests. I chose to give up on the intervention to join a group of negotiators created by Michel Marie, who was the first RAID negotiator and the first to have the idea that negotiation was a real job, and not just something that happened a bit by chance, as we could see in certain films. For me, this notion of negotiation actually meant using speech and discussion as a weapon, as a way of managing conflicts, as a way of avoiding disasters with people who could be in one of 3 main categories. The first category is the fanatic, the madman who is a person cut off, alone. It’s a man or a woman who will freak out. A man, more often, who is emotionally overwhelmed, who is in personal loss and who has only found, as a solution, to retreat to his home or somewhere alone, without hostages, and to threaten to commit suicide or other violent act, e.g. to blow up the building. Without necessarily laying out any claims in advance. Therefore, this situation, which seems to be the easiest to manage, is ultimately the most complex, because we have no leverage over the conversation. What can we bring him if he doesn't ask for anything? If he doesn't want anything in return?

The second category is the hostage taker -- or takers -- who are holding people, or who are withholding information, who are hijacking computer systems, and who are going to ask for an exchange. This is something that goes give us a central point of discussion, a pivot for the conversation around which we will be able to see if we give in or not , what is possible or not.

And then the last category is what is called collective entrenchments, that is to say these are groups of people who will lock themselves up, entrench themselves. We speak of mutiny, for example, in a prison. But we also have entrenchments of sectarian organizations. We had Waco in the United States. There have been quite a few situations of this type and in each case, indeed, the conversation is different because the motivation of the opposing actor is different and we have to look at how we can position this dialogue, this discussion to find a solution that in the end brings a peaceful resolution.

Minter Dial

This categorization is fascinating. When there is a request, how do we know that it is the right request? Do you tend to check, when there's a demand, as in the case of hostage takers, that it’s a clear demand, or do you typically have to dig deeper to get a better understanding? How do you decode this request?

Laurent Combalbert

The first request, in negotiation, is what is called a position. It’s a position because it is what is first put on the table and it is what will serve as the starting point of the exchange in the negotiation. So that's the first question we ask ourselves. What is the real interest behind this position? When someone makes a request, whatever it is, chances are that this first request is not the real one for a rather simple reason. In any situation of negotiation and conflict that is under high tension, such as a hostage-taking or a more traditional negotiation, we are in a logic of competition. It is estimated that about 90% of negotiations in the very broad sense of the term, revolve around competition. That is to say a person who wants to win what the other will lose. That's what a madman who demands something wants to win, or a hostage-taker who demands something, he wants to gain satisfaction behind his demand. But in 90% of cases on average, the position that is made is not the real interest, it hides the real intent. So, our job at this point is to try to see what's behind it. And since we're not in the head of the person in front of us, we're going to make assumptions. The first part of the job is to analyze the motivation of the opposing party. It is a work of setting out hypotheses. Behind his position could be different types of interest. And depending on which one it is, we will look at those which are the easiest for us, on our side, to satisfy. Already, can we satisfy it, are the demands ethical, are they moral and can they be the subject of discussion, of an exchange? And then can I necessarily give what is requested? If a madman asks to speak to the President of France, obviously this position hides an interest that is difficult to satisfy. If that's really what he wants, I can’t do it, and so I'm going to have to make him accept that his request can't be met. If, on the contrary, it is a very exaggerated request which aims to obtain the satisfaction of a different interest on another subject or with a lesser amount, well, indeed, then I can wonder about being able or not to satisfy this interest. But each time, it's a work of hypothesis because in this type of conversation, we are never in the other's head. In fact, to imagine that we are in the other's head is dangerous because it would lead us to interpretations that would make us attribute a single truth to a single request, whereas behind a single request and a single position, there are dozens of possibilities of truth, dozens of hypotheses.

Minter Dial

And so, there is a lot of preparatory work, but not necessarily the time to do it?

Laurent Combalbert

So, time is not a constraint. If I dare say, you know that when you head into a crisis situation, you're going to be under time pressure. So, time is no longer a constraint because it's part of the game, it's part of what is commonly accepted as being the constraint. We have operating methods that allow us to go quickly in the preparation of the negotiation. There are key questions about what is the interest behind the position, what is our mandate that to be able to eventually satisfy this interest, what is the common objective? These are pretty simple questions. We try not to fall into overly complicated schemes that lead us to intellectualize a lot of things. We are not negotiation theorists; we are practitioners and therefore we operate with the facts. Theoreticians play with words and we play with facts.

Minter Dial

And when you put yourself in a situation, I imagine that you are not alone? You work with others in this kind of hypothesis formulation.

Laurent Combalbert

Yes, we work as a team, obviously for many reasons. The first reason is that the more of us there are around the table trying to understand the opposing interest, the more hypotheses we have. If I were to go solo on a subject, I will inevitably have perception biases, truncated visions of reality, not voluntarily, moreover, but often involuntarily because based on my experience, based on the unconscious memory of what I have already lived. I risk having fewer hypotheses, less open to the likelihood that the other person has a mode of functioning that’s different from mine. So, we are a team for that. We have diverse, multicultural teams. In principle, with different genres, with different experiences precisely to have a broader vision.

Share

Minter Dial

What's funny is that we often use this word diversity in business, we say that it's better to have diversity, but we also know that diversity is not easy. These teams provide other points of view, other attitudes, and bring in other cultures?

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, but once again it's about accepting this difficulty as being a factor in creating added value. We must prepare for the negotiations in an open manner with precisely these different visions, and therefore potentially conflicting with our own vision. When a team member comes up with an idea that you haven't thought of and which is a good idea, you have to accept that this idea is on the list and that you didn't come up with the idea yourself. So yes, accepting to have people around you who are better than you, who have better ideas than yours, is a real factor of efficiency; but it's difficult. Because your ego has to accept it. Then you also have to make these diverse teams collaborate. At some point, the members will have to align themselves with a common mode of operation.

Minter Dial

When you say the word “négo” (in French, short for négotiation), I always hear the word ego inside.

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, it's true that ego is important, and it's often said that a good negotiator has no ego. It doesn't mean that a good negotiator has no perception of himself, but when you enter the negotiation phase, you have to put your ego aside because the ego is an excellent tool, but it must be controlled. When the ego is too present, the negotiator is much less effective. The ego is a bad negotiator.

Minter Dial

Inevitably, a hostage taker has an excessive ego or not?

Laurent Combalbert

Sometimes we can have to deal with narcissists, people who have the feeling of being superior to others, which is rather an advantage because this feeling of superiority can allow us to seek information, can ensure that this person is overconfident and that he delivers information to us that will allow us to understand what his real motivation is. But we often have people who are in crisis, in an existential crisis, in a personal crisis, in a financial crisis, or in an emotional crisis. And this crisis represents a rupture. We are faced with people who are in a moment of rupture in their own lives and what interests us is to understand not why this rupture was created because we are not psychologists, we are not psychiatrists, we are not here for that; but to understand how we can help them to perceive that the way they have chosen to deal with this crisis -- namely entrenching oneself or taking hostages -- is not the most effective way to find a solution. So, our job is not to convince them. Our conversations are not designed to convince. Our conversations lead to change. And that's why it's difficult today in the world around us -- in which everyone chooses their truth -- to have conversations that aim to induce change and not conversations whose sole ambition is to convince the other. Today, in society, we seek to convince others that our ideas are the right ones, that our vision is the right one, that our ideology is the best, whereas we should first make sure that the other agrees to change his perception, just like us, so we are ready to develop ours.

Minter Dial

It's interesting your vision, your perspective on it, Laurent, because you say that everyone has their truth today. That is to say that everyone expresses themselves and therefore that implies, in my opinion with my filter, a lack of community?

Laurent Combalbert

To have a good negotiation, there must be a common objective, but that’s also true in order to have a good conversation. If everyone converses with the objective to explain their point of view without wanting to build something with the other, we are in a debate mode. We are in an exposition of ideas. But for me, these are not conversations that create added value. At some point, we should seek to do something positive with our conversation and not just inform the other. We need to rely on what he says to bounce back and perhaps modify our position. By allowing to modify our perspectives, we ultimately arrive at a final and bigger result. But for that, each must be able to take steps towards the other. However, we are in a world, I find, which is more and more polarized, where everyone locks themselves into increasingly opposing convictions. Maybe people express themselves merely so that they may exist rather than actually searching for solutions (to the conflict).

Minter Dial

An existential crisis? I put this notion of conversation under the banner of: 1+1=3. The idea is to have 2 people who want to build something together. This 3rd dimension is beyond. This is the meta product of the conversation.

Laurent Combalbert

That's quite right.

Minter Dial

Earlier, you talked about ethics. Is this request ethical? Ethics, for me, are essentially personal. That is to say that my ethics might be different from yours. And when you're in a team, evaluating the request, how do you establish the ethics of that question? I have to think it's not as clear as that.

Laurent Combalbert

Ethics is in relation to the morality of the situation. Ethics are relative to the issue. If you are negotiating to buy a house, to buy a car or to negotiate a television set at a local retailer, what is at stake does not justify you breaking your general ethics. You're not going to lie in this type of situation. It would be ridiculous to compromise your personal values for an issue like a television or a car. When you save lives or when you face a hostage taker, the question arises because how far are you willing to go to recover the hostage? I'll take the example of kidnappings.

Obviously, when we are in a hostage situation, it is managed by an intervention squad. These are negotiations that are difficult, but much less so than those in the business world. They are dangerous but not very difficult. Because you have a balance of power, you have the intervention group, you have the police, you have an encirclement, observers. If on the other hand you are dealing with a kidnapping, it's different. A kidnapping often happens in a country far away. Generally, you have no balance of power. The kidnapper is preventing you from calling the police. If he sees the police, he kills the hostage. You don't know where he is, you don't know what number to call him back on. It is he who had the initiative to contact you and, therefore, in these cases, the ethical question arises: do you have to pay or not? Is paying money to a criminal ethical? Of course, it's not ethical, because if you pay a criminal, obviously, in the end, you will allow him to buy weapons, to equip himself and to organize his criminal modus operandi even better. But is it worth doing to save the hostage? Yeah, personally I think so. If it's to save someone, we can do it, so I'm going to compromise my own personal ethics to preserve a higher interest, namely saving a person.

Minter Dial

While knowing that when he does that, you send the message that we are ready to pay.

Laurent Combalbert

Yes, absolutely. You keep the kidnapping business going.

Minter Dial

It's complicated, isn't it?

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, it's complicated. It's complicated, but you have to accept to ask yourself the question, and how far are you ready to go?

Minter Dial

In the case of a regular conversation, I often think about the value of having knowledge, facts, context, history. How much and how useful is knowledge in such a negotiation?

Laurent Combalbert

I think it takes knowledge. Already self-knowledge. Know what you are willing to accept and to what extent you are willing to do it, for yourself. You have to have self-confidence, which is also based on knowledge. You have to have knowledge of the other, of their culture of origin, of their culture of belonging. And then there is the knowledge that you must put at the service of your conversation. So yes, it's important to get to know yourself well and to know each other well and to know the environment well in order to have an influence on all that.

Minter Dial

And knowledge in general, for example: the hostage taker says something that is nonsense compared to the truth. I take an example. He says, “I will go to the capital of France, you know, Marseille. Ah!”

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, you can have people who don't know what they're doing and that's the whole problem because there's an effect called the Dunning -Kruger effect which says that the less competent people are, the more they feel they are competent. So, you can face someone who announces an inanity, something completely crazy, stupid, inefficient. The question to ask is, is he ready to accept that what he said is false? Can I make him understand that what he is telling me is really wrong and make him reconsider his position? If he wants to tell me that Marseille is indeed the capital of France and that it is becoming a point of tension in relation to the issue we are discussing, is that worth telling him, yes or no? I sometimes lead conversations with people who blurt out ridiculous statements on scientific or technical subjects. But my challenge is not to make them change their minds. My challenge is to listen to them and if I don't intend to make them evolve on their knowledge, frankly, I’ll let it slide. I let them believe what they believe. I don't have the time. I don't have the desire or the motivation to make them change. If, on the other hand, my children tell me something wrong on a technical subject, there obviously my role as a father is to explain to them that what they are saying is technically or scientifically false and to explain to them that they have to change their position to have an objective view of what they are saying.

Minter Dial

And in any case, the way you approach this subject must be taken into account.

Share

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, substance and form are also important, of course. Firstly, because we cannot not communicate. When you enter into conversation with someone, you cannot not communicate. As soon as you refuse to speak to him, you communicate something. So, you have to be able to master the channels of communication. The words we use. The verbal, the meaning of words, and the symbolism of words. We use the para verbal, so it's the tone of the voice, the style of conversation, the intonations, the speed of speech, the silences. And then there’s the non-verbal, which is everything that is visible: the look, the attitude, the micro-movements, the distance. All these elements carry meaning. So in a conversation, it's not just the words that are spoken. There is the way of pronouncing them, there is the position that we take to pronounce them and that, too, is something that will modify the impact that we have on the other.

Minter Dial

And how much of this can be learned or mastered? Because in fact I have the impression that there are certain things that we do instinctively or without wanting to. For instance, I might blink my eyes, or stutter or move a limb without even noticing that I moved.

Laurent Combalbert

So, we can control a certain number of points. For example, you were talking about knowledge earlier, when you know the culture of a person or a group you are addressing, you will adapt your vocabulary to their culture, to the way they handle it all. By informing yourself beforehand, it allows you to master the words you will use. You can control your emotions so that they do not have an impact on your prosody, on the tone of your voice, on your conversation. And then there are also plenty of things you don't control, especially your emotional expression. When you have an emotion, you will find it difficult to control the emotional leaks and therefore the opposing party will notice it. The person with whom you are talking will realize that you are surprised, or afraid, or that you are angry. And it is not unpleasant to let this emotion show because letting them show is sending a message to the other. What is producing an emotion in you? And it is important that the other person knows it, that they are informed by it.

Minter Dial

This brings me to the question: how to establish a relationship with someone where you are necessarily, let's say, in a situation of conflict, insofar as the other is doing something that is unpleasant.

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, but the conflict is not necessarily negative. Conflict is something that serves to create something. You were talking earlier about 1+1=3. That was exactly it. Conflict is how you manage to find a solution with the opposing party in an expressed disagreement. Because conflict is nothing but expressed disagreement. You can view that negatively. He does not agree with me, and if he tries to impose his point of view, there, obviously, it will strain the relationship. But you can also see it in a positive way. He doesn't agree with me, so he can nourish my ideas, so that we manage to do something superior to the two of us. It's a question of personal appetite, but it's also a question of willingness to decide at some point: I may want to accept the disagreement of the other to build with him. It's called assertiveness. Assertiveness is being able to defend your point of view, while accepting that the other has a different point of view and that he expresses it.

Minter Dial

So, it makes me think that, back at the very beginning of our chat, you said that there is a notion of competition. There can indeed be a competition, but in your philosophy and your way, you try to move from this state of competition to something co-constructive?

Laurent Combalbert

Yes. The logic of competition is natural. I would even say that it is reptilian. We know that when resources are limited, we will compete to gain access to them before others. What makes it possible to move from a logic of competition to a logic of cooperation is identifying the common objective. Do you have a goal set for yourself at the end of the conversation? What do we want to do together? What is the goal to be achieved that we will be able to develop together to ensure that our conversation is not just an exchange of information, of data, but that it serves to build; that it serves to move forward. So yes, what I call the CSO in negotiation: The Common Shared Objective, the CSO, is the key to cooperative negotiation. There is cooperation if everyone accepts that we have a common objective and agrees to put themselves at the service of the other. But it comes down to acceptance. So, your conversation starts first by getting the other to accept that we have a common goal. And for that, he must be able to accept it. (1) He must wish to accept it. (2) And that he is able to do so. If there is no shared common goal, there is no negotiation. It's a balance of power and submission. It's manipulation, but it's not a real negotiation.

Minter Dial

In a negotiation process, then if you don't reach the CSO, do you take other measures?

Laurent Combalbert

If you don't reach the CSO, what solutions are left to you? Run away? Are you stopping the conversation? You deal with someone who is against your point of view, and you don't want to continue, do you leave? When faced with a hostage taker, that's not an option. I can't say “Well, listen, he doesn't agree, so I'll be leaving. See you soon!" That doesn’t work. The other solution you can use is manipulation. You're going to manipulate him, using deceitful ways of maneuvering. You're going to lie, you're going to trick him. You're going to trade his perception of reality to induce change in a very tactical way before he notices that he has been deceived. Hop. May it lead to what you want to achieve, that is to say the release of your hostage, for example. You can then work on the balance of power, that is to say that you decide to stop discussing. You break down the door and the assault column comes in and physically takes on the hostage taker. So, it's true that these are modes of resolution that are not the ones we're typically looking to use when we negotiate, but which are possible alternatives. In particular, the use of intervention. It's a way of resolving the conflict that doesn't create value for the 2 parties. It creates frustration for the hostage taker when the door is broken down, but this option remains in line with the situation. If the challenge is to save the hostage and the negotiation has not succeeded, in this case, and we move on to the solution of the balance of power and intervention.

Minter Dial

And I imagine that, in the process of trying to establish this shared objective, you can also say: "Well listen, sir, if we can't agree, the options afterwards are not good.”

Laurent Combalbert

So yes, he must be ready. He must accept that negotiation is an alternative to intervention. But sometimes he is not aware of the risk he is running. Or sometimes he is so sure of himself that he considers that he is not at risk if the intervention is triggered. So, in this situation, it is once again a reckoning. Can he understand the risk or not? If he doesn't accept it, that means you have no leverage over him. It's because you can't impose a negotiated mode of operation on it. So yes, there too, again you can talk to someone if he has the means to do so. He must technically have the means to understand what you are telling him, the intensity of what you are offering, the intensity of the risk.

Minter Dial

So, a subject that you know that I like, is empathy, and particularly empathy in negotiation. I know that you have written a lot about it. Empathy is also a tool used by sociopaths precisely to manipulate, just as you explained. How much and how do you use empathy in this kind of situation?

Laurent Combalbert

What is difficult with empathy is that this emotional bond that we have with the other, it must be mastered when you enter into a discussion with a hostage taker. That is to say, you must have a chosen attitude of empathy. You must demonstrate empathy, a chosen empathy. Therefore, you must master your emotional commitment. However, we are talking about situations where the stakes are high. Often, it's lives that are at stake and you can have an emotional commitment which can make you switch into an emotional state. In front of someone who is angry, you can feel his anger. And if this emotional spiral takes place, obviously, it's difficult because you're going to have anger on both sides. So, we try to avoid this emotional sharing by staying away from emotions. That does not mean that we avoid them. On the contrary, we accept and use them, but we will use them in a technical way. We will use methods, in particular, what is called active listening, with techniques such as the verbalization of emotions. Like reformulation, paraphrase, which will make it possible to show the other that we have created this relational link with him, but without falling into the trap of emotional commitment which makes us lose our objectivity. So, it implies when you organize this emotional attitude, that you control your emotions. Thus, you lose a little authenticity. And I believe that the fate of the conversation also sometimes rests on the spontaneity of the exchanges and the authenticity of the discussions. And when you choose to have an empathic attitude, you restrict your authenticity a little to control your emotional engagement and ensure that it does not impact your effectiveness. So yes, empathy is a superb tool, but you have to be able to control it. You have to be able to master this link.

Minter Dial

In terms of how to create or establish a relationship with the other, often in business, in any case, in a personal relationship, we often speak of the mirroring effect. That is to say that if the other has his arms crossed, well you cross your arms as well to show that you are in the same type of posture. How relevant is that in negotiation situations for you?

