Posts in Podcasts

How to Develop Your Mental Resilience and Emotional Intelligence (A.K.A Dial-in Your Leadership Skills)

December 12th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “How to Develop Your Mental Resilience and Emotional Intelligence (A.K.A Dial-in Your Leadership Skills)”

Did you ever react to someone or something and know it was not going to end well? Have you ever been triggered by a boss or colleague and behaved in a way that you knew was not going to be effective?

Sure, we all have. But did you ever stop to think why that happens?

Here’s the short answer: brain patterns. More specifically, the cause of these knee-jerk reactions or automatic responses are because of neural pathways in your brain that are triggered. Basically, your default brain wiring may, at times, get in the way of your effectiveness when someone or some situation triggers you.

So the question is, how do you disrupt this brain pattern?

Dr. Tara Swart — TED speaker, senior MIT lecturer, neuroscientist, and author — shares fascinating information about how she works with clients to expand their mental resilience and emotional intelligence, which ultimately leads to more effective leadership.

In her book: The Source: The Secrets of the Universe, the Science of the Brain, Dr. Tara Swart lays out, with great scientific rigor, the universal truths of what it is to be human.

Tune in to learn about how you can increase your leadership effectiveness, specifically:

      • How to immediately put people at ease when you meet them
      • How to develop your leadership skills at work
      • How to build emotional intelligence
      • How to build mental resilience
      • What supplements and regiments you can use to optimize for performance
      • How to create new neural pathways in the brain and rid unwanted behaviors

Connect with Dr. Tara Swart:

 

Dr. Tara Swart’s biography:

Dr. Tara Swart is a neuroscientist, leadership coach, award-winning author and a medical doctor. She works with leaders all over the world to help them achieve mental resilience and peak brain performance, improving their ability to manage stress, regulate emotions and retain information.

Tara is the only top-tier leadership coach with both a PhD in neuroscience and former medical career as a psychiatrist. Educated at Oxford University and King’s College London, her role as Faculty at MIT and King’s College London, and as guest lecturer at Oxford SAID, ensures that she remains at the forefront of the latest developments in her sector.

Tara’s clients include FTSE100, Fortune 500 and Magic Circle firms, as well as UHNWI entrepreneurs. She specialises in sectors that face unusual levels of stress or change.

Tara is an award-winning, best-selling author, and her newest book, The Source, shows us how the ancient tools of manifestation and visualisation are fundamentally powerful and incredibly effective at freeing us of self-limiting behaviours and propelling us toward our truest, most authentic selves.

Swart reveals how and why these systems actually work by offering the latest breakthroughs in neuroscience and behavioural psychology, including lessons in neuroplasticity, magneticism, emotional and logical thinking, as well as hydration, self-care, and relaxation.

She is also lead author of the award-winning book, Neuroscience for Leadership: Harnessing the Brain Gain Advantage. The book examines new evidence that positive leadership can be learned and how by harnessing key competencies and creativity, leaders can make better decisions and improve performance.

* * *

Full Transcription:

Dr. Tara Swart: The way that you think really determines some of the things that happened in your life and a lot about physicality and mindfulness and just dealing with stress because that is such a big factor to everyone. I mean, the people that listen to your podcast at [01:46], 75% of that demographic of person is chronically stressed. The way that that affects our physical health, our mental reasoning, our ability to master our emotions to access our intuition is frightening.

Tanya: That’s Dr. Swart. TED speaker, senior MIT lecturer, neuroscientist, and author who leverages her medical background, psychiatry training, and neuroscience education to coach leading executives and entrepreneurs to perform at peak. In her book, The Source: The Secrets of the Universe, the Science of the Brain, as Deepak Chopra puts it, Dr. Swart marries the universal truths with scientific rigor for a persuasive important exploration of the law of attraction. Tara, you’ve had a very interesting career path to say the least. What initially drew you to psychiatry and neuroscience?

Dr. Tara Swart: I guess, they drew me to them. I mean, I’ve gone to medical school straight after high school on a path that was quite laid out for me. When it came to the second or third year and we could specialize a little bit, I just found the neuro paths of every subject like neurochemistry, neurophysiology, neuroanatomy the most interesting. Then I actually took three years out of medical school to do a PhD in neuroscience because I was sure that I wanted to be a neurologist when I – I was going to say when I grew up. When I finished the clinical training.

Then after doing that for three years, when I went back to the clinical training, I just found psychiatry more interesting in terms of day-to-day work because it was about how people’s moods changed. How your brain could play tricks on you and you could hear a voice that wasn’t really there. I just found that element of actually speaking with people more interesting than looking at brain tumors and brain abscesses. That’s the path I chose for my career. Looking back, I would say that the whole psychological cognitive science and clinical practice element was probably a lot to do with the search to understand myself.

Tanya: Has it helped you actually understand yourself?