Laurent Combalbert

For me, a lot of situations are done at a distance, so there is no non-verbal communication. I don't see the person. I can use their tone of voice and prosody, but I don't see that person. With mirroring techniques -- which are also called synchronization techniques -- we will synchronize our movements with those of the other. It's true that it can work, but it's manipulation. That is to say that you will voluntarily adopt an attitude that will be consistent with the other’s to create this unconscious link and lead him to more easily modify his perception or behavior. So yes, these are techniques that work. I used them when I was a young negotiator, when I was just starting out, because these techniques were quite easy to implement. Today, I give free rein to my natural behavior. I'm not too focused on these questions. I don't look at them in detail because, well, I don't want it to disturb the flow. If I overthink the position I'm going to take, I forget to listen to understand. Now, when you listen to someone, it's not to convince him. It's to understand him. Once we have understood his mode of operation, in particular his stake in his position, we can explore the ways to induce change in him. It is true that all these techniques are very interesting. It’s interesting to know them. We can use them, but I use them less and less or in small portions. Or unconsciously, perhaps to enter into this relational link, this link of influence with the other.

Minter Dial

This resonates. In any case, it raises the idea about which we were talking earlier, about the combination of form and content. Form is something that needs to be worked. You also talked about self-knowledge and I was wondering about the young Laurent who did the mirroring versus the Laurent of today. How much has this advanced self-knowledge changed the way you carry yourself in negotiation?

Laurent Combalbert

I would say that the first step is a bit like what we talked about with empathy. It’s about knowing your own emotions. Emotional mastery is based on accepting to have emotions and understanding their involvement in a conversation. All the emotions we experience are legitimate. We talk about Darwinian emotions. The 6 basic emotions, they are always legitimate. It means that, whatever the situation that triggers them, you must accept the reaction. If there is a frustration of your values, a frustration of your expectations, you are going to be angry. If there is a particular danger or a particularly important issue, you will show fear. So, all these emotions are interesting because they are part of the game. To refuse them would be to create a rebound effect. The rebound effect is that the more you want to refuse your emotions, the more they will reappear, and the more difficult it will be for you to control them. Initial acceptance will allow us to prevent legitimate primary emotions from degrading and turning into negative emotions. For instance, the anger that came from aggressiveness or the fear that came from anxiety. So, this self-knowledge on what I call the emotional posture, it allows through training, through debriefing, to develop a way of managing your emotions. The 2nd posture on which we work in self-knowledge is the relational posture. This is how, by mastering my emotions, I can create a relationship with another. The relationship is a bond, a bond that you will build with another to achieve something. And so, there again, it relies on the ability to listen, the ability to understand, the ability to remain objective, to know these perceptual biases, to know the way you see the world. It was Alfred Korzybski who said, the map is not the territory. We have to accept that we live in a representation of reality, not reality itself. When you accept that map, your own map, you can more easily perceive your understanding of the world. There is also a posture of trust. Do you have enough self-confidence in the relationship, to be sure of what you stand up for, through assertiveness? But don't be perceived as arrogant by the person with whom you’re interacting.

And then, there is also an ability to have a conviction. To defend one's point of view is to accept not to give in easily to avoid the difficulty or anguish of the conflict. In all these subjects of introspection, of debriefing your own situations, this is what you can store in your personal library, in your reservoir of self-knowledge. How each of these postures is expressed. When you are in conversation with someone, it’s about knowing how you manage to make them evolve. Knowing that we have never finished learning. We never finish developing our approaches, our methods. The conversation, in the broad sense, is made of emotions, relationships, links, a position, which is all very unstable material. So, we have to accept that we are in perpetual evolution and that there is no truth. There is your truth, your vision, your perception that you will evolve over time and when you accept it, indeed, you free up your capacity for conversation a little more easily. You make it less directive and you make it more open to others. You know, negotiation is an act of otherness. When you decide to negotiate, you decide to agree to understand the other in order to find a solution with him.

Minter Dial

Do you consider it an act of humility?

Laurent Combalbert

It takes an act of humility for each to accept the other. It was Aristotle who said that it takes a lot of intelligence to accept a point of view that is different from yours. You need humility to accept the position of the other. But you don't want too much humility. You also need the ability to convince. Because if you systematically consider that the other is right in relation to what you express out of excess of humility, the other will end up imposing his positions on you without accepting yours. So, it's a good balance. It takes humility, but not too much. It takes ego but not too much.

Minter Dial

And what about your fundamental beliefs, for example, about humanity? Do they play a role in your job?

Laurent Combalbert

I think that in this job, if you don't like other people, it's difficult. So, you can't improvise this as the negotiator if you don't have this fiber first. You have to love the other. It's not loving him absolutely, it's considering that the other also has a position, a conviction and accepting that he can enter into this exchange. So, I think that this initial humanism makes the job a lot easier. And after, with your convictions, you make them evolve. My beliefs are changing a lot. As I manage situations, I've been negotiating for 25 years now, but my beliefs about people have changed a lot, some for the better, some for the worse. But yes, it is evolving. This chemistry evolves quite rapidly.

Minter Dial

Obviously, we are presently talking calmly via audio [in this interview] from a distance. There is a context and often when we have a conversation in real life, it is important to consider the context in which this interview or conversation is taking place. To what extent do you take the context into account in your negotiations? Is it mandatory to take into account the context in which the conversation takes place? That is to say, for example, you and I are talking with a microphone in front of us, via a computer. And so, we're not as distracted, unless there's a notification rushing by or kids behind us and so on. But to keep focus, to have the right conversation, in what ways do you try to organize the context of that conversation?

Laurent Combalbert

If you have the opportunity to organize the ideal context as we did this morning, in a calm context, even at a distance, to avoid having disturbances and stay focused, that’s great. If you can choose this context, of course, you will bring your contextual factors into play so that it is favorable to the conversation. Faced with a negotiation in a case of hostage taking or with some lunatic, it's complicated because the conversation takes place where the event happens. You can be in a hotel, a restaurant, a public place, an airport; and so, you will also have to use the constraints of the context and adapt to that. It could be noise for example. In the movies, we often see the hostage negotiator pull out a megaphone and speak into it in the street. That's obviously something you never do, unless it's not possible to do otherwise because everyone hears the conversation. You are not sure of the quality of the reception of the message by the person in front of you. There is no discretion in the exchanges. You have a megaphone, but the person in front doesn't. So, there, you're going to try to change some things to be privacy-friendly, to favor trust-building. And also, you want the environment to be favorable to the quality of the understanding of what is being said. If your messages aren’t understood by the person because there is noise, because there are parasites, because the communication is not very good, indeed you will lose a lot of time. You risk misunderstanding. If you have the idea that the person opposite has understood what you are telling him, when in fact, he has understood quite the opposite and we create a quid pro quo that can sometimes be fun, but it can sometimes be quite devastating.

Minter Dial

You talked about films, about people with megaphones. Besides your books, do you have films or books to recommend that expose the profession of the negotiator well? That are good examples of well-done negotiations where we can learn from them?

Laurent Combalbert

Yes, you have films that tell of hostage-taking negotiations. You have The Negotiator, which is a fairly famous film with Kevin Spacey, who plays the role of a negotiator facing another negotiator who becomes a hostage taker. It's very American, so that means it's a little Manichean, the good versus the bad. On one side, you have the negotiator alone, who is the star with his team rowing behind. That's not really how it works in a negotiation, but it's an interesting film because it shows a negotiation under tension. There is another American film that I really like on this subject, Inside Man, where you have a negotiation with a man, played by Denzel Washington, where he gets into contact with a hostage taker in a bank robbery. And it's interesting because I really like the psychological relationship that forms between the two men, where the robber has already anticipated everything that's going to happen, where the conversation is carried out in a very calm way, in a tense situation. So, this is a film that is quite interesting. And if not, you have Proof of Life. It's a movie starring Russell Crowe, which is about negotiating the release of Thomas Hargrove, who was kidnapped in Colombia. You have a negotiator who contacts the FARC to get this hostage released. It's a true story. So even though it's fictionalized in the film, it's a story that's based on a true story. And then you have a TV show called Ransom that tells my story, that's based on my team's story, and that's going to explain the experience of a professional negotiator... I just demanded that, in the series, the hero, who is played by Luke Roberts, is Franco-American. It's an American series that tells the story of a team of negotiators who will manage ransomware, hostage-taking, disappearances. This is also interesting because there are some psychological dynamics that we managed to graft into the scenarios.

Minter Dial

That's awesome, I'll put all those links in the show notes! So, you talked about the FARC and Franco-Americans. How much does negotiation vary across cultures?

Laurent Combalbert

You have cultural factors that are important, especially around the time factor. Some cultures are amenable to time pressure, others are much less so. You have cultures that appeal to intrinsic trust where we naturally give trust. And other cultures that will seek explicit and clearly stated trust. So yes, of course, these are factors that come into play. The best solution that I have found is to have local negotiators in the countries in which I work. Since they know intimately the culture of the country in which the negotiation is happening, this allows me to have an objective view of the cultural elements and to be able to use their familiarity with the culture in the discussions.

Minter Dial

So, let's imagine that you are in the middle of a negotiation and things are heating up, that is to say that the other person is getting angry. How do you try to de-escalate this kind of situation?

Laurent Combalbert

The best way to manage an emotion is to verbalize it. When you are faced with someone whose emotions are starting to boil over, if their emotion is legitimate and most of the time it is, you have to accept it. This does not mean you understand why he is experiencing this emotion, it’s just that you accept he fell into this emotional commitment. Accepting it legitimizes it. That is, recognizing through verbalization that this person has the right to be angry. You know, I can't understand how you feel, but I understand that you're angry at what's going on. This verbalization will allow two things. First, you put a word on the emotion of the other. Maybe he didn't realize he was angry. If you don't have the words to express your emotions, you can't manage them, so here you are going to help him put a word on his emotion. And secondly, by legitimizing the emotion, you prevent it from deteriorating. You don't need to exacerbate the emotion, to push further his buttons. If, in principle, the person understands that you accepted his emotion was legitimate, then it is part of the negotiator's toolbox. To verbalize the emotion is to make it neutral in the relationship, to make it legitimate for the other and ensure that it does not deteriorate. If it doesn't work, then what’s at stake in the situation when an emotion takes over? If there is a security issue, if you risk a bad turn of events, it is better to stop the discussion. If it's a matter of saving the hostage, whatever happens, in that case, you're going to lead the negotiation by accepting the risk that it could get out of hand. But it's true that the best way to prevent an emotion from deteriorating is to verbalize it, to make the other person aware of and accept it. To show him that we have accepted him and to help him accept it by labeling it.

Minter Dial

Before, you mentioned the existence of the 6 primary emotions. But there are plenty of nuances in emotions and in certain literature, I read that it is often difficult to know which emotion we have. That is to say to distinguish between confused or unclear, or angry versus frustrated? Finally, what words to use, which express the emotion appropriately? Is that part, in what you said earlier, of active listening, a way of identifying and agreeing on the emotion.

Laurent Combalbert

I believe that aligning everyone with regard to what’s acceptable or unacceptable behavior gives you the means to reach the end of the conversation. Consider that in an emotional expression, there are things that we can accept: the tone of voice that rises, certain words that will come out. And then others that we cannot accept. Aggressive words, for example, those that are not conducive to pursuing the discussion. So yes, I think we can align our discussion through rules. We can even mention them at the beginning of the exchange, give defined rules in advance, what I call ethical rules, for example about respecting the word of the other, the notion of not cutting off the other, not using fraudulent maneuvers such as threats, ultimatums, recourse to the balance of power. All this can contribute to holding an effective conversation. So, we could very well imagine at the beginning of the conversation, when the stakes are high, to set rules in terms of timing, in terms of content, in terms of the exchange. As we have in set debates, for example, where speaking times are set and monitored for both sides. I think, too often, we forget the rules of conversation. The content is important, but the form is also very important. We could set up these rules at the beginning of the discussion. This would be interesting by the way in society! There must certainly exist a manual of the rules of effective conversation, to see how we could rely on certain concepts of relationship, bringing in empathy, bonds, common objectives to craft conversations, and create added value through the exchange.

Minter Dial

While knowing that, as you said earlier, we often deal with people who have their own personal, individual ideas and the boundaries of one may not correspond to the boundaries of the other? What I consider to be offensive, you might say believe is completely normal. Or vice versa. And so, it's also hard sometimes to agree. In contemporary literature around conversations, people talk about putting boundaries on yourself, not on the others. This is what I accept. That is to say that, if you speak in such a tone, I consider my boundary over-stepped. So, I know that at that moment, I refuse to continue because you have crossed the border. But it is I who has created my own borders, which is the only element I can properly control. It's something you're wishing to put in place?

Laurent Combalbert

Yes, it's also at times knowing how far you're willing not to go; but again, it's all about the stakes. The limits you set for yourself depend on the context of the negotiation, i.e. the means you have and what’s at stake. When I have to save a life, I can accept being insulted or having someone speak to me in a tone that I would not accept if I were negotiating the purchase of a TV. So, it's also very much linked to the context. It's the issue and the interest that you will defend in the negotiation that will determine your threshold of acceptability. You can accept more easily when the stakes are high versus what you’ll accept when the stakes are low. So, it's your job to know our own limits, but also to know how far we are ready to push them to preserve the issue that is at the heart of the discussion.

Minter Dial

Taking aside from the hostage taker situation, today it seems that there are a lot of people who put themselves in all these states because they’re going through some kind of existential crisis, where they feel the need to defend a conviction, as if their conviction sustains their existence.

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, you have people who are built on an idea, on an ideology which can be social or political, etc. But everything, for them, is built on an ideology. And so, in relation to that, if this ideology is called into question, of course you put them into difficulty, you put them in danger. Because, if you challenge their ideology, they feel like they are completely non-existent compared to what they imagined. So yes, questioning someone's fundamentals, their beliefs, is dangerous. It's dangerous because if for this person, his identity was built on the ideology, he will defend himself tooth and nail. And there, precisely, the person will be ready to use means of conversation which aren’t customary in a normal conversation. And in the discussion, they will go sometimes go to extreme measures to defend their position. This is the whole problem with the polarization of exchanges today. It’s that when someone locks himself in a truth, whether it is true or false, he will construct his whole identity in relation to it. And questioning this truth is so destabilizing for him that it is unacceptable and therefore even goes against the real truth or scientific reality, for example. Some of these people are ready assert themselves, even use violence to defend their point of view, because it comes down to questioning their own identity.

Minter Dial

I have the impression that this is something that must be taken into account when we enter into a conversation “in real life” (IRL) situations. I say IRL to distinguish from what you and I have talking about (i.e. hostage taking conversations), but understanding these ideological situations and their existential nature, allows us to have perspective with regard to holding decent conversations!

Laurent Combalbert

Yeah, we can keep this idea in mind, but we must accept today that you can choose your truth, you can find on the Internet the justifications for absolutely everything and anything. So, you choose the truth that suits you, instead of modifying your behavior in relation to an absolute truth. You choose the truth that saves you from changing your beliefs and your behavior to change your mind, where actually you have to make an effort. And making that effort, a lot of people today refuse it because it would amount to questioning a certain number of operations, so we've lost this taste for the effort to question ourselves.

Minter Dial

Awesome! So I just want to end on a slightly more complicated topic. In the case of failure. You must have had failures in your career as a negotiator that didn't come to the desired outcome? The hostage taker that did what he threatened to do when you didn’t want it to happen? What failures have you had and what lessons have you learned from them?

Laurent Combalbert

Luckily, I never failed with my hostage takers. They never acted out. I’ll knock on wood, even if I don't believe that trick! But I had other failures on more traditional negotiations, or that didn't go all the way. Failure, obviously we don't appreciate failure. But it's a formidable learning tool. It's true that I don't like to screw up, but when I screw up, I take advantage of it. You shouldn't spoil a failure, you have to manage to learn lessons, to debrief it, to try to understand what happened behind it. My first negotiating boss, Michel Marie, told me: “prepare to lose a hostage.” I never prepared, but I always accepted that it was possible. So today I am not preparing for failure. I don't have a plan B. I rarely have a plan B. I adapt my plan according to the situation, but I accept that it is possible. I accept that it could happen one day. So, when it happens, I debrief it. I try to learn the lessons, but I never prepare for them.

Minter Dial

Because not accepting that would be dogmatic intransigence.

Laurent Combalbert

Of course, if I accept, if I told myself that I would never accept failure, that means that I will never be wrong. It would be an excess of confidence that would be formidable. But preparing for it, I find that it could make me lose the strength of conviction. Having a plan B could lead me to be less relevant on plan A. So today I prefer to accept that it might be possible, but I'm not preparing myself and we'll see.

Minter Dial

Laurent, what a beautiful big way to conclude then.

Laurent Combalbert

What, have we been talking for an hour already?

Minter Dial

And yes. It was really very powerful, very instructive for me. Personally, I thank you very much and I would like the people who have listened to us to know how to know a little more about you, possibly go to your site because I know that you have a great place to go and learn more about trading and team building. Give us links or places to visit more of what you do, what you write, et cetera.

Laurent Combalbert

The easiest way to listen is to go to www.thetrustedagency.com. This is where you will find the what we do within our agency. There’s also the activity of our NGO which accompanies certain organizations in their complex negotiations; we do it pro bono when the NGO manages the situation. The association “Gives Confidence” helps children to build their self-confidence. So, on the thetrustedagency.com site, you will have most of the elements that explain what I do and our future projects. 2024 should be a great year full of innovations so there will be plenty of information about it.

About Laurent Combalbert

Laurent Combalbert is a world-renowned Professional Negotiator and Crisis Management Expert. He manages high stake negotiations such as hostage-takings, kidnappings and extortions with a matter of life and death. Internationally known as one of the best Professional Negotiators in the world, Laurent has been trained at the National Academy of the FBI and is qualified at the highest level: CPN3 (Certified Professional Negotiator level 3).

Laurent is also:
- Teacher at the prestigious HEC Paris
- International Motivational Speaker ( giving more than 120 conferences every year)
- Author of numerous books on Trust, Collective Agility; Negotiations and Crisis Management
- Trainer of Complex Negotiations to C-level Executives

As such, Laurent is regularly asked to share his expertise on crisis situations to radio and television channels worldwide (CNN, BFM TV, France 5, Europe 1, RMC, China Radio International, etc.). For years, Laurent has been a Hostage Negotiator at the French Special Response Team RAID. RAID is recognised as one of the best unites in the world, specialises in anti-terrorist activities hostage taking, kidnappings, mutinies, hijacking and more. Laurent has also created the "Expatriates & Travellers Security Department" for CIVIPOL, an advisory company of the French Ministry of Interior. In 2013, Laurent founded ADN Group -Agency of Dedicated Negotiators -, with his associate Marwan Mery. Their impressive lives have inspired the CBS-series Ransom. In 2020, he founded Campus de Sylvanie, a training center for the development of trust and confidence within organisations.

I don’t know about you, but I can sometimes get caught up in a testy conversation without even realizing it. Writing about and practicing empathy is a 24/7 process, a little like life itself. There are ups and downs. There are times when you are more up to the task than others. Bringing empathy into any conversation, at least for me, is an active principle. In other words, it doesn’t come naturally. I need to reflect on the situation and rein myself in, in order to focus better on the individual in front of me. Thus, it occured to me that it might be interesting to define what it means to hold an empathic conversation. For starters, there are many forms of conversations. For example, it could be the short exchange you might have with a cashier or the first greeting in the morning with your partner. Even in these less consequential encounters, empathy can be most pertinent. But what of holding a longer conversation with someone, friend or stranger, on a topic that is not banal and where the other person holds an opposing point of view? This requires a more concerted effort, in that it requires self-monitoring, deep listening and keeping a meta perspective.

Subscribe now

1+1 = …

One of the key ideas I’ve learned about in the development of Dialogos has been the idea of thinking about ‘us’ when considering a conversation with another. In other words, how can one person speaking to another create a third and ideally superior presence. The other consideration — or paradox — is the need to balance your willingness to listen and learn, and having the flexibility to change your own mind, versus having a conviction, owning a coherent and congruent point of view that you feel the urge to defend. As Rae Shanahan said to me in my podcast interview with her, it’s about holding your ideas lightly. Yes, to sticking to your guns, but with the understanding that you can also let them go, too. The crux of the concept is knowing which are non-negotiables, and why they are such for you. There is a useful nuance or scale to check in with that has, on one end, your level of conviction and/or intransigence about your beliefs, and on the other, your willingness to learn and change your mind. As a frame of reference, where do you sit before you head into the conversation?

The more to the left of the scale, the more difficult it will be to have an authentically empathic conversation. The further to the left one is, the more the reason for listening is oriented toward rebuttal, reframing and convincing. Of course, if you are off the scale flexible (on the right), you hold no conviction. The question then becomes about the manner (integrity, thoroughness) in which you come to your own conclusions and beliefs.

How to evaluate empathy?

As we continue to explore the notion of having an empathic conversation, it is crucial to come to an understanding of how we might evaluate empathy, beyond merely subjective and potentially vague parameters. It is important to distinguish between the emission and reception of empathy. Specifically, on the one hand, there is the empathy quotient that is embedded in the listener and his/her intentions. This means that, for anyone or any business wishing to be empathic, it’s about one’s effort and purpose, in abstraction, to some degree, of the amount of empathy that is explicitly felt by the target. In other words, a marketing team that conceives and designs a shampoo bottle that doesn’t slip through a soapy hand in the shower may require a certain amount of empathy that the person in the shower doesn’t necessarily — or at least explicitly — notice. Yet, empathy was being deployed. On the other hand, there is the receptor of empathy. To what extent does the ‘target’ of the empathy believe you were being empathic? This is the scoring that most people tend to focus on, but here there are no concrete ways to measure on any absolute scale. CVS reportedly used a simple survey that asked customers in their stores to what extent they felt that they were treated with empathy during their visit. Since there are many (often wrong) interpretations of what empathy actually is, this type of survey cannot be taken at face value. What matters here is the trend over time and how/what CVS does with the information! At least for a business, when inserting empathy into the design process, there is a way to gauge the success through customer satisfaction and sales numbers, even if empathy isn’t directly being scored. Of course, there are many components that go into that scoring, hence the opacity or challenge of measuring empathy in any isolated manner. Another important point is to make sure that your internal culture is coherent with your customer-facing external communications. As I wrote in Heartificial Empathy, the best way to measure empathy (in business) is against the life-time value of one’s customers or the long-term engagement of one’s employees.

Share

Context

The context within which the conversation is being held counts quite a lot, in that it can determine the ambiance. It will certainly have an impact on your level of concentration, your ability to hear well, the types of distractions that surround you (e.g. your mobile phone, children playing, public space) and, lastly, the sense of confidentiality. Before diving into any meaningful conversation, one must be cognizant of the context. This also includes two other important factors:

1. To what extent are you yourself present? What is your anxiety or stress level? How comfortable are you?

2. How much time do you (both) have for the conversation? Is there a hard close and what is the event following (i.e. to what extent might that event contaminate your ability to be present throughout the entire conversation)?

The first point is critical because if you don’t check in with yourself, you will have difficulty regulating your emotions, ego and listening. For the second point, having (or giving the) time means that neither person is feeling the urgency of pushing in all his/her thoughts. When an interview or conversation is time-constrained, it becomes more about driving one’s talking points, which will impinge on the free and genuine exchange of points of view.

Attitude

Having checked in with yourself, the next component is evaluating your own attitude/mindset. What is your genuine intention in this conversation? Do you legitimately have interest in listening to what the other person believes? Do you have curiosity about how that person came to hold his/her belief? Are you willing to listen without judgment? Are you able to listen without interrupting? And, here’s the big one: do you allow that you might be able to change your mind? Depending on the subject and person on hand, you’ll have different answers to these questions.

Empathy doesn’t mean being nice

If we’re exploring what constitutes an empathic conversation, it’s not to suggest that it should be a kumbaya-style of meeting. If you’re intention is to convince or win over the other, that’s an entirely different and legitimate starting point in a conversation. And yet, one must know that it’s possible to wish to convince someone AND have empathy. In fact, the more you understand where the other person is coming from, their context, what they’re feeling and thinking, the better equipped you’ll be to persuade them. Any negotiator will know this. Being empathic doesn’t necessarily mean being nice. It doesn’t mean being meek or giving in. Just like the idea of dissolving a heated exchange may be the best solution, just because you’re practicing empathy doesn’t mean you need to agree with one another.

The real meaning of an empathic conversation is that both people feel heard and have a better understanding of the thoughts and feelings of the other. Just as the 100+ Empathy Circles in which I’ve participated, I’ve seen the power to bond despite our differences once we all feel heard. When you are reflecting back what you’ve heard, you might also, when appropriate, observe the emotions being shown as well.

Some guiding principles for an empathic conversation

In order to hold a conversation on a tricky topic that is not only empathic but effective, there are some key principles that should be shared between the two individuals. Ideally, this is something that can be explicitly shared. However, more likely, it must be implicit in the exchange.

1. Find a convenient and reasonably calm location.

2. Make sure that both parties have an extended period of time to hold a longer conversation.

3. Be self-aware. Check your state of mind in advance of the conversation. Consider to what extent and why you may have certain beliefs that are non-negotiable, and where you have the possibility of doubt.

4. An empathic conversation is a two-way exchange where both individuals are earnestly wishing to listen to and understand the other. If possible, render this explicit at the outset of the exchange.

5. Reformulation is important, at a minimum, when there is doubt in the understanding. That said, it’s useful to reformulate without judgment throughout the conversation, to stay with and delve deeper into the other’s train of thoughts. The idea of being an empathic listener is not to put the other person on the defensive.

6. Keep looking at the conversation as a partnership, where you both are committed to learning from one another.

7. Keep the language courteous at all times.

8. Watch out for words whose definition might be subject to misinterpretation.

9. Whenever you have agreements, note these out loud.

10. Agree to dissolve the conversation if it is going nowhere or becoming too heated.

Valérie Desclerc works at an executive search firm that was founded by my friend Emeric Lepoutre, and that is specialized in top level executive search and corporate governance advisory for boards. Valérie, who wrote the book, The 7 strategies to boost your influence in meetings, and worked at Danone and Chanel before becoming a coach and executive search partner, has a very sanguine approach to building relationships. I was particularly interested in how Valérie uses conversation to understand and connect with others. Her article provides many good insights on how to have meaningful and successful discussions, especially with a stranger.

"Only the words count, everything else is just chatter."
-Eugène Ionesco

Of the top 10 limiting beliefs of experienced executives who embark on independent consulting, the difficulty of “selling themselves” ranks highly.

Among the hundred people I [Valérie] have accompanied in the creation of their consulting activity, I do not remember a single person feel at ease in the exercise of selling themselves. And, yet, it is the heart of the reactor.

The stakes are high. To put it simply, the first appointment between the consultant and a potential client is make or break it. You don't get a second chance to make a good first impression.

Three situations should be distinguished:

1. The two interlocutors already know each other and have had the opportunity to appreciate each other mutually in a professional, associative or private setting.

2. They don't know each other yet, but the consultant was warmly recommended by a mutual connection.

3. They meet for the first time, without any prior contact, where one has responded to the solicitation of the other.

We will deal here with these last two situations in particular, where the two protagonists do not yet know each other.

The consultant's first contact with the prospect (potential client) sets the tone for all future interactions. This is the chance for the consultant to grab the attention of the prospect and start to build a lasting relationship. In business, a first appointment is promising, for both sides.

This is obviously a commercial appointment. But in the field of advice, it should never appear as such.

How to make this first contact?

Rather than considering your next appointment as a prospecting interview, I invite the consultant to imagine it as a conversation in which he/she will not seek to close the deal, but to create a link. It should be thought of as a first link in a long chain of events that exist over time.

The client will first observe the consultant and gauge the relevance of his/her remarks, the legitimacy on the given subject matter, and to what extent he/she is interested in the client’s needs.

For a prospective client, appearing as someone who is sincere and natural is a guarantee of additional confidence. If skills and references are all equal between competing consultants, the client will always choose the one with whom "he feels the most chemistry." Atomic connection, yes, but which atoms are actually bonding?

Some clients, for example, show themselves to be determined, sure of themselves, and very direct in their expression. They may view the meeting as a confrontation, as if in a ring exchanging blows.

“Your performance does not interest me.”

or

"I'm already working with your competitors and it's going very well with them."

The skillful consultant is a chameleon. Without trying to be sympathetic, she/he presents a professional demeanor by being firm, factual and very results-oriented.

Other more welcoming and outgoing clients are more open to change and enjoy building new relationships. With them, the sociability card works. They appreciate a touch of humour and are more sensitive to analogies and metaphors than to facts and figures.

Share

Preparation is essential in this regard, so that you are not meeting a total stranger, but someone you know better than he/she knows you, thanks to Google and Linkedin, which will inform you about the prospect’s profile and personality.

It is often said that the first 20 seconds of the interview result in 80% of the success in prospecting. The interlocutor must be intrigued, captivated and very quickly convinced of the consultant's expertise.

The first sentences are decisive. It is necessary to personalize the relationship by creating proximity, looking for what brings you together, a common point or relationship, referencing a recent post on Linkedin or a published interview of the client ... A human relationship is always easier when it is built on an affinity.

The client must feel unique. This can be done by providing a more intimate detail, for example, the personal reason which led the consultant to create his/her activity.

In 1987, Edgard Schein, a trained psychologist and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), distinguished three forms of counseling relationships:

1/ The expert relationship. The client has made up his/her mind about the nature of the problem, the type of assistance required and the profile of the desired consultant. What he/she expects from the consultant is very clear: "Find me a solution and tell me how much it will cost me."

2/ The doctor-patient relationship is a variant of the previous one. The client entrusts the consultant with the mission of diagnosing the disease and finding the cure.

3/ And, finally, the midwifery consultation, inspired by Socrates and Freud. This model is more subtle. It does not aim to help the customer but to allow him to help himself. This is achieved by allowing the customer to ask him/herself the right questions so that the solution ultimately emerges from within him/her. A good consultant never gives advice to his client.

The pitch is fashionable, but it must be addressed at the right time. A well-crafted pitch is essential to raise funds in front of a jury of investors; this is the expected exercise. As part of a first meeting with a potential client, however. you have to play with more finesse. Do not trot out an ostentatious marketing monologue. Rather, strive for dialogue.

To get out of the "recruitment" interview, you have to quickly establish a relationship of complicity, by dancing with the client while taking great care to choose the pace and step that suit him best.

How does one comprehend what it really means to listen? Sigmund Freud gauged those whom met him with his extraordinary ability to listen. Through my readings, I noted the following testimony of a person who had the chance to dialogue with him.

“It made a deep impression on me and I will never forget it. He had qualities that I have not encountered in any other man. I have never seen such a concentration of attention. Nothing to do with some ‘piercing gaze that penetrates to the depths of the soul.’ His eyes expressed gentleness and cordiality. His voice was deep and pleasant. His gesticulations were rare, but the attention he gave me, the welcome he reserved for my words, even when I expressed myself badly, were extraordinary. You have no idea what it meant to be listened to in this way.”

The interlocutor may be in a hurry for the consultant to present his offer. But the consultant must be careful not to rush into running through his/her catalog of services.

It is more effective to give him the floor again with questions like:

- What could we do together?

- What can I do for you?

Sometimes there is an immediate need, sometimes not. It may just be the company's wish to establish a first point of contact, to get to know each other, to evaluate if there is a fit, and to then “reference” or put into the system the consultant as a possible partner.

Share

The first appointment ressembles more of a “tease.” It is important to arouse the customer's interest with a hook or catchphrase that suggests the benefit he/she could derive if he/she invests in the company's product or service. This could include exclusive information on a competitor, or on a niche market that’s still unexplored...

As with a piano, both hands must play together on the keyboard with lightness and professionalism.

Projecting an apparent lightness of being, having a relaxed smile and a tone that is both playful and sure will instill in your interlocutor a desire to work with you. The client is always more inclined to work with a consultant who has a flourishing business versus a consultant who sounds a little too hungry. You’ll need to work on this projected attitude.

On the other hand, the consultant must be professional, asking the right questions to understand where his interlocutor is coming from. He/she should frame and control the exchange to land with concrete points, talk about decision-making, planning, and deliverables.

For example :

"How much are you willing to invest to get all these benefits?"

“Have you done this before and what was the level of investment at the time?”

"Given the needs you expressed in this interview, do you want me to include several options in my proposal?"

“Are you interested in including a benchmarking study?”

The client will inevitably have his eye on the clock. He/she must never feel he/she is wasting time. His/her agenda is typically jam-packed and there’ll be a subsequent appointment to go to.

If the conversation does not open up a concrete perspective, these other questions will allow you to move forward:

When do you want to start? What are you expecting from me ? How soon do you want this mission to start?

And if you feel the interlocutor is skirting the issue, it is better not to insist and use your precious time to move on to another client.

The client must feel safe and in control. The consultant is an ally, a facilitator who does not seek to block the horizon, but rather ensures that it is wide open. Over the course of the exchange, the good consultant gains in proximity to be alongside his/her interlocutor rather than face-to-face.

You have to accept that not everything will go as planned. The consultant sails on sight (or Visual Flight Path to use a pilot analogy) with obstacles to circumvent, or sometimes a blinding sun that diverts him from what he does not want to see. And of course, there are the contrary winds and the client’s infamous objections.

The most common objection is: "I'll think about it."

You've probably used that “I'll think about it” yourself to leave a store without buying and without daring to tell the salesperson that you're not interested.           

The consultant must not leave with this promise hanging as it only applies to the one who is listening, such that he/she must revert.

For example:

“I understand that the success of this mission is important for your company. Can I ask you what is the period of reflection that you are giving yourself?”

Or even:

“Is it the budget that is holding you back? Or is it a matter of trust between you and me?”

If the client replies: “But absolutely not, I just need to ask myself and weigh the pros and cons.”

The consultant may make the riposte: “Why not do it together?"

If the first 20 seconds of the interview bring about 80% of the success in prospecting, the closing moments are not to be neglected. In a moment of idleness, ten seconds can sink all the previous efforts.

If the prospect announces:

“No, frankly, I'm not convinced. I understood, but for the moment, I'm not interested,” the seasoned consultant will bounce back with ease. Gentleness always wins out over strength, as in Aesop’s fable of The Sun and the Wind.

The wind and the sun were arguing over who was stronger. The wind says: I will prove to you that it is I. Do you see the man over there? I bet I'll get him to take his coat off faster than you could. The sun then disappeared behind a cloud and the wind began to blow in gusts. But the more he blew, the more the man wrapped himself in his coat. Finally, the wind gave up. The sun then pointed out to the wind that gentleness and kindness are always stronger than force and violence. Accordingly, the sun reappeared and smiled softly at the old man. Soon, he felt hot, wiped his forehead and took off his coat.

Subscribe now

About Valérie Desclerc

Valérie Desclerc co-directs the Institut du Conseil des Indépendants, which supports senior executives and high-level experts with a project to create a consulting business. Associate Partner of Emeric Lepoutre & Partners, she works on recruitment consultancy and executive coaching assignments. She is the author of the book, “7 strategies to boost your influence in meetings,” in French (published by Lextenso Editions) and appeared on en français podcast to discuss it here.

I met François Jacquet and Guillaume Quarternoud after they performed magnificently at the APM Convention in Nantes 2023. The way they explained their method of performing blew me away, in terms of examples of a new form of leadership, how to explore all your senses when you communicate (and live) and how to manage mistakes and long-term relationships. There is something very special about the way the Quatuor Annesci have meshed. This interview with François Jacquet was done in French, transcribed and then translated. My translation may not always be as lyrical as the way François spoke, but the essence of what he delivers is a goldmine of material for more advanced forms of conversation.

Minter Dial

Francois Jacquet. I'm delighted to have you on my show to discuss the musical conversation. I heard you do a master performance on stage at the APM Annual Convention. It was a real pleasure to hear you perform and in your words you shared. So, who is François Jacquet, to start with?

François Jacquet

I am a violinist and I play second violin in the Annesci quartet. This quartet is made up of two violins, a viola and a cello. It is the classic usual quartet.

Minter Dial

What led you to pursue this profession? What was your path to get there?

François Jacquet

It is a very special path. It may not be unique in the history of musicians, but I think it deserves to be counted because its genesis is truly special. When I was a teenager, in my school, we imagined with five or six friends who were also musicians to organize evenings of music and poetry, because we were very interested in our adolescence in the arts. Teenagers spend their lives looking for themselves, but here we tried to find ourselves through, among other things, poetry. And then, this ensemble grew with friends and girlfriends from the conservatory until we created a chamber orchestra of 15 people who functioned independently. We were already in conversation since there was no conductor with a kind of power of arbitration. There was this relationship that was woven between us, already from the days of poetry and music. The relationship has always been in the form of exchanges and initiatives. I think the attitude we had at that time guided us. We were firm believers in this idea of talking, speaking and listening, because we really did everything between us.

We didn't depend on anyone. I think that everything we developed, everything we experienced in the Quatuor comes from there. This is why I insist a little bit on this origin. We weren't at all in the pattern, I would say a little standard, of four musicians who find themselves on the sidewalk with their first prizes in their pocket and who say to themselves "Hey, I see three more, we could maybe be part of the quartet?” The origin of our quartet goes back to these teenage adventures.

Minter Dial

So the four members of your quartet were among the 15 you were talking about?

François Jacquet

Yes, of course. We talked a lot, we worked, we rehearsed with this ensemble all year long. We played concerts in the summer. So, we took a car and then presto. At one time, I was the only one with a driver's license. I even had a van in which to put the instruments. And then the others arrived. I think that really fermented our relationship over the course of more than 35 years of Quatuor [our quartet] until today.

Minter Dial

35 years with the same four?

François Jacquet

So, there were two changes, but these two people, who were finally adopted by the Quartet, really got into the musical dynamic, the professional dynamic and above all the human dynamic that was the DNA of our ensemble.

Minter Dial

Could you describe this DNA for me? Because when we talk about recruitment in business, we will look to see if you have the same values, if you have the same ambitions. It's to get alignment in business. I think the idea of understanding each other on that level is essential, but I wondered how it could be different?

François Jacquet

In our ‘company,’ we debated the values. As far as we are concerned, I think we were not taught our values in adolescence. We discovered them ourselves. And there, I think it's still a richness to have gained these values through experience, through a shared experience between us, everything that is relational. We helped each other. We searched a lot, we questioned each other a lot. We had good times, not so good times, doubts, joys...

With the fifteen people, frankly, we developed our little world which made us grow, which made us return to adult life, if I may say so. But I want to insist on this story of experience, because everything we said to each other, if we put it down, we put it up for discussion, we developed it through exchange. And in our case, it was finally a lived experience. And so the values that we have developed with the quartet on the musical level and also in terms of the encounters that we can have enjoyed in each other’s company, all these values are embodied in a way, in our own way. But in any case, it didn't fall on us, not through biases, whether cognition, intellect, or wisdom. Rather, it is knowledge gained through what has happened to us.

Minter Dial

Via the experience! Nothing to do with just having words written on the wall, in an annual report, if I dared compare to business. So, you know that I write a lot about conversation. I use the word "meaningful", which has a meaning and it's not quite easy to translate into French: filled with meaning. For you, what is a meaningful conversation?

François Jacquet

So, if we start from the English word and then convert to French when speaking of meaning, it's the most conventional word. And in French, we are lucky that this word has at least three meanings. I was able to find out that in the Middle Ages, there were actually six!

Minter Dial

The meanings of meaning!

François Jacquet

There you go. And so, a conversation that would be meaningful for me, it’s like a triptych around the word meaning. The most basic definition is to hear and understand the intellectual content, to understand in the sense of comprehending the words, their definitions. So that's a bit basic. At least that's the shell of the conversation. And then as soon as you get into it a little bit, having or giving meaning in French also means being able to perceive. So, we enter into a more subjective part of the conversation, whether it’s with one or more people. And then I think that this quality of perception, this ability to perceive, little by little, will animate the conversation in terms of enthusiasm, of expressing oneself, of giving, of receiving…

Then, I think that the meaning, this perception will also add conviction to what is said. It will give weight to the intellectual content which will begin to be tinged with value. And then there would be a third meaning of the word meaning in French, it's the direction, that is to say to give a direction, to enter into a project. And somewhere, as the conversation progresses, finally it leads towards the future. And it's also a way of “directing,'“ of directing the conversation so that it is fertile, so that it produces something. And then, after, there is a fourth meaning, in French, which is to speak of common sense. This idea of common sense means that the conversation will perhaps become a little bit more objective, i.e., to show common sense. It is also to show hindsight, to provide a certain distance with oneself, in relation to others, so that the conversation is even richer in the end, and that we are not entangled in completely personal data.