Dr. Tara Swart: It’s taken a long time, but having – I worked as a doctor for seven years then I changed career and I started executive coaching. Then about three years into that, the neuroscience became a really hot topic in business and leadership. Then I went more towards the speaking. I’ve always said that it felt like those threads of why I did that PhD that I never really used and the fact that I was a stress specialist from a psychiatric ward and then I became an executive coach right at the time of the financial crisis, all of that started to make sense, but it was very much – it was very rational. It was very in my career. It only really made sense to me personally when I decided to make this big career change and I got divorced at the same time. I had a big change of identity all at the same time around my mid-30s and that’s when it really was like, wow, understanding how my brain works, understanding cognitive science, understanding emotions and how they affect all of your decision-making and everything.

That was when I started to think about writing a book because I thought everybody needs to know this because I’ve seen people on the psychiatric ward because they’re so overwhelmed by what’s going on in their life and in their body and in their mind. I could see how that could happen, but because I understood the processes of identity change that I was going through, it massively helped me. That’s when it really, everything made sense. Why I’ve been on the path I’ve been on. Why I changed. What I’d learned technically and in my own life lessons really came together. Suddenly, science and spirituality aren’t two opposite ends, two poles. They’re on a spectrum and the more I understood that, the more life made sense and the more I really wanted to send that message out to people. Which is why I wanted to speak with you today.

Tanya: Yes. Right before starting the recording, we were talking about what we both do which is just so similar, but you approach it from a little bit of a different angle, the science and the peak performance leadership angle. I have your book in front of me, The Source: The Secrets of the Universe, the Science of the Brain which I am so excited to read. You have no idea. Now can you tell me who is the book for and what are some of the important things that you distill in the book? I know obviously people have to actually go read it to get the full scope, but what are some of the things that you introduce?

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, absolutely to [06:48] the idea of it is easy and I think the right thing to do because I think it’s something that really makes people think which is, you might know that I previously co-wrote a book called, Neuroscience for Leadership, which was very much the book that everybody said I had to write. I felt I had to write. It’s very dense. It’s very academic and businessy. This book is for everyone, but it’s based on the understanding that leaders are people too. It’s about leadership in terms of leading your own life, leading your family, your team, your organization if you’re a leader of a large organization, your community, whether you’re in a position of power or not. It’s really for humans. It’s really for basically everybody with a brain.

Tanya: That’s a pretty wide market.

Dr. Tara Swart: It’s a wide market. It’s a wide market. I mean, it absolutely is relevant to leaders because the case studies I have are from my executive coaching, but it’s very much based on everything that you might want in life and the understanding that your brain is your biggest asset. The physical health and the optimal condition of your brain basically dictates everything that happens in your life. The more that you understand about how it works and some of the latest understandings around things like neuroplasticity which is how much the brain changes in adulthood, brain agility which is all these different ways of thinking that we have access to, but we don’t necessarily use. The more that you can get out of it.

Then I’ve really put that very rigorous and up-to-date scientific research behind some more alternative things which are interesting like how do vision boards work. What’s the law of attraction and can the way that you think really determine some of the things that happen in your life? A lot about physicality and mindfulness and just dealing with stress because that is such a big factor for everyone. I mean, the people that listen to your podcast at [08:51], 75% of that demographic of person is chronically stressed. The way that that affects our physical health, our mental reasoning, our ability to master our emotions to access our intuition is frightening.

Tanya: Oh, yes. Yes. Can you explain that because actually, I so connect with that? Probably a month ago, I went to my general practitioner and I said, “Why am I chronically tired? What’s going on with me? I usually have a lot of energy and really bubbly, but for some reason I’ve just been battling being chronically tired for some period of time.” Immediately, my doctor said, “You know what, you and 95% of the people that come to see me is stress related.” What happens in your body when you are under stress and what happens from your cognitive processing, problem solving, and emotional intelligence side of things? Because 75% of our target demographic is a huge percentage.

Dr. Tara Swart: I mean, the 75% stat that I just came up with is actually – because there are various stats, but the 75% one is 75% people in the modern world are deficient in magnesium. Before I forget, I want to say that if you’re feeling tired all the time, you should start taking magnesium supplements. I don’t want to make this too personal, Tanya, but do you ever get a twitchy eyelid?

Tanya: Yes, I do. I do.

Dr. Tara Swart: Okay. You’re deficient in magnesium definitely. I love the way you’re like, I do.

Tanya: I do. Actually, the other day I was leading a session with clients and it required a level of focus for me that was totally unlike any – when you’re on in front of a group, you’re on and this is executives from a large biotech company and my eyelid was twitching and I’m like, damn it. No.

Dr. Tara Swart: It makes you look like – you can’t control it. You feel very aware of it being that obvious but it’s not as obvious to other people as it is to you, but it just makes you feel like I’m not in control. I’m not all put together. I’m not presenting myself how I want to. Even that disastrous thinking is related to the fact that your stress levels are too high. When you are stressed, your levels of your stress hormone cortisol are chronically raised and to try to counteract this your body leaches itself with magnesium. Actually, in a stressed state, you cannot eat enough leafy greens and nuts and seeds to replenish that. You need to supplement. My book came out on October 15th so I was in New York and Boston around that time. I managed to fly home and spend some time with my family in between and I just flew back in early November.