We will probably talk about ego later. But that's common sense. At least in music, in our search for the very technical aspect of music, when we can show common sense, that's interesting. And so, if we mix all these definitions of meaning, I think we can get to something meaningful.

Minter Dial

Powerful?

François Jacquet

It brings a certain power, a certain quality.

Minter Dial

So, switching into music, how would you describe the musical conversation, even before entering into a 'meaningful' musical conversation?

François Jacquet

Musical conversation is a subject that is extremely rich because it does not pass through the spoken word. It passes, in classical music, through a text. This will be the score that is bequeathed by the composer. Afterwards, the musicians will endeavor to enroll this score into the conversation. It implies that we are at least two. In our case, there are four musicians. Let’s look at the etymology of conversation, because for me it's a bit my hobby, the etymology and origin of words. And the word conversation: it's cum (with or toward). And then verse, which in Latin means ultimately "to turn to." So, when we speak, in the best of cases, I dare to hope that we turn to the person with whom we are talking. But in music, we're going to trigger a phenomenon of listening, a sound phenomenon and a panoramic phenomenon in the case of the quartet, because we're going to have to listen to the others, all the different voices. Conversing, in older times, invites encounter and even intimacy. So, in the human project that will be grafted behind the musical conversation, it's interesting. And then I found that in the 14th century, in France, conversing meant coming and going together on the same river. It's crazy, if we consider that music is a flow. In this musical conversation, which will be born in the quartet, the music can be compared to a river and the musicians will come and go together, little by little. Unlike the spoken word, there is the classical score. In other music, if we think of jazz for example, there is no score in itself. But there are, all the same, these famous chord charts which determine a framework and a canvas. And in the world of improvisation, there is often a structure that is perhaps a little hidden, discreet, but in any case, we don't improvise in a vacuum. So, the musical conversation is necessarily framed by various elements. And it’s not going to appeal to the intellect. To come back to this first definition of the word meaning, it will appeal to other affects, to other things. It's going to be different. And everything that will mingle between the musicians in the musical conversation will be extremely rich.

Minter Dial

Can we also speak of a conversation with ourselves as a musician? During the music?

François Jacquet

So, already in a very consubstantial way, if I may say so, the musician plays as he is. He is between himself and himself, between himself and his instrument. The instrument is a mirror for the musician. When I say that he plays as he is, what he is going to emit, what he is going to produce is according to his nature in the very broad sense: his physical, physiological and I would say above all psychological, spiritual nature. And then, when it will mingle with the others, well there are these four worlds, within the framework of the quartet. These four worlds will interpenetrate. And this is where the great adventure begins.

Minter Dial

Brilliant, this idea of a mirror. So obviously, like you said earlier, you have a human project. Imagine you have a concert to do and lunch before the concert, you argue, where you have a setback. Will we find it in the music when you play? Or does the music in this case allow you to make abstraction from it, to sublimate this problem?

François Jacquet

So there, I think it will depend on the nature of each musician. As far as I am concerned, in our experience, there have been difficult times and then by great luck, I dare not say by miracle, from the start at the time of the concert, there is a kind of bubble which will settle around the musicians and we enter another world. There, precisely we begin our conversation, and the deep listening especially. We enter a different notion of time. Music, there is an incredible thing. It is that it only exists when it is played. Otherwise, we are aware that the right and duty of musicians: when it comes to producing music, you have to play. And in our case, when you have to play, you have to ignore everything else.

Finally, we have to perform with and for each other. You have to play. Then, if it's a concert, not a rehearsal, you'll also have to consider the public. But in any case, what is important to see is that the music will have to exist when it is needed. And so that ignores everything else. In a slightly flattering way, we could say that there is also a professionalism which means that in that moment, here we are, we will have to be there and do what is necessary. And then again, in our case, little by little, over time, the moments or issues of crisis were managed much faster than in our youth and much more effectively. Experience, maturity, and the contribution of our personal lives, too. The Quartet is still a great mix of many things, well beyond the notes of Mozart or Schubert.

Share

Minter Dial

I imagine. And the question that comes to me now is when you have to do the same thing night after night. For example, on Broadway, there is the whole orchestra. They have to play the exact same music, night after night. In the quartet, do you ever have performances where you perform the same thing several times in a row?

François Jacquet

So, yes and no. In any case, not at the time of the concert. Because like I said, music only exists when it's produced. When it is played, therefore, it will inevitably be different. Very recently, we have had to play music on a film which tells the story of a sycamore maple. We see the tree from its birth in nature in the forest until it’s cut and then transformed into an instrument. This film lasts 55 minutes and we really adapted the music to the vision, to the story, to the images. And there, each time we give this concert, we don't have more than two seconds of margin per piece of music; and these are pieces that last several minutes, so two seconds over several minutes, it's tiny. And there, on the score, we had to put little markers. We wrote that there were birds in the tree, a description of the sky, a mountain, in order to try to bring them to life.

So, it's interesting. It's a bit of a challenge and it's a little bit disturbing all the same to be really honest, because at the same time we have to play, we must also look a little at our benchmarks on the screen. We have a timing, a stopwatch too. That's it, but it exists.

Minter Dial

That’s awesome. I have to mention the fact that I just recorded a conversation with a man, Hervé Franceschi, who holds conversations with trees. [You can find that interview here.]

François Jacquet

It's true. In this film, there is a voiceover in 4 places, and this voiceover is the tree that finally speaks and says that somewhere it will transcend everything. It will sublimate its own nature by becoming music. And in the case of our quartet, the four instruments are made with maple parts that come from the same tree, from one and the same tree! In the history of lutherie, it is believed that there are only three quartets that were built like this by a luthier who worked in our case for a year and a half to build the quartet with the same pieces of wood. And it was to express at least one of the values that we seek to bring to life in the quartet, that of unity. Diversity is four signature models of old masters from Cremona. But the unity here is this old maple since, when it was cut down, it was already 600 years old.

Minter Dial

600 years of wisdom.

François Jacquet

Exactly and 50 years of drying before being worked by the luthier. And now, over the 22 years that we have had this quartet, it has a new voice, it expresses itself.

Minter Dial

So you mentioned earlier the fact that, among the fifteen, you didn't have a conductor in the quartet. The question that arises out of this film story where there was an imposed tempo, how do you keep this timing? It's the story of a team without a “leader?” It's something that's very foreign to most people. Whether it's a football team or a group at work, there’s always an identified leader. How do you guys keep the tempo? What happens when there is an error? Who punishes whom?

François Jacquet

So, the story of Tempo: If we assume that -- and it's not always so -- a conductor is responsible for synthesizing the format of a group of people, such as an orchestra, we can think that he ensures the pulsation. And in the pulsation, we integrate the rhythms, and from that all is built. In our case, something that's specific to quartets, but also generally to chamber music, the tempo will be co-constructed. It will come from an internal mesh. In any case, this tempo does not come from outside such as a conductor might impose on an orchestra. In the ideal, it is co-created, co-constructed from within. So, in a somewhat technical way and without going too many into musical details, we could say that the shortest values will become the reference. For example, if one of the musicians has eighth notes and the others have quarter notes, the quarter notes adapt to the eighth notes, that's how there is a first form of knitting.

Afterwards, I'll skip the details, because it's much more complex. What is interesting is that this reconstruction must be intelligent with regard to leading where there are the four voices of the quartet. And, by dint of work, we will decide which of the four musicians will be best able to provide this guidance for the others. And then it comes through mutual agreement, by being responsible and above all intelligent, really honest if I can say so on an intellectual level. It may, for example, be the cello on which we will have to graft ourselves on its rhythms. And then it's the viola, there it's the second violin, there it's the first, etc. So, we divide up the roles and then it meshes. Once again, it's a very subtle conversation in the end, to have the hearing ability, the technical ability, the attention span, too, to get information from the person who will have been declared responsible in the moment. Sometimes it changes every two or three seconds.

It goes very, very quickly, this awareness of each person's function. And then, what is interesting is that the responsibility is shared, not unilateral. It is the ability to change hats very quickly. I am the leader for a moment and then I will seek my voice elsewhere. Ah well, I come back here for two measures and then hop, it goes to someone else. So, it does not stop moving. When I talk about intelligence, it's that everyone really has to know when they have to contribute.

Minter Dial

So, I feel like you have to have a leader to play. Whereas it is a shared, collaborative, intelligent role. But still, there needs to be a leader?

François Jacquet

The real leader is the composer. Let’s start with that. But the composer didn't take care of the technical restitution of his work. On the other hand, he has provided the structure of the work. But when we say the leader, it depends on what meaning we give it because, in our case, it is not a leader with arbitrary authority. When I speak of intelligence, of understanding how the score is constructed and understanding how the roles are going to be divided up, it's not through a phenomenon of authority, of cold and arbitrary authority. In our case, it is often an unknown authority, not accepted by others. So, as I like etymology, with the word authority, there is, among other things, a word inside: author, that means someone who creates. But for me, the real authority is not that. It doesn't fall from the sky. It's something that is exchanged, that is built and implemented, and then it works.

Minter Dial

It is funny because at the very beginning you said a text. I am a musician, but I would not have thought of the texts of the notes for the music as being a text. For me, it's more the opera where there are words written in the text there, below the clefs, that are sung. Just a small note of difference.

Subscribe now

François Jacquet

Yes, yes, it's true, but it's also writing in music.

Minter Dial

And it amazes me every time I'm on public transport and I see a musician reading a score. This ability has always struck me. As if I were reading Victor Hugo. And you are reading notes!

François Jacquet

And hearing them. The reading of an article goes through the eyes, and when all is well, it also depends on the musicians, when we contemplate the score, it turns into notes. It's as if we were living with our ears after all.

Minter Dial

On this subject, Hervé Franceschi who spoke with the trees said that in fact his communication with the trees is multi-sensorial. I can thus suppose that in the music, the notion of bodily vibration, almost in the guts, is part of the conversation. Because there are the eyes that you look at, there are the ears that hear. One could even imagine with the notion of strings, the bow? The bow, too, with its bristles.

François Jacquet

And then the whole body is engaged in music. Earlier, I said that a musician plays as he is. He is as he is, let's say roughly at the psychological level. But at the physical level, the instrument offers this famous mirror effect. The instrument vibrates like the person's body. Finally, each has a sound heritage. Every human being has a sound identity. It doesn't speak all the time. But as soon as you play an instrument, it is this identity that will manifest itself in sensitivity. We use the physical aspect. There is the very visible aspect of movement to signal other information, to express the music. But there is more than that. There is an energetic relationship between us. And in all that, this consciousness appeared over the years, through experience, through the performances.

I never fully counted the tens of thousands of hours that we spent together, but I think there are a lot. We have many examples. And when, sometimes for a special circumstance, we replace one of the musicians for a brief spell, the identity of the quartet changes. And the change is immediate. We replace someone for 1 or 2 hours, even for a small, not very important event and boom, everything changes. The sound collates and collects how we emit the information. It reflects this assembly of bodies and physics.

Minter Dial

And this is even more striking, I imagine, the longer you've been together.

François Jacquet

That's it! Yes! We had the chance to spend three years with the Amadeus Quartet in Cologne who took us generously under its arm, under its protective wing. And these musicians had lived 40 years of their career together. The very same four. And the quartet lasted until the death of the violist. And we were with them in Cologne when this great gentleman passed away. They had already decided 25 years before, that if there were a problem, they would stop the quartet. There would be no replacement. You see how rich this path of life can be?

Minter Dial

A lifelong contract. So, we talked a bit about having moments of friction. I also brought up the story of having an error when playing. So, in this situation, here I'm trying to find out how important it is to have actually had friction for the better meshing afterwards.

François Jacquet

If we talk about purely musical errors, obviously we make mistakes.

Minter Dial

What? Aren't you perfect?

François Jacquet

So precisely, that's what I was going to say. When you work in a company, there is one thing that we say loud and clear: it's that if you wait until you're perfect to go on stage, then I don't think you'll ever go up. Or else one would have to be endowed with a large dose of unconsciousness, blindness to oneself and to what one does. And so, errors exist and what is interesting in music, in the case of a quartet in particular — and we come back to listening and to this quality of conversation — it is that when there is an error from one person, for example, the three others are going to hear it. Then all of a sudden there is a kind of dampening, of absorption of the error by the three others, which means that this error will be tempered and recovered.

And in the case of a concert, for example, where there is production in the moment, if there is an error, it will be caught back in less than a second or two. All of this is going very, very quickly. Even to the point that sometimes, because the person who made the mistake a priori does not notice it, it is the others who will notice it. Suddenly, there's a slight acceleration, a false note, or a strong slowing down, a little distraction. So, the person who makes the mistake does not notice it. The others seize it and recover. At the same time, of course, as they dampen the error on the auditory level, they also recover the person who suddenly, gets back into the groove again. And here's a crazy thing, we've often found that sometimes we don't even know who made the mistake, it was caught so quickly. And then the mistake is absorbed, hop, and recovered. It's amazing. We manage the very short moment of discomfort by our flexibility, by catching up. And in any case, for sure we are not going to glare at the person who did the stupidity. It's counterproductive, it's useless, it distracts, it bothers, it creates stress. This is inappropriate.

Minter Dial

I'm just imagining at a time where the mistake happens in a chorus, for example, or something that is repeated later in the score. You made the mistake at this moment, and the same refrain will come back later on; and there is a little look saying: Hey! Are you gonna do it again? How does that play out?

François Jacquet

A bit of everything happens! When we have worked on the pieces a lot, we can free ourselves from it, to take a step back. It's true that we exchange a lot between ourselves and in the case of an error, most often in concert, if there is a repeat of this passage where there has been a mistake, we will rather pass over it quietly. We're not going to remind each other too much again, remember three minutes ago? No, but, we do think about it. Of course, we know it because in addition we could also call it out! Will the stupidity be repeated? We will have to manage again, but we organize ourselves to get through it — not to hide from it — in any case, to remain discreet in this kind of moment.

Minter Dial

Suddenly there are conversations in your own head with yourself. There are conversations that go through the music. There is also energy that is exchanged. It's a whole mixture of means and channels of communication.

Share

François Jacquet

Yes, so that's for sure. And the longer it goes on, the more this mesh I was talking about earlier will thicken. There were people long ago who were investigating where the mind exists. When we talk about the spirit in the spiritual world, is it in man, is it in the sky, or in black holes? And then there was a researcher who imagined that there were energy fields in the universe. Like knitting, weaving, there is warping and meshing. And he located the presence of the spirit at the intersections. Because the sum of energies exists at an intersection, where and since it intersects. And this is interesting as a thesis on the scientific, energetic and spiritual levels. And in music, this knitting I was talking about earlier, exists at the level of musical creation and the rhythm between us.

The field of energy is also filled with the melodic aspect, on the horizontal side of the music, I would say. It is also filled with harmony, with the chords that underlie and support the melody. And then I like, with this image, to say that there is also a diagonal because the melody is horizontal and the harmony is vertical. What is interesting to experience in conversation is in the moment what you play; and that's in the diagonal. Because when we play, we have a form of tension. It’s as if this tension is an arrow that cuts through, because the music appears a little into the future. It's important that we always be half a second ahead of it, the music, to take it to the future. So, there is a form of tension, one between what will drive and what will relax the music. Because music is a pulsating phenomenon; it's like a heart, like day and night.

This tension and relaxation is like breathing, like the great life of the universe. We know that it is expanding and that one day it will shrink. And there’s a uniting tension, through listening. The fact is that the listening tunes the intonation on our instruments. We have no benchmark. It's very easy to play out of tune. When I place a finger on my violin, I never play it by myself. I pose my finger according to what I hear in a given context, so that its location adapts to find the correct value. And it is a question of tenths of millimeters. It's tiny. So this whole mesh becomes richer and richer, one could say in energy. There is the beat, there is the melody, there is the harmony, there is this diagonal, and there are all the technical parameters of our instruments, and God knows it is also complex to play the instruments in time. And all that is the energy that sounds, that wanders.

Minter Dial

So, François, I talked a bit about this subject of disputes. And I was wondering how much you feel that having had these problems, the fights etc., how much does that help to reinforce the thickness of the mesh that you have been talking about?

Subscribe now

François Jacquet

So the disputes, they were... because I can almost only speak in the past tense as we've been a quartet for more than 35 years. They existed. And then when we analyzed them, we saw that they came, roughly speaking, from people's egos. They come from people, from individuals. So, the individual, at the moment, he’s in a state. He has his dose of ego which also inhabits him, which little by little, over time will evolve. And then we’ve gained experience in our arguments. Over time, we asked ourselves what generated the argument? When it’s over, we analyzed. And, for a good part of them, it's about the ego. Much of it is mental. When I say mental, it's in relation to the score, in relation to the situation at the time, to rehearsal time, because that's often when there are heated exchanges. It also comes from an absence of consciousness, if there's no ability to step back, there's no distancing, then it's also anger. But to be angry towards a colleague, what does that mean? Maybe we didn’t execute what we had decided, what we had planned? It is very complex the origin of a dispute. So luckily with these famous thousands of hours that have passed, we ask ourselves, in fact, is it really necessary?

Thus, we gradually learned to manage that as soon as there was friction, rather than letting it grow, we had to put it on the table. And then to contemplate, to look at it. And in general, whether it's a dispute at a personal level or at the professional level, or about the score, when we put all this on the table, we say to ourselves, what was the detonator of the issue? And very often, we learned to leave the personal detonator aside, because it's irrational, it's not very important. On the other hand, we strove to look for the almost-technical cause of the dispute. And there, by putting down the score on the table and looking really, humbly and above all with hindsight, we always find the solution. And there, we defuse immediately. It's because the score hadn't been understood enough, not analyzed enough in its technique, but also in its scope of interpretation... That often something was missing.

The argument is often that something is missing. So, when that one thing is identified, then rather than get carried away, over time, we pose, we watch. Wait and see.

Minter Dial

I love the idea of stepping back, laying the problem on the table. We don't have much time left, so I'm going to focus on one last question that we talked about a bit about and that’s the place of the ego, the personality. And I would like to add the place for empathy in the musical conversation that you have together.

François Jacquet

So, as concerns the ego, little by little, on the professional level and above all on the human level, we have always considered that the quartet was a laboratory, a laboratory of humanity. Maybe one day it will turn into a laboratory of humanism, but in any case, a laboratory of humanity, a laboratory of encounters. And when we say meeting, there’s necessarily a meeting of egos, that's for sure. And to gradually manage these four egos. In fact, with the ego, everyone is in his own prison of himself until the moment when his consciousness will expand. Everyone is in his own prison. He does not even notice it, in his own ego-filled nature. And as we found out over time, it is that experimentation solves all the problems, or at least 99% of the problems. Because rather than being trapped inside this telescope, this distorting magnifying glass of the ego, once again, we take a step back from the technical aspects or — and especially of — the interpersonal human encounter, and we lay it out flat.

And at that moment, the egos deflate right away. Were we lucky with that, with the four of us? We had those two times where we had to replace the musicians. But I think that in our nature, little by little, we were perhaps favorably disposed in relation to this egoistic approach. In any case, we learned to ignore these ego phenomena as much as possible and to build a quartet entity that was freer, more open.

Minter Dial

And so suddenly, there is a co-construction of the culture of your quartet and a co-construction of yourselves. How do you manage virtually the co-construction of an ego above you all?

François Jacquet

Yes, so we can say it like that. Our famous teacher whom we had after Quatuor Amadeus, Eberhard Feltz, has always spoken of a chapel dome phenomenon. An egregore phenomenon. You see, this meeting of a collective which will mature, will grow, and which will put itself in a state of resonance, finally in any case, into a state of human synergy. Over time, one can hope that we have removed the parasites, of which the ego is one. And then we can hope that we have created a fabric, an assemblage of sound, and once again only in the time that the music was played — there is no trace afterwards — and it's in the moment that it's created. In the best of cases, let's imagine in good acoustics, for example at the time of a concert, this egregore will grow and will take the form of a dome of a synergistic chapel. Which means that the sum of the four people will become a proper quartet, not one plus one plus one plus one equals four, but one plus one plus one plus one equals one. This egregore phenomenon and...

Minter Dial

Unity?

François Jacquet

One plus one plus one plus one equals more than four. And on a human level, it's very interesting. We also achieve it on the musical level with the phasing of the harmonic sounds that we produce so that in the end the quartet plays with more voices than the four that are specifically emitted.

Minter Dial

It's quite funny that my friend, Hervé Franceschi, talked about the egregore in nature. When he speaks with the trees, he first watches from a distance, then he goes under the umbrella of the tree and there, all of a sudden, this egregore arrives, when he is waiting, when he is calm, when he listens. Now, François, just to ask one last item that was about the place of empathy when you converse. Is it something you have talked about among yourselves or is it something that's just implied?

François Jacquet

So it's implicit. Thanks to or because of those hours we spent together, empathy is almost automatic. In Greek empathy means "em-pathos", it is to suffer. And the "em" is inside. So, our connection has existed for so many years, it has created all the bridges that are necessary. And when one or other has a problem, whether it's health-related, or a little discomfort, curiously, we deal with it, we take it, we consider it. We talk, we exchange. It's no longer on a musical level, it's on a personal level, based on a team spirit that has turned into something really strong.

Minter Dial

That's why I often talk about this need for arguments, bad times and mistakes. Because in fact it's the little pain or expressions of pain — the pathos — that brings about the empathy. So, François, that was brilliant, I loved it. It made me think of a lot of things. How could someone listening find out about this movie for example? Or check out your site if they are interested in having you speak to their business. Tell us the links so that I put them in the show notes.

François Jacquet

Ah! So, our site is QuatuorAnnesci.Com. We have a YouTube channel. There are audio publications, especially videos, some of which come from us, but there are also videos that have been uploaded by people who have often recorded from telephones or what. So there, obviously, it's bad, that's not recommended! There's the most information on the site and it's also in English. And here’s the show (film), L’Arbre Murmure.

About François Jacquet

François Jacquet, is the second violin of the Quatuor Annesci, a quartet that reveals harmony. The Quatuor Annesci has been in existence for over 30 years and has worked with 600 companies, in 23 different countries. Along with the Quatuor Annesci, François was awarded the Yehudi Menuhin Foundation premier prize for chamber music dedicated to Mozart. This Quatuor Annesci ensemble is a major reference in terms of Music Management - a message that the world really needs today to help us better understand how we interact with one another, to learn to agree with ourselves and with others with more ease and self-confidence.

I met Hervé Franceschi, a fellow speaker, over a decade ago. He’s a fascinating individual, having competed at the highest levels of water polo, and who has spent his life talking with nature and helping teams to get grounded, for individuals to rediscover the power of intuition, and how to create harmony and balance in one’s life, both personally and professionally. He wrote the book (en français), “The 4 Seasons for Finding Your Place in this World.” I’ll be publishing the audio version of the interview on my French-speaking podcast here, in the near future. I think you’ll find his words both soothing and inspiring.

Minter Dial (interviewer)

Hello Hervé Franceschi. Nice to have you on my show again. As you know, I'm writing a book about conversation and I'm trying to find deep conversations that move minds; and I'm particularly looking for points of view and styles of conversation that I don't know about. And you, Hervé, are just that expert and I'm happy to have you talk about them. Tell us a bit about the styles of work you do where the conversation is central.

Hervé Franceschi

So, conversation or dialogue? Because maybe sometimes it's a dialogue more than a conversation. I would say that if we talk about the human world in which we are in conversation, I have learned to be in dialogue or in conversation with myself. This seems simple to all of us. But, in fact, I realized that the vast majority of people are not in conversation with themselves. That is to say that they are not in contact with themselves, deeply. As I myself have been for years. However, it is something that is not taught in our schools, which is not taught in terms of education. My parents didn't teach me that. And it's a long journey to learn how to be in touch with yourself. It is something we will often find in ancient texts or with people who have worked on their relationship with spirituality… through religions or even through a non-religion, we can say. But it was often that spirit that made people realize that there was an inner space. We also find that -- we had talked about that, it seems to me, once together -- but also people who have been prisoners, people who have been deprived of freedom and who have been isolated, entrenched within themselves because in fact there was no more external dialogue. There was no longer any relationship with others or, sometimes, it was with great difficulty with their jailers. As a result, there was only an internal relationship or a relationship with what everyone will call God or something of that order. This type of situation makes it possible to become aware that there is something which is also expressed inside. And then afterwards, there are people who do that naturally; we call it the dialogue with an angel. There are people who have or receive conversations, like a kind of channeling and who are in dialogue with something external to them and internal to themselves. But it's not the mind that speaks, it's another part inside me that speaks. But that's already a type of dialogue that can be enriching. I don't know exactly what term I should use. I would use the word “astonishing.” I find it more than amazing. It is marvelous to realize that in fact we are not alone. Without explaining exactly what this external or internal presence to me is. And to realize that in fact, in this interior, there is an infinite calm. In this interior, there are like the wide-open spaces that are in the painting behind me, which are in the hills of southern Utah in the United States, there is a space that seems infinite. And when you're in touch with that interior, that's when you say, “Wow." In fact, I should spend more time in my interior and that, for having accompanied people in the desert for a set of years, there is something about this place, in the desert. Either we get lost in the exterior-interior sense. We are lost. We are not comfortable in this immensity. Or, on the contrary, it is reassuring. Because, ultimately, we are in contact with the deafest part. So far, I haven't woken him up. By deaf, I mean that we have to re-educate ourselves because in fact we don't hear the signals. They are weak, and we tend to listen to the strong signals, not the weak signals. And at the same time, I developed an ability to have a dialogue with beings that are in large numbers on this planet, in greater numbers than us: the trees. They are at a lower frequency (four hertz) than ours. This is the frequency that is necessary for the sap to rise and fall. And in that frequency, it roughly matches the frequency of your brain when you're meditating (that is, if you're meditating). And people often tell me: “I don't know how to meditate, Hervé.” But I say you don't need to. In fact, the trees will teach you how to do it. And when we take the time to be in dialogue with a tree, even if at the beginning we look and say, “Yeah, your thing is weird, it's a bit crazy!”, we will realize that this low frequency will calm the brain as in a process of meditation. And I will be able to be in contact precisely with something that is diaphanous, more subtle. And I can be with this inner frequency where these two beings, the tree and the man, can hear each other. And that's the first word that I would use before the word “dialogue.” It is that we can HEAR. So, by hearing, I don't mean a conversation with words. But, in fact, I hear it. If I try to put words to explain what this type of dialogue says, it would be a kind of vibration that I transcribe into words, because deep down, I hear many words, but these are words that I hear in my head. You could say it's something like a dialogue between souls. Is it something like that or not? I have no certainty. These are words that we use to try to explain it. But –it's not just me, because I've taught it to hundreds of people – what I see is that not all of these people are crazy in the same way; and they all hear something comparable. Or, often, I hear for them. So, if they don't know, I tell them “I'm just giving you a hint,” or something like that. But, really, I didn't dare mention it as it seemed crazy to me that they had not yet heard what is coming. But, in fact, it does come. So, the difference between the trees and us is really the flow. The plant world is in "slow cook" mode. While we are doing everything like fast food. The buffet. And they do everything slowly. Everything is at a slow pace. Everything takes time. And the more I have an old tree, the more there is a kind of cavernous, slow voice, which comes out of the depths, but which is powerful. You feel good. Wow! It is as if you have shaken yourself. You see everything, your whole being vibrates. The younger the tree, the ‘faster’ it is. But it's not very fast anyway. So that means that, if I inhabit my thoughts, I am too present in my thought and, in fact, I cannot hear because I am already making an interior noise. You're still making a background noise. And that's how the majority of humans listen. That is to say, they don't hear, or they don't really listen. In many conversations that I have with people, I see that they are already thinking about what I have just said to them. That is to say, as soon as I put forward an idea, it goes away. And they are elsewhere, not present with what I am saying.

To be present, it is a form of hypnosis. That is to say that, in fact, people are magnetized by what you say and, there, they listen fully and completely. And fortunately, there are people who really know how to listen. But I would say that a lot of people -- and especially the world of work -- are restless. They have a restless mind. And so, in this busy mind, it's hard to make room for listening. People operate with cognitive or confirmation biases. I listen to something that I expect you to tell me (or that I don't know), but I listen to you and then cut you off, “It's okay now, I know.” In fact, he doesn't listen to the end of the sentence. That's very common. I don’t say it's everyone, but it is very common. And then it's also maintained by the system which is only on fast mode and that believes that the answer must be fast. In school, we credit people who are quick to respond, and we think that people who are slow are stupid. But no, it's just that they analyze more, or they listen. And so, as we haven't valued that, for a lot of people, they try to be something other than what they are. That is, they fail to listen. But we are all capable of listening. I don't believe for two seconds that humans aren't capable of listening. We have two ears, one mouth. One should be able to hear, to get there. Yet, all the same, I can clearly see that, for many people, it is an effort to relearn how to listen, to say nothing, not to comment. Maybe they make sounds, such as a Mm-hmm or Uh-huh. Or they might ask a question because they didn't understand. Well, when you're really listening fully, that never happens. I never make a tree repeat. I never make a client repeat when I listen to him/her. Never. Because deep down: I hear. And then it echoes. And the only times I ever ask a question – and it's not the same thing -- is when the person's thinking isn't necessarily clear. But that doesn't happen with animals. That doesn't happen with trees. Things are clear. Then I understand them, I hear them. And there is always a part of us that would like to do. For example, I can see that when I take people for walks in the forest, especially with the trees. Little by little, they develop this sense. At the beginning, we start by developing our senses, our five senses. In a forest, there are smells. In a forest, there are colors that change according to the sun and according to the shadows and, thus, according to that, the trees are not the same according to their response to the sun. It is not the same type or size of tree that will grow. Same for the ferns. Now, everything -- from the moss on the ground to the canopy above -- is interacting; and depending on the light and the sun, there is a kind of hierarchy that takes place in this environment. Just by listening to or looking at all this, people start to realize that things are not as they initially appeared. They become aware of what could be called an energy of places. And that it's inhabited and it's not inanimate pieces of wood like chairs or tables. Little by little, in this space, they become aware also by touch, for example, that when they look at a tree, they think that this tree is rough. And finally, it is sweet. One may think it's very hard. Then finally, it’s supple. And so little by little, our senses begin to develop, and we realize that the sense of sight doesn’t have the sole truth. And so, we open up the other senses. We become more alert and, therefore, more attentive to what is to come. And little by little, when you take this path, in just half an hour, the vast majority of people are already able to find a tree with which they can have a conversation. For those who can't, I suggest a particular tree, and so on, depending on how I feel about the person and the tree. It's as if the tree was calling me. I don't know how to explain it otherwise.

If I want to go back to the genesis of that, I think that since I was a child, my parents took me to the Parc de Sceaux in the south of Paris. There is a big park and there are big trees. And I remember that I went up in the trees. I put myself in the branches without wanting to climb all the way up. You know, there are children who like to climb. Me, I just liked being in the tree. Finding a space where I can be and stay. And I hugged trees without knowing what it could bring me. Because I liked it, because I felt attracted to it. I didn't hear anything at the time. I didn't know what it gave me, except that I had a desire or a drive to go and I did it every time we went out. And then in my adolescence, I was more self-conscious and paid attention to what others were watching. So, I was less comfortable with this process. And I stopped doing it. A little later, when I was a young adult, around 18 years old, I realized that I missed it. So, on two or three occasions when I was in a park, I did it again. And, I found that I liked it, especially when my emotions were less calm. The emotional register was calmed thanks to these walks in the forests, something that today is well-known. This is a benefit that you can verify for yourself. It's even a science in Japan that is widely used, but at the time I had no perspective on this matter. I was going through this without being aware of any precedence. And I didn't tell anyone else about it. Then one day, I was in a competition in the summer at the French championships with my trainer. It was in Vichy, I remember very well. And opposite, there is a large park. It's the thermal park of Vichy which became Club Med, I believe. And I get out of the pool.

You can imagine me with big flip-flops and a bathrobe, and he asks me, “Hervé, how do you manage to be so calm? They're all excited, but you're calm. Really. And calm in the sense as if you went to take a nap; as if nothing happened, while you were swimming.”

“Well,” I reply, "I actually hug trees!"

And I hear myself say that. Until now, I believe that I had not said it to anyone. I didn’t feel strong enough to say it. I’d have slinked away if someone had told me: “No, of course, not! That's bullshit!”

But, this time, with my trainer, I said to him, “If you want, I will show you.”

So, we go to this park. Here’s this guy in flip-flops and a bathrobe crossing the road and going into the park and there were beautiful trees in front. And he goes straight to a tree and I say to him, “Not that one, it's not for you.”

And there he asks me why?

But me, I know that this tree is sick and that it is not for him. But that's when I realized that there is this dialogue that exists. That I didn't put words to it. I just knew, in the sense that it's like there's an inner voice, a smell, a feeling. I didn't know how to explain it at the time.

He asks me, “Which one?”

This gentleman had never asked himself such a question. He was a man of action. And so here I am, pointing.

"What do I have to do?” he asks me.

I actually show him and both of us found their tree. We're not far from each other, and we stay about five minutes.

He said, “You're right, it feels good.”

And that's when I thought maybe I should start to talk about it. But, before that day, it was still a personal matter between me and me, my intimate secret. But to a degree, it wasn't even a secret because I wasn't even aware that I could have talked about it. You see, it's not something where you tell yourself that you mustn’t say it. I had almost forgotten how I did what I did. It's like when you're unconsciously competent, you don't know what you're doing anymore. I was not able to explain it. I was not able to understand what I was doing. And at that moment I realized that maybe I could help other people. So, I redeveloped it for myself. Then as if by chance, life led me to help people who were interested in that. Once, I remember, a woman offered me to go for a walk in a big forest.

And I thought, "Here, I'm going to tell him a little about the trees.”

She asks me, "How do you know all this?"

“Because they tell me.”

"How are they telling you?"

"Well, I don't know how to explain it to you!"

And now I am going to tell you about another experience I had. I was with a group. I remember very well that it was near Nantes. It was a training in a very large property and there were big trees. I arrive in this wood which is behind the mansion. And I spoke to the trees... I felt like they were my cousins. Really, it was like the feeling of finding a family. It was weird, but really, that was the feeling I got. And since I know how forests work in terms of energy, when I got home, I think I did something like ask for permission, just as you might knock on someone's door before you go in. And the second I did that, squirrels started showing up, two squirrels going up and down. Oh, maybe it's just a coincidence, I thought. Just after, I have a doe that shows up. And a doe doesn't sidle up to you every day. You might see one, but she doesn't come up to you. This time, she came towards me, almost as if she wanted me to caress her. So, I said to myself that, after all, it must be domesticated. Then I talked to the owner about it, and he said that they didn’t own any deer. There you start to doubt yourself. Was it really a doe? Yes, I remember well, because I didn't touch her because I didn't dare to. But she was really a meter away from me, not at the edge of the woods as one might expect.

He said to me “Yes, it is possible as there is a forest behind us. But no, I don't have a doe of my own. I don't have a doe on these grounds.”

And, little by little, as I’m hanging out in this wood, I have an experience, that I would say, of meeting a family again. My family. And I felt that I had a dialogue. It was like “Ah, welcome! Come on! We are happy to see you again.”

If I do it really fast, that's all it was. Of course, there's a part of you, if you're not comfortable with what you can hear like that, you say to yourself that you’re crazy. Or else you tell yourself a story. Often, before telling ourselves that we are crazy, we produce a film in our heads. If you don't know how to listen to the inside, this dialogue is incomprehensible. But I gradually learned to embrace it… At the start, it was incongruous, embarrassing. I was wondering if I'm making it all up. Am I a mythomaniac? I had to experience this inner journey before coming to accept what I was going through. My judge, my inner critic, took me through many stages.

Subscribe now

Minter Dial

In what you recounted, I was pondering how much this inner dialogue with the trees allowed you to know yourself? Because in fact, at the beginning, I had the impression that they were other people's voices. And is it a matter of becoming one with that other voice that brings you to know who you are? And the second part of my question is when you have cues like that, can you put meaning into it (actively) or does the meaning have to come to you (passively)? Take the example of when you have dreams (and sometimes we remember them or not depending on the person), Was this dream important? Did it dictate a premonition of something, or did it raise an unconscious issue that I hadn't wanted to address in real life … or not? And how do you judge these conversations or these dreams?

Hervé Franceschi

So, when it comes to dreams, I'm not a dream specialist. I read Bruno Bettelheim, and I became interested in dreams to try to interpret them. But you see, they’re just an interpretation. That would be obvious to some people. But to me, these are just guesses or interpretations. The dialogues [with the trees] are clearer to me. It's exactly like I'm talking to you here. So, afterwards, we could ask ourselves the question: “What did Minter want to tell me?” But, in fact, I don't have that feeling because, to hear, you have to be very calm, so I'm not agitated. The dream, on the other hand, can agitate me. And can make me believe something because I have cognitive biases. I say to myself, “Yes, with what I experienced yesterday, I was angry, or I was sad, or I'm fine at the moment and, so, I get up…”. Anyway, I'm making interpretations. With the trees, it is not an interpretation, it is not a supposition. There is something very quiet inside. And in that inner stillness, you hear. I often say that it is when you empty your interior that it can resonate. A bit like in a large space in which your voice thunders. Because there is nothing. And it bounces off the walls. But filled with stuff, this room or this space, in fact, there is no echo, or much less. And that's pretty much it. It's that in fact, there is no longer any echo, there is no longer any resonance, and it is rather a phenomenon of resonance. That is to say, what is said resonates -- as with relevance -- and therefore the meaning is quite obvious. I think that, at times, the people I have accompanied, I can clearly see that they have trouble hearing or accepting that they have heard. But those who accept – and sometimes it happens in the first session – well, basically, they say to me, “It's okay, I have an answer. It's clear!”

There is no questioning. I just wanted to come back to the fact that this is not an interpretation.

And the second question was whether I should be at one with the interior. I would say to you that in fact I think that we are multifaceted, and that we have an interior source. It is to reconnect with this interior source. We are already one by nature. You see, it's just that we're more like a puzzle, at times a little discontinuous, with maybe a few misplaced pieces. But, in fact, we are one, as we are a whole; as we are one with regard to nature. But as we have separated from each other, we seek more what differentiates us than what brings us together. That doesn't mean that differentiating ourselves isn't important. Of course, we are each a cell of a larger body. Inside me, each of my cells make up my body. But for me, we are part of a larger body. Not in the physical sense of the term as we understand it, but in the sense that we are all connected. And there are plenty of experiences to show that we're all connected, but we just need to be reminded. That we live in a very materialistic world that forgets that in terms of who we are -- you and me -- we're not just a body. We are not just thoughts. And like that we are less able to define it well and it is often a pattern of beliefs that will define it. It is a pattern of beliefs against another pattern of beliefs. The goal is not that I impose on you or that I offer you my choice of belief, rather I am in the process of proposing a path, to tell you “Here! Go explore and see what you find.” And I'd be surprised if you didn't find anything.

Minter Dial

And in this dialogue then, the one who is you, how much do you measure or evaluate your level of self-awareness?