The weekend when I had to pack, I really wanted to spend some time with my family. I had a friend that needed some help. I remember thinking, if I go and spend half an hour with her, I won’t be able to have my magnesium bath. It was a real trade-off for me because as soon as I travel, I start to get these little muscle twitches and I know that it’s because it’s very stressful to my body. Obviously, I packed enough magnesium tablets for two weeks. I travel very light so I won’t carry a big liquid with me. As soon as I arrived at my friend’s apartment in New York, she presented me with a bottle of magnesium cream. This is serious. We take this really serious is sleep and stress. I know that we’re going to talk about those two particularly. Basically, going back to something again that we were just saying before we started recording, you were saying that people find it easier to read and digest language from 10 years ago than from now.

Tanya: Yeah, from people at a 10-year-old level. It’s like between a 9 and 12-year-old level but 10 years old is where – from an SEO standpoint I’ve read really scores high on SEO.

Dr. Tara Swart: Okay, okay, so age 10, yeah. Because it’s simple, but if you think now about the amount of information that we’re bombarded with, the fact that we can be switched on 24/7 working across time zones, checking our phone in the middle of the night, just taking in so much written information and now it’s – I know people who read a book and listen to Audible at the same time, not the same book.

Tanya: Oh, my god. Seriously?

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, yeah.

Tanya: Does that even go in? I mean, does anything register?

Dr. Tara Swart: I mean, that’s multitasking. Multitasking is bad enough as it is, but that’s taking it to an extreme. The fact that we even think that we need to do that or that it’s cool to do that is just so worrying. Basically, we’re chronically stressed all the time, most of us. It’s raising our cortisol levels. It’s depleting our magnesium reserves. You either need to get to the root cause of that and switch off, make sure you’re sleeping eight hours a night, make sure that you’re meditating, exercising, eating really well, drinking enough water, having work-life balance. I mean, people will be listening to this thinking like this woman can’t have a job or a family. She must be crazy. Inevitably, you just do what you can and I get that and I do what I can as well, but I take some of those things much more seriously than I would have if I didn’t understand the neuroscience behind them.

I would say, the top two is sleep and stress. Sleep, I do make sure that I get eight hours of good quality sleep every night. My biggest enemy obviously is jet lag because I travel so much. I just say to myself, if I wake up in the night because I’m jet lagged, then I’ll just take the opportunity to turn on to my left or right side because that improves the efficiency of the cleansing system of the brain overnight. With everything else, I try to do all of those good things that I just talked about, but I always say to people, don’t stress about it because it’s the stress that will kill you. I don’t know if I answered your question.

Tanya: No, you did, you did. Actually, as you’re talking, it’s very interesting. Very similar answer, but different perspective. I was speaking with a sleep expert, also researcher and professor, Dr. Mathias Basner. He was saying that – obviously, he spent most of his life researching how sleep and noise impact your well-being. Sleep was absolutely critical, cannot go without it. What’s tricky is, let’s say you get used to sleeping five hours a night or six hours a night because your body’s adaptive and it’s in survival mode and it’s going to make you – if you sleep five to six hours a night for a long period of time, you’re going to actually feel good and rested, but it’s a trap. It’s a trap because your body just gets used to it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s performing at peak.

The other thing that really scares me is you mentioned production of cortisol is referred to as the stress hormone, can really cause a lot of damage in your body. Dr. Basner was mentioning that noise and noise defined as unwanted noise – you could be at a heavy metal concert and really enjoy it. That wouldn’t tick the box as noise, but if you’re on the street and you hear sirens and police and whatever else, traffic noise, honking, that would be considered noise. Your bodies respond to that stress environment. It produces some level of cortisol and it doesn’t matter if you’ve been in this – I live in New York City. I’ve been in the city for 13 years. I’ve learned to tune it out. It doesn’t matter. Your body still produces that. Environment plays a huge part in sleep, so what you’re saying makes perfect sense.

Dr. Tara Swart: That’s confirmed some things to me, but also, scared me, I have to say. Matthew Walker at Berkeley, he wrote, Why We Sleep, said something that really hit me. I’ve noticed by reading back through my journal that it’s made me change my behavior, so I’d like to share that which is slightly contrary to something you said, but in keeping with what you said which is, if you don’t sleep enough, if you don’t do any exercise or drink enough water, you get used to feeling like that’s okay. You get used to not feeling good all the time. 1% to 2% of the population can get away with five hours of sleep per night, but 98% to 99% can’t. The only area where I slightly disagree with you is that if you’re regularly sleeping five to six hours, I don’t think you would feel great all the time, but maybe you just get used to it. I certainly thought, yes, you can power through. You can struggle through. You can feel like you’re bulletproof and resilient, but you’re not at your best.

If you wish to make that choice, I don’t. I decided to make some really big changes based on thinking, yeah, I’ve just got used to being up all hours, working across time zones, traveling too much and I’ve made myself think that that’s okay, but it’s not. The best way to know what your sleep number is, is if you naturally wake up at the weekend the same time that you have to wake up during the week, you’re probably getting enough sleep. If you have to lie in, if you need take naps or if like most of my clients, and tell me if you hear this too, they say, “I could sleep all weekend if you let me.” Then you’re obviously not getting enough sleep.