Share

Hervé Franceschi

I would say that when I am in this state, I think I am connected to my consciousness. But the big difficulty is to stay that way! It's that as soon as you go into your thoughts, you're not connected to the rest of your body. It’s pretty hard. So, it's about calming your mind! It doesn't mean not to think, but it does mean calming down one's thoughts. There are plenty of techniques. Breathing is the most powerful or the fastest, but there are others. Meditation is another, which often still involves breathing or at least managing your breathing, to move into conscious breathing. And the conscience in fact will express itself in many cases, but as soon as we are in difficulty, one needs a system. For having done it myself, I created my own technique, with a constellation system, like systemic constellations. Well, it is possible to be conscious of one’s non-consciousness. When you’re in difficulty, there is no longer a pilot. There is no longer the awareness. There is no more decision making. And that's why it's difficult for me. It's because it's like we’ve abandoned ship. And in fact, it's just that other things speak, instead of our consciousness.

Minter Dial

Listening to you, I have the impression that, if I think, then I am distancing myself from myself! Contrary to what Descartes had said, from the moment I am in the process of thinking, I move away from this deeper consciousness?

Hervé Franceschi

So, reflection is useful in the analytic process. Reflection (i.e. thought) is useful because it allows me to progress. However, it often takes me away from my interior. That's what I'm saying. I am not saying that it is not possible to think. But often, having lived it, because I tend to think a lot (it's my way of working), I'm more in a reflective mode that can be intellectual or conceptual. And as a result, I learned to calm that down because when you do that, it's kind of like a virtual world; one can nourish oneself or believe in all one's beliefs. And, in fact, we reassure ourselves with this system of thought, but which is not in contact with the whole of myself. And partly, when we do that, it's because we're scared. We are afraid of being wrong. That's why we think a lot. We are afraid of not knowing. We are afraid to be in contact with our emotions. And the fears are many. When I tell you that, it's hundreds of fears that we experience at the same time. But we are not aware of it. There aren’t always a hundred, but often more than two [fears], and I often say they come in a string. The first comes and ropes in another. So, in fact, you only have to adjust the first one and that will be enough. But there are twenty-five more attacking you. So, that's why when you talk to people, there are objections upon objections. Because it's fear. When there is an objection, it is that you have reflected. It is the same thing. But when there are objections upon objections, it means that after a while, we are locked into a system – which is not rational – but in fact for the person, will be rationalized. For almost all humans, it just means the need for control. And control always comes from fear, no exceptions.

Minter Dial

I have another thought running through my mind. Because, in listening to you, if I am listening, instead of thinking about what I am going to ask you as the following question, whether it is a conversation with you here or with a tree, there is mental recording of what is said. And, in that moment, the tree speaks to me of a guide of how I should lead my life. And retaining that element, raising awareness or explaining what I heard, requires effort. And at that time, I have to use part of me, in my brain, to collect it. I think of the same thing in relation to dreams, or in relation to my psychedelic experiences, where there is a thought that comes up and I want to capture it. And at the very moment I am trying to capture this thought, I distance myself from myself?

Hervé Franceschi

So, here we must explore the differences in short-term, medium-term, and long-term memory. Long-term memory is what is generally called memory: remembering one's memories. Short-term memory is used when you and I speak. We listen and follow each other, because there is a logical pursuit of a common subject. This is what makes it possible to capture what’s just happened. The medium-term memory related to what you were just saying. That's why if I speak continuously, if I had a natural flow, you would understand everything. But you wouldn't be able to remember because you’re going to miss what I just did: this stop signal and that you answered me. And then, boom. The medium-term memory starts working and you record it. So, it's as if you emptied your computer buffer and all of a sudden it goes in and, there, it goes in very quickly. To deal with what you just heard, you might then ask them a question. And it goes very quickly. I don't know how to measure it but it's a second or two. And, so, in that time, each of us can analyze, without going into a reflection phase. A reflection is really is acknowledging what was said. There is a reflexive process which comes back to my interior. So, reflection or thinking is not negative if it includes the body. Often, however, it includes only the mind. That is to say, I forget all the sensations. I actually forget that memory also picked up the sound of my voice. And what it does to you. It may be captured by sight if I ever showed something during the experience. If you visualized something when I spoke to you, does it echo? I can describe something you've never experienced, which thus isn't a memory for you, but if I describe it, you see a picture. That's a way to memorize. All of that goes back to your memory at that moment and, in any case, to your unconscious at least, if it's not all in the conscious. And if ever at some point you wanted to go and look up everything that was exchanged in this conversation for you, you would find all that you produced in return for the words that I said. And that's not cutting you out. It's a back and forth, if you will. And in these round trips, you are not cut off. For me, the most obvious thing in a conversation with horses or with the animals is that I was able to experience that. They have a connection. They are in what we would call the energy of the heart. What humans are all capable of doing, but because we spend too much time in the head, we are not connected enough, that is to say in relation, simply connected. And that is why, in fact, we forget that we are one. Otherwise, we would naturally be in this relationship. And, so, with horses, you can see right away that they feel you, they perceive you and they perceive your heartbeat. They constantly adapt to you. They are a mirror of what you live, not what you do, what you are; and the animal constantly adapts to that. Thus, it's a way to check if I am in phase with what I'm doing. It's the horse that produces this sensation; or is what I'm doing here with the horse, does it come from me? And, in fact, sometimes we don't really know and so I say every time I teach this to people -- especially through the practice of coaching – I say: Stop! Let it all go! At the beginning, it's hard to let go. I don't know what I am letting go of. In fact, the majority of people don't understand that they are putting pressure on the animal because they want to succeed in an exercise. This pressure, which is mental on the body, does not release it. And once I give them the technique, for example to squat, to look at the ground, to breathe and to be in its interior, to seek this return inward, at that moment, within a second, I give space to the horse, and then the horse will come and stand next to me. And this when I couldn't have a proper human relationship. It means that in the relationship, I took up too much space. I am on top of the other, instead of leaving her space. And so, in the human it is the same. Often, it's when we don't leave enough space for one other, you can't inhabit the relationship. I took up all the place in the relationship.

It's a bit like when I’m wanting to shake your hand, but you’ve kept it in your pocket. Maybe I wouldn't reach out for your hand if it’s in your pocket? I wouldn’t pull it out to shake your hand because that would be excessive. But do I go all the way? Or do I venture 90% of the trip? 80%? 50%? What percentage? If I just kept my hand in my pocket to make you understand that I want to shake your hand, that would be really complicated. You would say to me that you didn't understand because there was no way to know (or else you really have to read my head, my thoughts) that I intended to do it. But when you're connected, that's why you can often finish someone's sentence. When you start a sentence, I finish it because we are so connected to the common field of thinking like an egregore in which we have access to a magnetic field of ideas or thoughts that we both feel. And it's like we're walking a common path, you and me. In those relationships, when you're very close because you're in a heart relationship, a lot of things can happen. But you see there we are adjusting the heart and head. In fact, what is powerful is to reconnect from the belly, from the guts, from the heart and from the head. If I do that, this alignment produces a form of grounding anchor. And it is this anchor that reminds us that we are earthlings. Otherwise we are aerialists. In fact, we are in our mind. We are not really connected to the ground and for many humans, they would love to be birds. They would all like to fly. I, too, would like to fly. I can’t say I wouldn't like it. But still, we are earthlings. We're on the ground and that's what all the animals will remind you of. They are connected to the ground. Their four legs are connected to the ground. Finally, it doesn't matter, whether they have two or four legs on the ground. They are really connected. They have an energy of the earth and we find it when we let go of our synthetic shoes, when we put our bare feet back in the earth. The more time we spend in contact with the ground, the more we become part of the earth. And we use energy from the earth because there's magnetic energy, electromagnetic energy, electrical energy, all of that, that's what we're also made of. Not just carbon and oxygen. There are all these energies that pass through us and if we are well centered, the grounding already works. Otherwise I see a lot of people, they complain of electrostatic shocks, but it's because they are too much in their thoughts and bringing too much friction.

Subscribe now

Minter Dial

So, in this reconnection with the earth, the connection the animals have with the earth, where I am listening, what I believe is a problem in the world, too, is a great fear of death.

Hervé Franceschi

Of course.

Minter Dial

And what's funny is that, from what I understand, this connection with the earth for the animal is not attached to an awareness of its death. For humans, we think about our death. We are aware of this act. And, thus, comes an existential fear which is not a fear that animals harbor. They are more grounded. So, I think they’re more connected to their mortality.

Hervé Franceschi

You could say it the other way around. You could say that they are more connected at birth, too. But I would say that, in the spirit already, they are in the present time. And we're not very good at that. I don't meet every day with first peoples. I've met a few of them, but I don't have enough experience to tell you that they are still connected to the present, but those who live in what I would call the western world or in metropolitan cities (even in the countryside) in this century, people find it difficult to live in the present moment. That does not mean that they do not live in the present moment at all, but it’s not enough. Quickly, they are on new plans, busy in the activity of designing the future. And they forget to live in the present. If I take the time to imagine what I could be doing this summer, it's like pushing my mind, my body, into this summer. I can imagine myself at my country house. What would I like to do there? If I spend this time in my head doing that, I'm removed from my present. You have to do it at times, it's just projecting and preparing; and then I come back to the present and see what it asks of me today. Maybe I must plan something. This is in the present moment. What can I do now? What can I live? There is the problem of doing in the present. That is to say, only with an awareness of the present. There are many people doing things, e.g. eating. But, while they’re eating, they are thinking of something else. They don't eat properly. I don't know what they do, besides the fact that they chew. Everything is mechanical. So, there is no consciousness.

And it happens to me because I'm gourmand; or when I'm affected emotionally, I can see that I've eaten. Yet, I don't know what I ate. For example, if you brought me wine, I can drink three glasses of wine; but I won't realize it until all of a sudden, I will feel like I've had a little too much to drink. Nevertheless, I saw it well and mechanically finished these 3 glasses of wine. I ate well. But in fact, I ate so quickly without consciousness, that I don't know what I ate. That's it, and so that's one of the great paradigms, with the big change that would be necessary to bring into our lives -- to come back to our beginnings -- because I think the child lives in the present moment. So, we knew how to do it. Each of us has been present as a child. And then there are times, fortunately, we are present to what we are experiencing. But all the same, for example, I thought that when we went to the cinema, we were magnetized. I only watched the film. But I can clearly see that today there are people at the cinema who are, at the same time, on their telephone. They are doing something else while watching the film at the same time. Therefore, more and more, we see that we are going towards a fast-paced world in which we try to do hundreds of things at the same time. And I know that is not efficient, not effective. That for having done it at a high level of sport, I can see how much I am capable of doing a lot of things at the same time. But what if it demanded my attention? I have to do one thing over and over because that's what I have to do. It's simple. I often ask people who say they want to take care of their children when they come home from work in the evening: Do you really play with the kids or are you still at the office, while nominally playing with your kids? It's what people think they are thinking: I am play make-believe horses or Monopoly; but deep down I'm actually still in the office. Thinking, for example, about the status of an upcoming meeting. So, are we really present to what we do when we do it? Meanwhile, all the animals, all the trees, everything that lives on this earth is present. At the present time. For them, there is no lag and that, too, is soothing when you take the time for it. It's calming. The plant world is associated with the world of trees is much more evolved than us humans. There is a wisdom that we don't go looking for. It is more evolved, more mature, because it has existed for much longer. In comparison, I think we're just teenagers or kids. It's 450,000,000 versus 450,000 years. We have lived for days when they lived for years. There is just a difference in evolution; and in our evolution, we are still in the infancy of our species, even if we feel that we dominate everything and know everything. But we only have one head, when the trees have hundreds or even thousands! When we get our heads cut off, it's complicated. If we cut a root, the tree’s going to continue. For them, there are plenty of ways to continue to live. There is a collective intelligence which develops through this root system. From tree to tree, the roots nourish each other. By reproducing, through a sort of permanent regeneration, they can live to be around 16,000 years old. It's hard for us to live 120 years. Ferns, you set fire to them, they are reborn, like the Phoenix. We would dream of being like that. This is not our reality. All that to say that there is a lot more intelligence in this system than we think.

Share

But for the moment, since the tree does not speak in the same way as us, we ignore it because we only measure the size of the brain to measure intelligence. While the horse has a brain that is not that small, in any case in terms of neocortex, it is very weak, and the prefrontal cortex is almost non-existent. As a result, we deem the animal as dumb. But emotionally, he is our master. And he knows things better than we do emotionally and knows how to handle them better because that's how he survived. In his process of evolution, he had to work harder than us. Because it's prey, it had to figure out how to survive. We worked on other things, that is to say the relationship process, because we couldn't have survived without having group tactics, either to hunt, defend or attack. As a result, we developed other things, but we’ve reached a stage now and I don't know how we’ll evolve and if we will manage to make this planet liveable 200,000 years from now. That’s just half the amount of time animals have been around, from the beginning of the first primates, which was 450,000 years ago. I don't know if we will be nor how we will be. I have no idea; but what I do know is that we are in a process of evolution which is still young and that we do not have the maturity. Consequently, one should be interested in the wisdom of the world as Kipling, Hugo or Goethe said… many great writers who have looked closely at nature have all said the same thing: it is an open book. Just read: it's in front of us!

Minter Dial

That’s awesome. I have two questions before I close. The first is in relation to the semantics of this dialogue because I don't know how much you can direct the conversation. Is it your obligation to merely receive this wisdom? Or you can go out there and say you have a specific problem to deal with?

Hervé Franceschi

So, yes, I ask questions. I created a protocol for me. But maybe there is no need for this protocol. I am the one using it. It is about welcoming each other. So, for example, if we talk about trees, how do I come into contact with trees? I look at the canopy, the external branches and I stay clear of the tree so as not to be in its energy before starting. And when I arrive at the edge of this energy, already in equilibrium, if I listen to myself, I will see that the energy is changing. It's so impressive. Sometimes, I move forward toward the tree and all of a sudden, I hear sounds that I didn't before. Or on the contrary, when before there were a lot of birds, there I no longer hear anything. And yet I advanced just a meter. The sound should spread. It's as if we were in a bubble, in a field of energy. And like when I come into your energy or I’m in mine, if we're in an intimacy, we feel it with the other, we enter into the field of the other. Yet, people pass under trees and don't listen, don't feel. But if I take the time, much is already happening, so the protocol is to take the time. I take the time to meet this individual. It’s an individual of a class tree, just like I am individual, of the human class. And in this meeting, I take the time to move forward and ideally, I took the time to ask myself the question that I want to ask him. And when I'm going to get closer to the tree, I'm going to find a place that's convenient for me to either hug or lean back or sit; because if it's uncomfortable, usually your thinking is uncomfortable with it. If you don’t have stability, there is no stability in what you are going to say because in fact you are already thinking of moving places because you are not well. So, I look for a place that has a form of stability. I don't have to stay 3 hours. It might be just 1/4 hour, 5 minutes, an hour or more. And so, when I am in this space, the first thing I do is that I consider that it is up to me to give first. What am I going to want to ask? And if I don't know what to do, I always suggest giving some love. There you go, feel love and give it to them. Because it always works. It is a possible conversation with all animals, with everything that lives on this earth. Love works. Everyone needs love. I don't know how to say otherwise, it's an energy that works. It's an energy of natural dialogue and, therefore, it's a kind of introduction. And so when I do that, then I hear this response, and even sometimes when I want to be sure to propose what is needed, I go so far as to ask the tree the question by saying: “What do you have need?” Because there's a part of me -- I've been doing this for years, too – I’ve been caring for trees, healing them. Become aware that sometimes they need energy and, perhaps, the place where they are does not allow them to recover the energy. And we, as we’re mobile, we can connect to other things. Me, I can connect to several trees at the same time and contribute something to another. So, it's possible to function like that, as in a process that I'll call medicine or care. Love is already a form of care in the absolute. Sometimes, I listen to the tree and I hear. I feel what is his request. And then I may have a question and that question could be as simple as an entrepreneur’s question, such as: “I can't make up my mind about this or that, so what should I do?” There, we have a form of dilemma and I'm going to get a response that is not the answer to the dilemma of the day. It won’t be answer A versus answer B. But, perhaps, the answer could be, “To make a decision, center yourself!” If what you hear echoes -- and often it does – the tree is telling me that if I don't know how to center myself, it noticed that. It doesn't answer that way each time, mind you, because that would be a systematic answer. I’ve noticed that for people who don't know how to center themselves, the tree won't respond so directly. He will answer something like: sit down! Or: do what's right first. Of course, it could be a another type of sentence and there, the person tells me that it was clear. I’ve heard statements such as, “Yes, what is right? I know what is right. Because I was at an impasse in terms of thinking, and that was an answer that led me to break the impasse or to realize that I was at an impasse.” And, so, I use questioning. If the question is not clear, then it is normal that your answer is not clear. It's because you actually don't have a question, but that's why I always tell people: just clarify your question! Is that really the question you want? You must accept that if you asked the wrong question that the answer does not suit you. Or if the answer's not clear, it's because maybe your question isn't clear. Refine your question, and when you do so, the answer almost always comes. The rare times when I found that the response for someone was not clear -- including when I, myself, listened less well -- it was because I could clearly see that the person did not know where he was, that there was preliminary work to be done before, which was listening to oneself. Because they weren't the right questions, the answer might have been obvious to the person, saying "I already knew that. I didn't learn anything." Or it's because, in fact, I think they weren't really connected to themselves at that time.

Minter Dial

In everything you say I'm thinking of an experience I had with a bot that was empathic. That bot was mine for 5 days. And what's interesting is that as the experience progressed, I realized that I could ask whatever question. And when you have the opportunity to ask any question, how do you do it? Because actually you can ask silly questions, you can ask basic questions. But do you have in mind the real question? Today, and for well over the past 20 years, Google exists for that! For a long time, we have always been able to ask this question, but the way you phrase it makes me think how much we know about the right question, the right prompt?

Hervé Franceschi

Of course, that's why the answer isn't just semantic. I would say that it is almost existential. That is to say who I am when I speak? Who speaks when I speak? Am I aligned with my emotional register? Are these my thoughts? Or is it the ego talking? You see, there are many facets of me that can be expressed depending on the situation. And so, as soon as I clarify my thoughts, that's why I tell you that the simplest thing, often when I'm with trees or animals, is not to think. It doesn't mean not being present in my cortex, but it does mean it's quiet. And if there was a thought, there is only one! Which authorizes me not to confuse, for example, my will with my intention. Intention comes from the heart; that's what I want to experience with you in the context of our relationship. The will, the desire, is that I want to form a relationship. So, if I entered into a relationship, the will can evaporate since it’s mission accomplished. And the error is to continue with the will because it will take precedence over the intention. And then, afterwards, if ever there’s movement or activity, it's in the stomach. The energy of the belly is an energy that is potentially volcanic. It is creative, sexual energy. It's a huge energy. It’s the energy of anger, obviously, but also the energy of serenity. And when I calm my belly, I am serene, almost unconsciously, instantaneously. And that's the process. For me, the most important thing is to realize that I have internal energies. That I have to learn to tame them at the start. But, at the end of the day, it's not really about taming. It's just an inner dialogue to calm me down. But at first, maybe it's too strong, so there are -- I'm exaggerating if I say coercive – ways to tame, but it can sometimes feel like that because we're not used to it. It is to manage our energies because it’s telling me that the dialogue with myself – and here I come back to the first part of our conversation, where we started – does not exist. I don't have a clear relationship with myself. But often when I teach relational intelligence, the first question I always ask is, what is the relationship you have with yourself? They sometimes come back to me, saying “What? I don't talk to myself. I am not schizophrenic!” But it's not that that I mean! There aren’t 2 people, but inside you there is definitely your spirit that speaks to another part of you, so at some point we listen to each other, or, in fact, we don't. So, why is it that at some point, when I'm being demanding with myself, that's often when and why I'm demanding of others. If I am complacent with myself, presumably, I will be complacent with others as well. And so, whatever it is: just clarify! And maybe if I'm hard on myself, could I be gentle at times? Then, I can create another relationship of my own. That's what I'm talking about when we talk about an inner dialogue or a dialogue with nature. If I am not clear with myself, the sender, in any case what I am sending, often it is the other who will tell me what he has received. But basically, what he has received is already through his own filters. That's not quite what I sent. So here it is, I am responsible, as Jacques Salomé said, for what I say, and I am responsible for what I hear. But in this exchange, everyone can have a transformation just by speaking.