Tanya: That makes sense. Really listen to your body is what it comes down to gauge whether or not you’re getting sufficient sleep.

Dr. Tara Swart: It’s true, but then, some people have actually cut themselves off from their bodies so they’re not that good at listening to it because there’s actually a scent called interoception which is the sense of the physiological state of your body. For example, last night, I had sushi and at some point, I said, I need to not have any more because something’s made my lips tingle. When one of my team that worked for me asked me for a set of food intolerance tests as their holiday’s gift, I said, “Why don’t you just listen to your body and get a good idea of what suits you, what doesn’t, what makes you bloated, what makes your lips tingle?’ She said to me, “I’m not you. I’m not a doctor. I can’t tell that. I need to have the test.” That’s fine. Go and have tests if you need to, but we should all be able to listen to our bodies.

We expect our children to learn how to tell us when they need to go to the bathroom, when they’re tired, when they’re hungry, but then, it’s like, once we learn those basics, we just cut ourselves off from our bodies and we don’t listen. When I talk about people that don’t listen to their bodies, I’m talking about senior executives and financial services, men and women in their 40s to 60s who aren’t obese, who don’t have high blood pressure, who don’t smoke, do have stress-induced heart attacks. Not one of them says, oh it came as a total surprise. All of them say, well, I was getting chest pain, but I didn’t think I’d have a heart attack.

That’s extreme, but there are other little things like indigestion that we ignore or just sleep disturbance that we ignore. I think we need to realize that we’re not invincible. If we want to get the most out of our brain then we shouldn’t be draining our brain power because of something out of kilter with our body. Equally, we shouldn’t be risking our physical health because we’re so intent on meeting a project deadline or getting a bonus or whatever it is that you think is so important that we’ve pretty much blown these things out of proportion and not thought of our own health as important.

Tanya: Yeah, this idea of pulling all-nighters or putting in ridiculous amounts of work week hours or traveling and getting right back in the saddle doing a red-eye or something like that. It’s accepted. It’s part of the culture and it’s expected. Not only accepted, it’s expected.

Dr. Tara Swart: I agree.

Tanya: That’s an issue. Okay. I’d love to get a sense for your client group. What are some of the reoccurring primary concerns that you are helping your clients address and how do you help them address it?

Dr. Tara Swart: Okay. I love the way you’ve put that and I just want to give a bit of background which is of course I’ve come from the background of being a psychiatrist and I have my specialization in neuroscience. This is probably at least partly because of my background not just because of what’s out there, but what I was mostly working with, and now to be honest, these are the two things that I work with because it just makes sense to stick to your niche. Building emotional intelligence and building mental resilience to stress, those are the two areas that I specialize in, yeah.

Tanya: Mental resilience and what was the first one?

Dr. Tara Swart: Building emotional intelligence although I would say that that one was more of a problem 10 or 12 years ago where people were yelling at work or going red in the face, making people cry. There seems to be less of that, but perhaps again, it may be that my expertise has pulled me more towards the mental resilience or perhaps it’s become more of a problem in society, so there’s more demand for it. I speak about building emotional intelligence as exactly the same physiological pathway in the brain as learning a new language and same with mental resilience. Any new behavior that you wish to sustain and create as the default in your brain, you basically have to repeat it and learn it until it’s being fluent in a language.

Tanya: In other words, forge that neural connection.

Dr. Tara Swart: Literally, yeah.

Tanya: Lay down the path for that, yeah.

Dr. Tara Swart: Very literally. I think because psychology [23:09] business for so long, there was this perceived cut-off at the next. That was all to do with how you think and feel and it wasn’t vey physiological. The lovely thing about the sophisticated scanning techniques that we have now is that we can scan brains and bodies and we can see a lot more than we used to. We can see a lot more about what happens in a healthy functioning brain whereas before we were relying a lot on what happened if you did surgery on somebody who had a mental illness or a brain tumor and making extrapolations from what changed after you did interventions in those areas. Now, we can see more what happens if you experience a certain emotion. When you make a difficult decision. When you take risk. It’s just really informed our understanding of how a brain works. Just when it’s doing day-to-day tasks, but also how a brain works at its best.

Tanya: You were mentioning obviously emotional intelligence and mental resilience. How does that actually show up because – I mean, do your clients say I need more emotional intelligence and mental resilience, do they have that level of awareness or does it manifest itself through other situations, but ultimately, it’s about building mental resilience and emotional intelligence to deal with that effectively.

Dr. Tara Swart: There are extremes. The emotional intelligence tends to be more a very, very senior stakeholder saying, this person is great at what they do, but if they continue behaving the way that they have, we’re going to have to let them go. That’s really technically strong perhaps not emotionally intelligent. In that scenario it really helps to say I’m going to help you to build a pathway in your brain where you’re going to learn the things that you have to do to meet that requirement because if you just say things like, you need to be more understanding, you need to stop upsetting people, you need to take people on the journey with you, all these super successful, intelligent, well-educated people just say, I don’t know what that means. I don’t know what I’m meant to do. It’s got to be very bite-sized and very tangible and then it’s really doable. That’s been a great game-changer from understanding the physiology of how you build a pathway in the brain.

Tanya: That’s actually brilliant. I just want to dig in to that a little bit more. How do you give people access to building that pathway in the brain? Let’s take this candidate for example that was really just needed a little bit more emotional intelligence. What are the things that you – exercises and things that you go through to give them access to emotional intelligence?

Dr. Tara Swart: I’ll give you the framework first which can be applied to any behavior change, whether its emotional intelligence, mental resilience or something more tangible like learning a language. Basically, everything is about raising awareness from nonconscious to conscious. If you do something, let’s say we work together physically every day and you speak to me in a way that I find uninspiring and demotivating. If you don’t know that you’re doing that and the impact that it’s having on me, you’ve got no motivation to change that behavior. The first thing is that you have to know that there’s something that you’re doing that you need to do differently. Once you realize, okay, every time I do this, it’s not having a good effect on Tara. The first thing is to think about the new different thing that you want to do. In the brain, you can’t really unwire something that’s already there so you need to overwrite it with a new desired behavior.

You start with raised awareness and then you go to focused attention which is that you look for opportunities in your day-to-day life to try out this new behavior that you’re considering doing. I allow you at least a month between each step because you can’t just suddenly start doing something new. The brain needs to build up to a tipping point where the neurons are enough that that’s really a pathway. The first thing is the raised awareness. I always think that’s 50% of the battle. Focused attention is okay, when I met Tara for dinner, I could have said that differently. When I met Tara to play tennis at the weekend that’s an opportunity where I could have done something differently. Then the third stage is deliberate practice. That’s when you say, okay, what I’m going to do now is I’m going to make sure that I say please and thank you every time I see Tara. Then you would do that for a month. All the way up to much more complex things.

Then the final, not really a step but part of the key really is accountability. If you decided to do all these things and you’ve made a half-hearted attempt to do it, and then basically you got really busy and life got in the way. You’re probably just not really focused on that anymore, but if you knew that in a month’s time that our boss is going to say to you, you know Tanya, you’ve been working on your relationship with Tara and you said that you were going to say please and thank you to her 12 times in the last month. What have you done? Then you’d be much more likely to be keeping count and trying to make sure you do it. The analogy I used is, if you said, I want to learn Spanish in the next six months, if you downloaded an app and you used it every day at first and then you used it a few times a week and you used it for three or four months, you’d improve your Spanish a little but you probably wouldn’t be fluent in Spanish.

If you signed up for classes and you went every week and you did the homework and you had a test at the end of the six months and you planned a holiday to Mexico, so that you’d have to use Spanish, then you’ve become much better at Spanish than if you did it in a half-hearted way where there was no accountability. Having that test at the end or the thing that you’re going to have to do where you really need to draw on this new learning or a person that’s going to hold you accountable or using technology in a way to hold yourself accountable, whether it’s an app or a community where you share what you’ve achieved, that’s really the key because if that stage isn’t there then it’s just too easy to change the goalpost basically.

With emotional intelligence, the first piece of homework I give people is go home tonight and listen to your child for five minutes without looking at your phone and without interrupting them. That simple single piece of homework, everyone, male, female, very senior people have come back to me and said, “My child told me things that they have never told me before.” It’s so shocking that five minutes – and some people have to sit on their hands to not look at their phone in that time, has such an impact. I think that’s when people think okay, I’ve really been doing something wrong. Let’s try this. I can’t even tell you what I do after that because that has such a big effect that after that, it’s just okay, let’s do this. What else do I need to do? It’s simply then that you try it for 15 minutes with your partner. You try it for 15 minutes with a colleague that you get on with and then you try it for 10 minutes with a colleague that you don’t get on with and you build it up like that.

You just practice. You test yourself. You push yourself out of your comfort zone and eventually you get there. I’ve got stories that I’ve written about in a book of people who were – I’m going to use a strong word. People I’ve coached who were hated, who have had people say to them things like, oh well, those were in the days before you were nice. People who have become unrecognizable. I’ve had phone calls from people who – you’ve left the business. They said, “Oh, I heard that the CFO left.” I was like, “No, he’s still there.” They were like, “Well, the person that met him told me it was like someone totally different to how I described him.”

Tanya: Oh, that’s so funny.

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Tanya: I love your framework. First, raising awareness, at which the raising awareness part is the big haul and actually before we go into the other steps, how do people raise awareness? Do you suggest colleagues to act as a mirror if there’s something – if I’m unconscious that I’m behaving a certain a way and that’s making you feel bad, what’s the switch to suddenly move it from unconscious to conscious? Is it simply just looking for it or do you engage other people around you and say, guys this is what I’m committed to, your accountability? I want to really uplift the people around me and I need to know when in my interactions with you that has not been the case. What’s the method to the awareness part?