So, there is another dialogue that I wanted to evoke very quickly, which has really surprised me in recent years. It is the dialogues with people who have Alzheimer's. That is to say people who have lost their memory and therefore perhaps the knowledge of who you are when you speak to them. And therefore, they may have forgotten all that we have experienced together. And for me, it's like sitting next to a stranger that I don't know, with whom therefore I don't have this exchange of memories. I will sit next to him on a bench. What if I don't speak? And we just listened to one another, but without speaking. Then, we could end the conversation by saying, "Thank you, I enjoyed this moment!” Both of us. I am reminded of my godmother who has fallen prey to this disease, but who hasn't completely lost her memory. At times she gets lost, and at other times she is present. And so, I just sit next to her. But, when it was the first time that I saw her, I was a little annoyed for her. I didn't know how to behave. So, I just sat next to her. We were outside, quietly, on a bench. We stayed for an hour. I didn't say much. She didn't say much. Maybe we said a sentence or two each, that’s it! And after that, she said, “I loved the conversation we had.” She wasn't mad at all. She knew very well who I was because she told her daughter that evening: “I was happy to be with Hervé.” So, I've already experienced that several times in my life and so we forget that we don’t have to express words in order to talk to each other. That's it!

Minter Dial

Let the silence speak. With that, Hervé: great! I loved it and thank you. I hope everyone listening will be able to take at least a bit of these ideas somewhere else, whether it's with someone close who has Alzheimer’s or it's the next time they’re in a forest, or when they see an animal, let the conversation be beautiful! Thank you, Hervé.

Hervé Franceschi

Thanks Miner. It was a real pleasure too.

About Hervé Franceschi

Hervé Franceschi is a professional speaker (Member of the French Association of Professional Speakers and the Global Speaker Federation), mental trainer and ultimate coach. He offers companies, executives and managers:

- Training workshops to become a speaker and for public speaking
- Lectures or video-conferences on the theme of emotional intelligence, natural leadership and the management of negative emotions (fear, anxiety) as well as positive ones (optimism, benevolence)

He’s an enthusiastic motivational speaker who transmits his teachings with joy and pleasure through memorable coaching, innovative training and inspiring conferences.

Find out more about Hervé here.

In terms of links to know more about Robert Schenck:

• Wikipedia page on Robert Schenck

• The documentary film made by Abigail Disney: The Armor of Light

• The book that Robert Schenck wrote: Costly Grace, An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope and Love

• His website, Revd Robert Schenck (where he blogs)

• The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute

Read more

On the heels of the release of the second and significantly modified version of Heartificial Empathy, Putting Heart into Business and Artificial Intelligence (DigitalProof Press 2023), I see that the subject of AI and empathy is now everywhere. I’m speaking about it this evening to the CFA Society in Stockholm. I recently participated an Empathy Circle (EC) with Edwin Rutsch and Dr Lidewij Niezink, who cofounded the EC concept, along with Dr Shelton Davis, where we examined what’s happening and how we should approach Empathy in AI. You can check it out here.

On Twitter, meanwhile, my customised filter “Empathy & Artificial Intelligence” is constantly populated, filled with people’s mostly negative comments. These tweets often bemoan AI’s encroachment of our humanity or call out as to how humans must adapt and/or protect what makes us different from machines. My main viewpoint is that the genie is out of the bottle and we’re going to have to learn to live with it.

To address the intersection of empathy and artificial intelligence, I called on AI to write the article (eek, I hear from content creators). My human input came in the form of the prompt (below) and an analysis (at the end). I didn’t touch the output.

I gave Google Bard and Open AI ChatGPT the following prompt:

“Write an article of around 1500 words that explores the intersection of empathy and artificial intelligence. How does one encode empathy into AI? The article must include examples of companies that are actively working on making AI more empathic. The article must address the key ethical dilemmas. It should explore the opportunities and dangers of making AI more empathic. What are the most acceptable business models and how can legislators most effectively regulate how empathy is being applied into AI.”

Here’s why Bard won. It immediately gave me three drafts from which to choose, which is quite impressive. You can find links to the drafts below. In none of them did I find any egregious faults or hallucinations as we are wont to read about in the media. Certainly, not all three were equal and it was interesting to see how far apart the styles were. Herewith my first choice from Google Bard:

From Bard - Empathy and AI

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. It is a fundamental human emotion that allows us to connect with others and build relationships. Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming more sophisticated, and there is growing interest in the potential for AI to be used to encode empathy.

Share

There are a number of ways that empathy can be encoded into AI. One approach is to train AI models on large datasets of human conversations. This allows the models to learn how to identify and respond to emotional cues. Another approach is to use reinforcement learning to teach AI models to behave in an empathetic way. This involves rewarding the models for taking actions that are beneficial to others.

There are a number of companies that are actively working on making AI more empathic. One example is Google AI, which has developed a chatbot called LaMDA that is capable of carrying on conversations that are indistinguishable from those with a human. Another example is Affectiva, which develops AI software that can be used to measure and analyze human emotions.

The encoding of empathy into AI raises a number of ethical dilemmas. One concern is that AI could be used to manipulate or exploit people. For example, an AI could be used to target people with advertising that is based on their emotional vulnerabilities. Another concern is that AI could be used to discriminate against people. For example, an AI could be used to make decisions about who gets a job or a loan based on their emotional responses.

Despite the ethical challenges, there are a number of opportunities for AI to be used to promote empathy. For example, AI could be used to provide emotional support to people who are going through difficult times. AI could also be used to help people understand and connect with others from different cultures.

The most acceptable business models for AI-based empathy are those that are transparent and ethical. Companies that develop AI-based empathy products should be clear about how the products work and how they use data. Companies should also be committed to using AI to promote empathy and understanding, not to manipulate or exploit people.

Legislators can most effectively regulate AI-based empathy by setting clear standards for how the technology can be used. These standards should be based on the ethical principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability. Legislators should also work to ensure that there are strong enforcement mechanisms in place to protect people from the misuse of AI-based empathy.

The intersection of empathy and AI is a complex and rapidly evolving field. There are a number of challenges and opportunities that need to be considered as AI becomes more sophisticated. By working together, we can ensure that AI is used to promote empathy and understanding, not to manipulate or exploit people.

Examples of Companies That Are Actively Working on Making AI More Empathetic

• Google AI

• Affectiva

• IBM Watson

• Microsoft

• Amazon

• Facebook

• OpenAI

• DeepMind

• Emotient

• Empatica

Key Ethical Dilemmas

• The potential for AI to be used to manipulate or exploit people

• The potential for AI to be used to discriminate against people

• The lack of transparency and accountability in the development and use of AI

Opportunities and Dangers of Making AI More Empathetic

• Opportunities:

  • AI could be used to provide emotional support to people who are going through difficult times.

  • AI could be used to help people understand and connect with others from different cultures.

  • AI could be used to promote empathy and understanding in society.

• Dangers:

  • AI could be used to manipulate or exploit people.

  • AI could be used to discriminate against people.

  • AI could be used to harm people.

Most Acceptable Business Models

• Transparency: Companies that develop AI-based empathy products should be clear about how the products work and how they use data.

• Fairness: AI-based empathy products should be used in a way that is fair and does not discriminate against people.

• Accountability: Companies that develop AI-based empathy products should be accountable for the way their products are used.

How Legislators Can Most Effectively Regulate How Empathy Is Being Applied into AI

Share

• Set clear standards for how AI can be used.

• Establish strong enforcement mechanisms to protect people from the misuse of AI.

• Work with companies to develop ethical guidelines for the development and use of AI.

My feedback and analysis of the Google Bard’s answers:

For starters, in all 3 drafts, the Bard ignored the 1,500 word count. The 3 articles were between 728 and 825 words. But more isn’t always better, eh? In any event, in this (first) draft above, the fact that it used bold paragraph headings and bullet points to answer several of the points, made the text feel easier to read and follow. In terms of key learnings regarding the prompt, the Google Bard followed the structure of the questions/instructions as they were laid out in my prompt, as opposed to creating its own organisation. This would suggest that the better the prompt is organised, the better the output. As we’ve seen, there is already a new job title cropping up in the form of Prompt Engineer. In all the proposed drafts, I noted that Bard was clearly keen to promote Google products, proof that there is ALWAYS going to be an agenda. As we’ve seen in other cases, the extent to which we, as consumers, understand that agenda/bias within these Large Language Models (LLMs) will be important. What is the agenda and ethical framework underpinning the data curation, machine learning and human interjections (i.e. through Reinforced Learning from Human Feedback)? If we shouldn’t be foolish enough to put our head in the sand about these AI developments, this doesn’t mean we should roll over and let things happen willy-nilly. I support some form of regulation, including making companies render explicit their ethical framework.

In terms of mentioning other initiatives of AI with empathy, the suggested projects and companies were all rather basic. It only proposed a couple of smaller companies, including Empatica, an MIT spin-off, that is a pioneer in offering continuous, passive, and unobtrusive monitoring for patients with neurological conditions. It didn’t talk about other more obvious, if niche, initiatives that are specifically and more deeply involved in the cross-section of AI and empathy, such as Mpathic.AI, Hume.ai and Cyrano.ai.

The worst of the three Bard articles was draft 3, which was both repetitive and disordered. In draft 2, the flow was better (than draft 3) and had a few different points (for example, regarding ChatGPT… a competitor to Bard). While draft 3 did include an essay title, draft 2 had neither a title nor paragraph headings. But the best effort by Bard was in draft 1.

Bard versus ChatGPT

If I compare the Bard with ChatGPT (both with their free versions), the latter provided an answer in 641 words here that was incomplete and thus not very satisfying, nor useable as a standalone. At least, Bard has the good sense to provide a complete answer each time (all 3 drafts). That said, the way ChatGPT formulated some of its paragraphs was quite effective. Specifically, I liked this paragraph:

"Additionally, there are questions about the authenticity of empathy in AI. Can machines genuinely feel and understand human emotions, or are they merely mimicking empathy? Some argue that even if machines can accurately recognize and respond to emotions, they lack the underlying subjective experience that makes empathy truly human. It is crucial to distinguish between simulated empathy and genuine human empathy to avoid creating false expectations and potential harm.”

Overall, I stand by the choice of Bard in this particular exercise. What do you think? Did you learn anything from the article as presented by Bard?

Here are the key takeaways:

My key driving point is that we are going to have learn how to manage these new more powerful AI machines. In every industry, I see opportunities and threats. Basically, I see one of three responses to the way AI is evolving: either, you’re going to be out of a job, need to alter/enhance your expertise(s) and/or learn to work with AI.

(a) In terms of writing your prompt, it’s best to have in mind the logical flow of the paper/article in advance.

(b) Thanks to having three drafts, you can certainly use bits and pieces from them all of them in order to craft a better version using human inputs!

(c) The best output will involve human oversight and inputs, to verify information, and depending on the intention add some spice and value through a touch of personality, a sense of humour or maybe a more esoteric expertise. For example, in the case of this article, I was able to critique and enhance the initiatives that Bard proposed.

What are you thoughts? Scary? Impressive? Blah?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never really been good at setting boundaries in my conversations. I tend to enjoy the peripatetic nature of wide-ranging discussions. More often than not, I end up in the middle of a deep conversation without even knowing it. However, when we engage in conversations about sensitive topics, it’s true that we risk pushing past our own limits and the limits of others. How can we set and maintain boundaries intelligently, without dulling the enjoyment of a vivacious exchange? And what should we do when those boundaries are tested? Whichever boundaries one sets, though, it’s important to underline that boundaries aren’t sufficient by themselves. It takes having the right attitude, attending to your manners and by careful and just in the words you use.

What are your boundaries?

First and foremost, it's important to establish what your “boundaries” are before entering into the conversation. This could mean determining what topics are off-limits, what language is inappropriate, and what behaviors are unacceptable… for you. I must admit that I don’t fully relate to the term of boundaries, as I would tend to focus more on principles. For me, for example, it’s important I don’t feel attacked personally. I don’t like it when something I say is called stupid, i.e. “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.” I don’t appreciate disdain and I assume the same goes for my conversation partner. I also don’t like to be interrupted, and I try not to interrupt. I know I fail in this department at times, but I am ever more committed to listening better and allowing the other person to finish their thoughts. In an ideal world, we might encourage one another to reformulate back what you heard the other say, rather than jump in with your own point of view. Such a practice does the world of good for a solid conversation. In spite of my tendency to enjoy far-reaching “peripatetic” conversations, if I’m engaged in a high intensity conversation, I prefer to stay focused on the singular subject at hand, rather than veering off on tangents and red herrings. Such meandering will render more complex the topic at hand.

Now that I’ve put my ‘limits’ down on paper (above), the trick is taking the time to explain them before the conversation starts. And that’s not obvious unless you’ve purposefully set out to have a specific conversation with a particular individual. Assuming you’ve identified you’re entering into a difficult conversation, once you've established these boundaries for yourself, it's important to communicate them clearly to the other party before the tango (or tangle) begins. The key in setting boundaries is to focus on what your own boundaries are and to hold yourself responsible for how you manage when those boundaries are crossed. After all, that’s the only part that you can control. Most of the time, though, I find myself transported into a heated exchange before I even realize it or have the time to set out the boundaries. This is something I need to work on!

Being intentional

If you intentionally wish to have a contentious discussion with someone, in those cases, you can anticipate it and set out the boundaries in advance. Gaining agreement on those boundaries is not just interesting in terms of ensuring a solid conversation, the process of boundary setting creates a sort of fellowship between the two parties. By posing the question of boundaries, you are demonstrating an intention that is less hostile. Ideally, you both share an interest in each other’s opinions. If there’s no genuine openness to learn, then it’s likely that any boundary setting will have no material benefit in terms of the outcome. In any event, you can’t assume everyone thinks like you. You don't want to start a difficult conversation only to find out that the other party has a vastly different idea of what's acceptable. If you’re going to go down the path of setting boundaries, be clear about what your boundaries are, why they're important, and what the consequences will be if they're not respected. Ask the other person for their input at the outset and try to find common ground where possible.

Manners

As I mentioned above, boundaries alone won’t suffice in successfully holding a difficult conversation. It’s inherent on both parties to maintain respect and show good manners. There’s no reason to be impolite. Being so says much more about oneself, and I suggest one use some introspection to consider why one felt the need to be so. Yes being polite takes effort, but it’s exactly in these types of difficult conversations that mutual civility can help each grow. For example, if you hear a well-stated position or learn something new, you may acknowledge or appreciate your ‘sparring’ partner.

Words and definitions

Another major reason that conversations go awry is because of miscommunication. This can be in the form of a maladroit expression or a misinterpretation. Especially when the subject is contentious, it’s very possible that certain words mean different things to one another. Take the words pragmatic or freedom. Both are inherently positive words, but what stands behind them is invariably different. It’s important to be aware of how certain words need to be defined. In the same vein, there are many words that have been reclassified. Naturally, the nuance will depend on the culture, but it’s key to be aware of how certain words will be heard differently. Take for example the case of someone with a visible disability. It’s now generally regarded as inappropriate to use the word “handicapped.” If someone takes his life, we aren’t supposed to use the term “committed” in conjunction with the act of suicide. Whether these are considered as boundaries or posts in a fence, it’s evident that some people are hyper sensitive while others are more likely to be unaware. Depending on the subject, it thus can become a learning lesson. As a principle, it may be good to define key words that are more abstract. Meanwhile, for a person who is sensitive to certain words, it’s advisable to identify these as soon as they’re spoken.

Overstepping the bounds

If someone steps over a boundary during the conversation, it's important to address it immediately. You don't want to let things escalate to a point where you're no longer able to have a productive conversation. Use phrases like "I'm not comfortable with that language" or "I don't think that's a productive direction for this conversation." By addressing the boundary violation in a clear and respectful way, you're more likely to get the other person to respect your boundaries going forward. In this case, it’s best to frame your point in the first person.

Share

Beyond the pale?

Of course, there may be times when you need to push beyond your boundaries in order to make progress in the conversation. In those cases, it's important to communicate your intentions clearly. Use phrases like "I understand this is a sensitive topic, but I think it's important that we discuss it" or "I'd like to explore this topic a bit further, but I want to make sure we're both comfortable with the direction of the conversation." By acknowledging the potential discomfort and making it clear that you're seeking mutual understanding, you can push past your boundaries in a way that's respectful and productive.

To learn or to lose?

Given the state of our society and the toxicity of so many conversations, setting boundaries can be a useful tool to chart a new path when engaging in difficult discussions. By establishing your own boundaries, gaining agreement from the other party, and addressing boundary violations immediately, you can create an environment where difficult conversations can be had in a respectful and productive manner. The most important piece, though, is having an attitude of legitimate curiosity, where you really are intent on understanding the other person’s perspective, rather than intending to win them over or, worse, beat them up. And when it's necessary to push beyond your boundaries, communicating your intentions clearly can help ensure that you don't inadvertently cause unnecessary upset (or, worse, appear hypocritical). Remember, boundaries are not walls. They're guardrails that help keep the conversation on track and ensure that everyone's needs are being met. In heated exchanges, you must hold yourself responsible for the sanctity of your own boundaries. If you are made aware of the other person’s boundaries, then the charge is on you to respect them. Otherwise, it’s probably better for everyone to disengage. Not all passionate/fiery conversations are worth holding, at least not in the heat of the moment.

Last week, I asked our readership here to provide some advice as to how best to manage an angry or an upset person, knowing that these are two different sentiments. I loved reading the responses (some were sent by mail or on other channels). I put all the words together and came up with a word cloud that clearly identifies that it’s anything but easy. The word “try” came to the fore. You can find most of the verbatim here.

Reader responses

Thanks to Sarah, Charlie, Yendi, Emmanuel, Murphy, John, Dee and Jim.

ChatGPT’s hand

I then went to our newest best friend, ChatGPT and prompted a response to the exact same question. What did ChatGPT come up with? Frankly, I thought it was a very good and contextualized answer. Here is a word cloud first and below you can find the unadulterated text. At the bottom, I will add the five key points that I believe are useful in dealing with an angry person and another four ideas for an upset person.

Herewith, the exchange with ChatGPT in its entirety (verbatim, including the prompt):

Prompt:

What are the best ways to diffuse an angry person or calm someone who is upset. To what extent does the method vary according to the person in front of you? What are some things you shouldn't do?

ChatGPT:

Diffusing an angry person or calming someone who is upset can be a challenging task. However, there are some effective methods that can be used to handle these situations. The method used may vary according to the person in front of you as everyone is unique and may respond differently to different approaches.

Here are some general tips on how to diffuse an angry person or calm someone who is upset:

1. Stay calm: It's important to remain calm and composed yourself. If you get angry or upset, it will only escalate the situation.

2. Listen actively: Listen to what the person is saying and try to understand their perspective. Acknowledge their feelings and show empathy.

3. Show respect: Show the person that you respect them and their feelings, even if you disagree with them.

4. Use non-threatening body language: Use open body language and avoid any aggressive or confrontational gestures.

5. Take a break: If the situation is escalating, it may be helpful to take a break and come back to it later when both parties are calmer.

6. Find a solution: Work together with the person to find a solution that works for both parties.

7. Apologize if necessary: If you have done something to contribute to the person's anger or upset, apologize sincerely.

When it comes to diffusing an angry person or calming someone who is upset, the method used may vary according to the person in front of you. Some people may respond well to a calm and gentle approach, while others may require a more assertive approach. It's important to be flexible and adapt your approach according to the situation.

There are also some things you shouldn't do when trying to calm an angry person, such as:

1. Don't get defensive: Avoid getting defensive or trying to justify your actions. This will only make the person more upset.

2. Don't belittle their feelings: Avoid belittling or dismissing the person's feelings. Even if you don't agree with them, their feelings are valid.