Dr. Tara Swart: There’s a couple of them. One I mentioned earlier which is happening less now is the one where people are like, this coaching is this person’s last chance. That’s a rule from above as it were. I think there are levels at which you can take 360 feedback or you can have a stakeholder in the business that says this is what Tanya needs to be working on. The level that I’m working at is very, very senior. It’s usually self-selected. I trust that my neuroscience framework, my intuition, their self-evolution is enough. I basically usually say to them at the beginning, tell me what you’ve come to coaching, but let me tell you that this will turn out to be about something that neither of us know about yet and at some point, that will become clear.

Then what I do is, I focus only on building trust and trying to understand the workings of their brain absolutely intimately until either they have an epiphany or I can raise an insight to them about either something that – you understand that with coaching and workshops that there’s a micro relationship going on between you which is a representation of how they behave in the outside world. I’ll give you a really, very tangible example which is that, I worked with a very senior guy, former military who – the coaching was because he was being intimidating towards women particularly but intimidating in general. It was quite funny because he gets this absolutely tiny female coach, me.

Tanya: Everything he’s avoiding, okay.

Dr. Tara Swart: Literally, everything in one little person. The first time he shakes hands with me, I spend the next hour and a half wondering if my hand is actually broken. It was that painful.

Tanya: Oh, my god. Wow.

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, yeah. I don’t say anything because it’s the first time and I’m trying to build trust and he’s probably more nervous than I am. Then the second time, we’re sitting opposite to each other. He’s got great body language. He’s giving eye contact. He’s warm and so I take the opportunity to say, “You know the first time I met you, when you shook my hand you actually hurt me.” He was mortified. I said it was fine. It was temporary but obviously, you don’t know that you’ve done that and nobody else is going to tell you. This is my job to help you to raise your awareness. He said, “Given all the feedback that I’ve had, I just try so hard to treat everybody the same.” I give everybody the same handshake and I said, I’m less than half the size of you. You can’t give me the same handshake. but I’m less than half the size of you, you can’t give me the same handshake. He said, “Okay. Yeah, of course I understand.” It’s just a small example of bigger things.

Then the third time, because we met up in London the first few times. At that time, he said, “Do you mind coming to my office? It’s outside London. I will come and pick you up from the train station.” He came in the car. He got out of the car. He walked around. He came and shook my hand and it was perfect.

Tanya: Yay.

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, I know. That’s obviously very tangible, but there are much more intangible things like that. For example, I was on a phone call with a client. I have a client in New York, so usually it’s more phone than in person although it’s both. At one point, we were on the phone, and I didn’t think I’d actually manage to say a word for over half an hour. Every time I tried to say something, he talked over me. He was basically saying that he was having difficulty persuading clients to do what he thought they should do.

Tanya: No kidding.

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, yeah, exactly. I realized at the end I said, “You know, I found a way to say that. Do you think if you listened more to try to understand that point of view and blah, blah, blah?” He was like, “Yeah, actually I do have an issue with listening.” I just took the opportunity and I said, “Well, actually, in the last 45 minutes you have spoken non-stop every time I tried to speak. You spoke over me.” I said, “I’m not saying this because I’m upset with you. I’m just trying to give you some feedback that again, probably nobody else will give you.” I think he was embarrassed but the next time, about a month later, I met up with him in New York. He said, “Yeah, I really thought about what you said and it’s not okay.”

Tanya: Yeah, that’s really amazing. What I’m getting from this is that awareness piece comes both from interactions with you, but also once you turn on that switch and you start looking for it, it opens the flood gates a little bit if you’re really committed to it. You might experience or see things that you didn’t see before and it’s all about your blind spots, but you don’t actually know that you don’t know. That’s really impacting your effectiveness. That’s amazing. Then we move on to look for opportunities to practice. What time period do you really need to invest in practicing a new desirable behavior for example until the neural path gets formed and it feels natural?

Dr. Tara Swart: Okay. You’ve asked that in a really persuasive way, but I’m going to have to give you the same answer that I give everybody else which is, how long is a piece of string. It depends what you’re trying to do. Basically, if you said to me, I want to get into a three times a week varied gym routine. If you put your mind to it, I think you could do that quite quickly and you could sustain it quite well. If we’re talking building my mental resilience, and I’ve got 18 international trips coming up in the next year or something, that’s going to take longer because it’s more complex. My answer to that question is, assuming that’s it’s at the upper end of the spectrum because we’re talking about more sophisticated things. It’s going to take about as long and take that much effort as it would for you to learn a new language. To actually change your brain, it’s going to be that difficult.

Tanya: How long does it take people to learn a new language on average? Do you have any idea?

Dr. Tara Swart: Think of the example I gave you. If you downloaded an app and tried to do it yourself, you’d get so far but you’d never get to as good as you could. If you went to classes or you had a teacher, and you had an exam, or you had a vacation at the end of it, you’d be better at it. That’s why the accountability piece at the end is so important because you can have the awareness, you can focus the attention, you can do some practice, but it has to be intense enough to change your brain. That is so painful that there has to be the accountability at the end to do it. I tried to do one new neuroplasticity thing a year. A few years ago, I decided to learn Danish, but I already could speak four languages, so it wasn’t like the hardest thing that I could have done, but Danish is a difficult language.