3. Don't use aggressive body language: Avoid using aggressive body language such as crossing your arms or standing too close to the person.

4. Don't escalate the situation: Avoid escalating the situation by getting angry or raising your voice.

5. Don't make promises you can't keep: Avoid making promises that you can't keep. This will only make the person more upset if you fail to deliver.

Overall, diffusing an angry person or calming someone who is upset requires patience, empathy, and good communication skills. By remaining calm, listening actively, showing respect, and finding a solution together, you can help to resolve the situation in a positive way.

For good measure, here’s the combination of reader responses + ChatGPT. As I like to propose, usually the best is when the human being is augmented by AI. Does it work here?

Minter’s two senses

Diffusing an angry person

I must admit that, on reflection, the objective of diffusing an angry person suggests that we ought to take that role. It occurred to me that some anger is appropriate and it may not be aimed at you. For example, the anger one feels in grief (the second stage). And feeling vivid about certain issues may be called for. But, putting that aside, let’s assume you wish to engage in a conversation with someone and that person gets angry. Here are my five thoughts, that merely represent my personal reflections and are, I avow, devoid of scientific study:

1. Check your own emotions. How excited or invested are you in this topic? How important is this topic or person in your life? If you feel yourself being taken in and getting emotional, it’s probably best to check out of the conversation, because with two angry people, it’s hard to imagine how that finishes well. NB If you’ve felt “triggered” yourself, it’s useful to self-assess as to why.

2. Particularly if you wish to keep the relationship, consider the bigger picture and determine if the anger is aimed at you or if it’s contained to the topic at hand. It may be appropriate to acknowledge how this topic has created a strong reaction. If possible, bring the idea that keeping the kinship is more important than the particular subject.

3. Keeping a measured and calm tempo, without coming off as condescending, is vital throughout. If you don’t agree, don’t feel you need to acquiesce. You need to protect your space too. However, try to reformulate what you’re hearing in a way that allows the person a chance to listen and then to continue, perhaps in clarifying your reformulation. The key is to avoid judging.

4. Like many major emotions, there are inevitably other things going on. We’re complex beings. Trying to use calming words like, “Don’t get so angry” work as well as telling someone to fall asleep. As in: not. The overridingly best advice is to listen. And, whenever possible, reformulate what you are hearing, without judgment. Be patient and allow for pauses or silence.

5. Even if it’s an excuse, it can also be good to have a pause, such as getting a drink or going to the loo. If this scene is happening in a public place and/or where others can attend, they might be decent allies for helping to diffuse the situation. If nothing works, it’s best not to pursue. Try to make them feel heard and let them know you care AND that you think it’s best for “us” to take a break.

In summary, when you get angry or you’re dealing with someone who is irate, the healthiest course of action is to figure out why and from where the anger comes. If a specific topic causes anger, there’s good reason to believe there’s something to dig into. And the more anger we express, the harder the unwiring becomes.

Dealing with someone who’s upset

Different from anger, being upset is less spikey in terms of volatility. Someone who’s upset is more obviously in need of being listened to. Naturally, there are all sorts of different situations and contexts, for example, a spouse, a child, a colleague or a stranger… Each comes with different histories and possible responses. All the same, here are my five thoughts when engaging with someone who’s upset.

1. Acknowledge the upset. Again make sure that you are in a good state of mind. Keep your own issues in check and move into a listening mode. Importantly, you’ll want to make sure that you have the time and attention spare. If not done previously, put your gadgets on airplane mode and put your focus on the person in front of you.

2. Listen fully. This mean listening with your eyes, head and ears. Listen and watch out for the upticks in emotions. Reformulate what you’re hearing and the emotions you’re observing. Allow them the time to express and explain.

3. As ChatGPT says it, some upset people may appreciate a more assertive response. I personally find it hard to know what solution is best, but I try to listen to the emotion and think of similar situations I might have had in order better to understand the person’s case. I try hard as possible not to bring up MY situation though. If the similarities are obvious, then it can be useful. But on balance, the focus must remain on the upset person.

4. Dwelling on being upset may be what the person wants, but in due course, I tend to try to make sure to land on something else. Whether it’s another somewhat more uplifting subject or another activity, that’s how I approach it.

These thoughts are not researched or come with any academic background in psychology or anger management. I would like to recommend a couple of interesting books, written by individuals who’ve thought long and hard about these topics:

• How to Listen: Discover the Hidden Key to Better Communication by Oscar Trimboli (he’ll be an upcoming guest on my show)

• When the Body Says No, Understanding the Stress-Disease Connection by Gabor Maté

• Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age by Sherry Turkle

This is an experiment! I’d love to ask you, dear reader, to provide me with your best ideas for diffusing an angry person or calming someone who is upset. To what extent does your method vary according to the person in front of you? Finally, what are some things you shouldn’t do! You can also just like others’ responses if you agree!

Then, next week, I’ll publish your results.

Thanks to drop in your response in the comments. You can also send them by mail to nminterdial AT gmail.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall having many deep conversations in the boardroom. Subjects like branding, ethics, purpose and politics are rarely addressed in the boardroom and, yet, I think they are absolutely strategic on a number of levels. A lot of people seem to be suffering from either tremendous fatigue, frustration or boredom. Hence the huge amount of disengagement at work which has underwritten the famed Great Resignation or the great reset, if not the quiet quitting. It behoves us all to consider more closely what actually matters, to act as if that were the case and bring our whole selves to work in order to engage in more meaningful conversations. It’s not the easy path, but the payoff will be proportionate to the depth of the conversations held in an appropriate manner and at the right times.

In today's fast-paced business world, it is easy to become caught up in the daily grind of tasks, targets and deadlines, leaving little time for meaningful conversations in the workplace. With the current economic slowdown and inflationary pressures, it’s clear that there’s a lot of pressure at work to perform, if not to survive. However, research has shown that engaging in purposeful dialogue can improve workplace relationships, increase productivity, and ultimately lead to better business outcomes. From the research published in 2021 by the American Psychologists Association, Nicholas Epley, PhD, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, reported that “[c]onnecting with others in meaningful ways tends to make people happier, and yet people also seem reluctant to engage in deeper and more meaningful conversation.” People are in search of this connection and are aware of the power of holding more meaty conversations. But whether it’s the reigning culture, a pressure on time or the fear of ‘going too far,’ it’s rare to see executives engaging in real exchanges. But what exactly constitutes a meaningful conversation at work, and why is it so important?

Turning meaningful into meaning-making

Meaningful conversations at work are those that go well beyond small talk or standard business exchanges (such as those around marketing campaigns, sales, logistics or budgets). Essentially, they move away from operational and transactional issues and instead delve into deeper topics related to things like personal development, ethics, politics and purpose. At their core, meaningful conversations result in meaning-making. These discussions can on occasion occur informally between colleagues at the proverbial water cooler or canteen. However, they are generally all too infrequent. And they’re even less frequent when it comes to high level meetings. Why? Because they generally don’t generate an immediate return. They take time (time = money) and they can be messy. Importantly, they imply getting into deeper, more personal zones. And for that to happen in any meaningful manner means being able to take off the strictly professional mask, show and share some vulnerability and authenticity, and possibly even expose your true self. A meaningful conversation involves active and deep listening (i.e. removal of the ego), mutual respect (humility to say we’re even), and a willingness to share one's own experiences and perspectives. Professor Epley suggested that “being aware that others also like meaningful conversation might lead you to spend less time in small talk and have more pleasant interactions as a result.”

Subscribe now

The multiple benefits

The benefits of engaging in meaningful conversations at work are numerous and quite tangible. For one, they can help to build trust and rapport among colleagues, which can improve teamwork, overall morale and job satisfaction. Additionally, on a more pragmatic level, these types of conversations can help to uncover new insights and ideas that may not have been discovered through traditional means of communication such as email or memos. Meaningful conversations can provide an opportunity for professional development and growth, as individuals can learn from the experiences and expertise of their colleagues. The ones that touch the more sensitive topics such as the creation of an ethical framework, the definition of your three most deeply held values, attachment to relevant political issues or personal ties to the brand, the long-term benefits start to multiply.

The burgeoning need

In today's business world, I fundamentally believe that the need for meaningful conversations has become more urgent than ever. For instance, with the rise of remote work and virtual teams, it is increasingly difficult to maintain strong relationships and open lines of communication. However, it is precisely in these situations where meaningful conversations can make the most significant impact. By creating a space for dialogue and collaboration, teams can overcome the challenges of distance and build strong connections that lead to greater success. In particular, among the more challenging conversations is the ability to call out dysfunction or unattractive behaviours (i.e. where they might be tending toward unethical). But these types of conversations require time and an appropriate space, which will include having the right mindset.

Putting meaning into work

On another level, where so many people seem to be suffering what John Vervaeke describes as a crisis of meaning, we also need to feel like we belong and have a sense of purpose in what and why we’re doing what we’re doing. Given the widespread challenges to fill vacancies with top talent, engage and motivate existing talent, not to mention the difficulty to have employees make the effort to come into the office, the reason why we work is evermore crucial. But it’s not only about have a “raison d’être.” It’s about making sure that (a) every employee has a genuine and personal connection into that purpose and (b) they know how they are contributing to it. For people to have an authentic connection to their enterprise means, in the first place, opening up the dialogue into who we are and what is intrinsically important about the work we do. Granted some people would prefer just to obey orders, push paperclips or whip out widgets. However, for any leader intent on driving a dynamic team and building an enduring brand, the more genuine and open the discussion around purpose, the better the chance of creating a residual why that taps into everyone’s discretionary energy.

Share

How to do them?

So how can one initiate and carry out meaningful conversations at work? The key is to be intentional and strategic in one's approach. First, it is essential to identify the right time and place for these conversations to occur. This may mean scheduling regular check-ins or finding natural opportunities to engage in conversation, such as during breaks, meals or team-building activities. To be sure, meaningful conversations cannot be happening all the time and there’s a time (or even multiple times) and a place to be countenancing more powerful exchanges. One can’t force fit them in, especially if it’s a new desire. Creating the environment and setting the context will be relevant. To begin with, it might mean hiring in an external facilitator. For sure, though, this type of culture change must come from the top with a genuineness that will accommodate the messiness and imperfections that are bound to occur.

Once the opportunity arises, it is essential to approach the conversation with an open mind and a candid desire to learn and connect. This may involve asking thoughtful questions, actively listening to the responses, and sharing one's own experiences and perspectives in a respectful manner. As Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, has said, it’s about moving from a know-it-all attitude and enjoying a learn-it-all approach. It is also important to be aware of the power dynamics at play and to ensure that all voices are heard and valued equally. If you’re the boss, you’ll need to pay particular attention to the ‘boss bias’ (aka the HIPPO Effect*) to encourage maximum contributions.

It won’t be easy… in fact, it’ll likely be difficult

Of course, there are risks and limitations associated with engaging in meaningful conversations at work. For one, there is always the potential for misunderstandings or disagreements to arise, which can lead to tension and conflict. Additionally, some individuals may not be comfortable sharing personal information or discussing sensitive topics in a professional setting. Finally, there is the risk of overstepping boundaries or violating company policies, particularly around issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But, despite all these risks, the key advantage is that by ‘risking’ to be personal, deep and vulnerable, you create a greater chance for connection and trust. A team that has gone through a serious challenge or managed to properly untangle a heated exchange will be the stronger for it once through to the other side. I liken it to the bond created by a rugby team that goes through a heartbreaking loss that regathers its resources to go back out rekindled with a renewed sense of closeness. The same is said for those in the military who go to war together, as in the Band of Brothers. Meaningful conversations can have a similarly positive effect on the connection between colleagues. Of course, for some people, such exchanges may be unappealing; but, done with care and empathy, that sense of self-selection is a powerful way to foster a healthy and connected culture.

Share

Risk vs reward

I believe the benefits of meaningful conversations far outweigh the risks and provide a valuable long-term and lasting return on investment of time. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when we were locked down and Zooming or Teaming, it became patently obvious that you couldn’t just blunderbuss into work mode without first checking in with your interlocutor. It wasn’t just about noticing and getting over the embarrassment of the kid doing somersaults in the background or the cat that walks on your keyboard. It was good for bonding and it also helped check in on one’s state of mind. This empathic approach helped to build personal connections, which ultimately helped increase teamwork, engagement and productivity. I think it’s time to step and insert this healthy practice into your work, remote, distributed, hybrid or not.

In conclusion, meaningful conversations at work are not only important but essential for success in today's business world. The types of subjects that deserve to be surfaced should be intentionally brought into the boardroom. Time should be carved out to allow for these more profound encounters on topics that matter. By creating a space for dialogue and collaboration, businesses can build stronger relationships, uncover new ideas, and create a culture of belonging at a deeper level than merely being paid by the same payor.

What do you think? Are you holding meaningful conversations in your business? How have they gone? About what are they? If not, would you like to have more?

It behoves us all to consider more closely what actually matters, to act as if that were the case and bring our whole selves to work in order to engage in more meaningful conversations. It’s not the easy path, but the payoff will be proportionate to the depth of the conversations held in an appropriate manner and at the right times.

*The HIPPO Effect = A premium on the Highest Paid Person’s Opinion

The accompanying text is: Welcome to La La Land! Follow along as Bella Hadid, He Cong and Alton Mason tap into the dynamic energy of Hollywood for our Spring 2023 campaign film. Directed by director and cinematographer Matt Baron and featuring music by Agnes (24 Hours), the film follows Hadid as she steals the show at a red-carpet premiere.

And I feel there is a fine art to the conversation about art. For example, how much do you actually know about the artist, the artwork itself and the context in which it was produced? None the less, you can be ignorant about all these “academic” elements and still be inspired to discuss the intricacies of the artwork as you experience it. The best conversations, in my mind, happen when you are both knowledgeable about the artist in his/her context AND have a visceral, natural opinion untainted by the surrounding history. If you saw the Mona Lisa, without knowledge of its history, would it retain its value for you?

A few weeks ago, I took this photo of a Chagall painting*, The Red Horse, that I came across in the Nantes Fine Arts Museum. The backstory of this painting is fascinating in that it was painted in two distinct periods of Chagall’s life. It was started in 1938 and then finished in 1944, under very different circumstances. When I forwarded the photo to a Belarusian friend, it caused a visceral reaction and inspired not only a long exchange on Whatsapp, it ended up provoking an entire theme for a dinner party (we throw themed dinner parties as the more loyal readers of Dialogos will know!).

If you hang a painting or photograph on your wall, how important is it for you to have the backstory? Or is it sufficient to find it remarkable as such? What do you think? What makes for a more meaningful conversation about art?

*This is the second time Chagall has been at the centre of a post on Dialogos. The first time was here: When art speaks to you.

This guest post is by my friend, Christopher Lochhead, who’s been on my podcast (back in 2017), and was the chief instigator of getting me onto Substack in the first place. I’m very grateful to him for the idea! Here I am, 65 weeks later, still publishing weekly! Chris is a pirate down deep and isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. I’m sure you’ll enjoy his thoughts below, as well as checking out his body of work (13 books, podcast, newsletter…).

The First Problem: Focusing on Ourselves Instead of Listening

The crux of the first problem is that most people, when engaged in conversation, are not genuinely listening. Instead, they are waiting for their chance to talk. This issue stems from the inherent self-centeredness of human beings. This self-centeredness is evident in the popularity of non-fiction book categories, such as personal development and personal finance (not biographies). Consequently, people tend to speak at each other, rather than with each other.
 
To test this theory, try engaging in a conversation with someone new and focus on letting them talk. By not interrupting and allowing the other person to fill the gaps in conversation, you'll likely observe how little they inquire about you and how engaged they become while talking about themselves. This indicates that our primary focus in conversations is often on ourselves, rather than genuinely engaging with the other person.

The Second Problem: Treating Dialogue as a Competition

The second issue in communication is the belief that the purpose of a dialogue is to win. People often view conversations as opportunities to persuade others to adopt their ideas or positions. This mindset creates a competitive atmosphere, where individuals are more focused on preparing counter-arguments rather than genuinely listening to the other person's point of view. Peter Senge's book, "The Fifth Discipline," delves deeper into this problem and its consequences on effective communication.

The Third Problem: Lack of Genuine Thinking

The third problem with typical conversations is the absence of genuine thinking. People tend to gravitate towards ideas they already agree with, leading to confirmation bias and mental reinforcement of preexisting beliefs. This mental cycle, described by Roger Martin as "reflexive" thinking, prevents individuals from engaging in deeper thought and consideration during conversations.

For example, when someone expresses an opinion, our instant reaction might be to agree or disagree reflexively, without pausing to consider the merit of the statement.

Share

This pattern of thought can lead to polarized conversations, where people are more concerned with defending their beliefs than fostering genuine understanding and critical thinking.

These three issues contribute to what can be called the "Dialogue Depression," a state in which authentic communication is scarce, and yelling and confrontation are prevalent.

This downward spiral is a dangerous path for society, as it threatens the potential for meaningful connections and progress.

In the U.S., the Dialogue Depression has created a political and social climate where more Americans hate other Americans than ever before.

In contrast, podcasts have emerged as the medium that facilitates real, unedited, and unrestricted conversations. The growth of genuine dialogue-focused podcasts is a positive development, offering the potential to inspire more people to engage in meaningful conversations.

Dialogue podcasts are demonstrating how powerful, educational and fun it is, when human beings stop trying to be right and start trying to understand.

Being a legendary conversationalist is one of the most underrated and most powerful skills in business and life. We need a world where we can express and “push” & “pull” each others thinking to ever increasing levels of understanding.

7 Ways You Can Have More Authentic Dialogues:

1. Turn off your phone

2. Practice shutting up

3. Practice listening (not waiting to talk)

4. Adopted a curious (not critical) mindset

5. Ask “why” 3-5 times

6. Use the phrase, “tell me more about that.”

7. Use the phrase, “I’m not sure I agree, but tell me why you think that?”

Because in the end. We’ll either have powerful dialogues. Or powerful wars.

Subscribe now

About the author: Christopher Lochhead

Christopher Lochhead is a 13-time #1 bestselling Amazon author, #1 charting Apple business podcaster, top 5 business newsletter creator, former 3X public tech company CMO, who is best known as a "godfather" of Category Design. 

He coauthored the first two books on management discipline Category Design, Play Bigger and Niche Down. He's cocreator of mini-book newsletter on Category Design, Category Pirates

and the Category Pirates Series of Amazon books. Recently he coauthored #1 bestseller "Snow Leopard: How Legendary Writers Create A Category Of One". 

He's an occasional contributor to Harvard Business Review and is embarrassed about being published in a bunch of (now mostly a joke) legacy analog media outlets.

Christopher Lochhead | Follow Your Different is a leading Real Dialogue Business podcast and Lochhead on Marketing is a Leading Marketing & category design podcast.

Lochhead is a dyslexic paperboy from Montreal who got thrown out of school at 18. With few other options, he became an entrepreneur, then three-time Silicon Valley public company CMO (Mercury Interactive, Scient, Vantive) and an investor / advisor to over 50 venture-backed startups. 

The Marketing Journal calls him, “one of the best minds in marketing”, NBA Legend Bill Walton calls him a “quasar” and The Economist calls him, “off putting to some" and some podcast reviewers think he is "over-rated" and "not worth it.”

Ever wished to create a lighthouse?…

but instead of being a beautiful beacon of a lighthouse, you feel like you’re part of the wrong team?

Put another way, have you ever been part of a group of well-intentioned people that goes nowhere? It’s highly likely that the words, ‘nice,’ ‘interesting’ and ‘why not?’ have been uttered multiple times in your group sessions. However, despite the pure desires, there’s no engagement, cohesion or output. I’ve been part of many such ‘lovely’ groups. But they inevitably flitter and flutter and eventually fall apart. It feels like we need to learn how to have tougher groups, where criteria for entry are set higher, where sanctions for not following through are pre-established and where everyone who participates knows that there is a bigger and higher purpose that unites. This is when groups form engaged, resolutely responsible and disproportionately successful teams.

How does this resonate for you?