I had the three types of bilinguality, but I was brought up bilingual from the start, from the beginning of speaking in English and an Indian language. I learned French at school from the 9 until 16 and then I learned Afrikaans which is like Dutch, so another European language when I was about 25. I was well over 35 when I learned Dutch. I mean, Danish, sorry. I took lessons. They were 90-minute lessons once a week. At the 60-minute point, after the first one, I had to start taking cans of cola and bags of chocolate with me because I would get totally drained by the effort. I would be so hungry and so tired. I did this for quite a few weeks and months. Went to Denmark on vacation this summer, came back, had my first lesson, and at some point, she said, “All right, we’re done for this week. I’ll see you next week.” I said, “Was that 90 minutes?” She said, “Yes.” I was like, “But I didn’t get all hungry and tired like I normally do.”

Then I realized, I had surpassed that neuroplasticity plateau. My brain had changed and the Danish pathway was fluent. Actually, because I got what I wanted, which is the neuroplasticity and I found it not very rewarding. I actually gave up at that point. Now all I can say is I can speak Danish.

Tanya: That’s so funny. Wow. Yeah, to your point, it’s like, are you downloading an app or are you doing total immersion. That determines the length of your cord so to speak. I get that.

Dr. Tara Swart: Think about what you choose because let’s say you said to me, I’m going to learn tango, but you’ve never been a dancer. You don’t particularly have rhythm. I mean, you’d have to give up your day job to become really good at that. Actually, in terms of the different types of plasticity, there’s one where it’s so difficult you’d have give up your day job. There’s one where you’re good, but you have potential to be much better and then there’s one way you’re very good, but you can make it into a super power. It’s actually better to play at your strengths according to neuroscience than try to build up a massive development area just because in the adult that that would take is probably not worth it. It’s better to have diverse brains around you to complement your skills.

Tanya: Interesting, and then, you mentioned something a little bit earlier that I want to come back to and talk about. That is your default state for the brain. You gave a really, really brilliant TED Talk that I recommend everybody listen to. In there you mentioned distrust as a default state of the brain. Can you expand on that?

Dr. Tara Swart: It sounds terrible. When we lived in the cave and we became the most successful animal on the planet to survive and thrive as much as we have as a species. Some of the gearings of the brain are quite negative. For example, in the eight basic emotions that I write about in the book, five of the eight are survival emotions. The strongest gearing of the brain is about loss avoidance which is two to two and a half times as influential on the brain as gaining a reward. For example, if you dropped $50 out of your pocket this morning on the way to work, you would be annoyed with yourself and think about that for the rest of the day. If you found $100 you would be really pleased when you found it. You might keep it. You might give it to charity, but you’d have forgotten about that by the time we started speaking with each other this morning.

For our survival we’re geared that way and then matching up to both of those things is the fac that, if I met you, I didn’t know you. I don’t know if you have a lot in common with me. I don’t know what your political affiliation is. I don’t know what kind of education you’ve had. I don’t know what your views are on marriage or all these sorts of things that we judge people on all the time. We judge every new person we meet on up to 150 stereotypes straight away without even being conscious of it. I’m not going to risk my brain power, my resources, my life essentially on trusting you until I’ve got to know you a bit better. Until I’ve had enough signs that you’re in my tribe and speech marks.

When we trust, that actually – we use up more brain resources and so if there’s any risk, then we’re not going to give up those resources. We prefer to stop from I’m going to stay safe and not trust you until I know better. The reason for that is that when we lived in the cave, we lived in tribes where if you mistakenly let a stranger into your tribe. It could mean death to your tribe. It could mean sharing of food resources that you don’t have enough for, but could mean reproduction with the male from another tribe. Look at the animal kingdom, it still works like that. There are all these reasons that we didn’t want to trust anyone that isn’t in our tribe. Sadly, some of that wiring is still there although we can absolutely override it through conscious choice. However, if you look at what’s happening politically in both our countries at the moment. It’s very much a reversion to that lack of trust and not seeing the differences rather than the similarities. It’s hard to work than ever actually at the moment.

Tanya: Yeah, and so, this is a really amazing piece that you’re bringing into where it’s almost like because of survival and our ancient ways of living, our brain is wired like this by default, so how do you overwrite it? What are some of the techniques and practices that you recommend to really work through that because in the context of leadership, when you’re leading a team, or you’re on a team, one of the premises that we say is, in the absence of trust, performance declines, company culture declines. The what’s possible to produce bottom line diminished. It kills high performance teams but at the app, it cuts the head right off. How do you work around this default wiring?

Dr. Tara Swart: Basically, there’s a lot of answers to that question, which actually you’re much more of an expert at than I am. I’m just going to give you three quick tips from neuroscience which are a little bit different maybe. One is, eat regularly. Glucose and oxygen are only resources for our brain and in a study on Israeli judges who are granting parole to young black men, I think you’ve probably seen this because it was…

Tanya: I did.

Dr. Tara Swart: Yeah, yeah.

Tanya: I’m glad you’re bringing it up because that was on my schedule here to bring up. That’s so shocking. Okay, go ahead.

Dr. Tara Swart: The graph has three peaks. It starts off right at the top with people being granted parole and the line slowly drops down to zero and then it magically shoots back up to 100%, slowly drops down to zero and then it shoots back up to 100. There are three peaks and those peaks correspond to breakfast, lunch and dinner. When you eat, and you digest your food, you release a large amount of glucose. Although the brain only weighs four or five pounds, it’s a very energy hungry organ that uses up 25% to 30% of the breakdown products of what you eat. It can’t store that for later. The going down to zero parole is basically once you’ve used up all the glucose and there’s nothing left until you eat again. Eating regularly just gives you the physical resources to overturn any unconscious or conscious biases that you may have.

Which takes me on to my second point which is, do an unconscious bias test and find out what your biases are because we all think we’re not racist or sexist to ages, but we are. Because there’s up to 150 identified stereotypes there could be some really specific little ones that you’re not aware of that you have and it’s not because you’re a nasty person that’s chosen to be like that. It’s because of how you’ve grown up. It’s because of the influences that you’ve had around you. You talked about the environment earlier with sirens and noise. Biases are a noise as well that you’ve been exposed to for so long that their entrenched pathways in your brain that you’re not even aware of. I’m very passionate about saying, it’s much better to be aware of what they are than to say, but I’m not racist. I’m not this. Don’t you know?

Of course, none of us want to think we are. None of us really choose to go out there and be like that, but it’s maybe wired into our brains for so many reasons that we may not even remember. I think knowing what that is and doing a proper test to find out is helpful. Then finally, I would say the top answer is humor. When you laugh, even if you just laugh by yourself, you release this bonding hormone oxytocin. When you laugh with other people, you both release more than if you laugh alone. It trumps any bias that you have. Let’s say we met and we actually both knew what some of our unconscious biases were. For whatever reason, we experienced a bit of that between us. If we found some common ground, and then we found a joke and we laughed about it together. That would actually get removed in our brain as a barrier. It would literally get dissolved by that shared humor. That is so important.

There are a few other things that have very diverse teams, a diversity of all sorts and I actually talk about diversity of thinking rather than necessarily what you look like. I also say, on a more personal level, spend time with people 20 years old or 20 years younger. Just know what music they’re listening to, know what they care about, talk to a stranger, travel to a place you’ve never been to before. The more you expose yourself to different experiences including even different food, the less biased you are about the unknown.

Tanya: I love that actually. You know what? That supports something that I read a long time ago and now we’re going into couples, the dynamic of couples. That if you do something with your partner that is new to both of you like travel to a new place or take on a new sport or – the other day I did an art class painting with my husband. Both of us are not painters, but with a glass of wine and a teacher guiding us so that we don’t run amok and through this experience we had the best time painting and totally reconnected over something so silly. I can completely understand that discovering new things either on your own or with somebody else really makes a difference.

Dr. Tara Swart: The sillier the better according to a neuroscientist. You can write that in your article. Also, when you do new things like that, you actually – there’s a book by Ellen Langer from Harvard called, Counterclockwise. It says the more points of new things that you have in your life, the younger you feel because children experience new things all the time and so time feels like it passes slowly. Whereas as we get older, we tend to just repeat the same things year on year and so it feels that time speeds up. If you go and do an art class and obviously it connects you to your childhood self more, but also because it’s a new experience for you, it actually changes your perspective of time. Basically, you’re making yourself feel younger and your reconnecting with your husband so what’s not to like about that?

Tanya: Nothing. Everything, it’s all good. That’s amazing. Is there anything that you’ve seen that’s really cutting-edge right now that top performers, executives, anybody that’s performing at peak performance uses to really increase their efficiency and clarity of mind?

Dr. Tara Swart: A good quality probiotic taken for a month reduces negative thinking, reduces anxiety, has even allowed people with clinical depression to reduce their dose of antidepressants or come off their antidepressants totally. For people, more like your listeners who travel a lot, who face unprecedented levels of stress and change and uncertainty, by good quality I mean over 50 billion strains of bacteria. There are particular strains. I can’t remember all the names offhand, but I actually wrote a Forbes Leadership blog about it so that can be searched for quite easily. Naming specific strains in it for stress, for mental performance, for coping with travel. You can build up the diversity and quality of your gut microbiome. We know now that your gut neurons communicate with the brain. We’ve known that for a while.

There’s a third element of communication between the gut bacteria themselves, the gut neurons and the brain. It’s a triangle. The neurons obviously connect with the brain through actual neuronal pathways, but the gut bacteria’s signal both to the gut neurons and the brain through chemical [53:36] link with cytokine transmission. The better condition you keep your gut microbiome in the better the physiological health of your brain and the more it boosts your mental performance. It’s a very exciting new field that I’m keeping a real eye on at the moment, but suffice to say, me and my family take probiotics at least six times a year for four weeks at a time.

Tanya: Not continued. You do it six times a year for four weeks at a time.

Dr. Tara Swart: I do that to my family because I take them enough because I travel so much, but I take them whenever I travel. I think [54:28] it so that you’re getting different strains throughout the year. If you don’t travel every month then at least four to six times a year take it probably one month [54:28] have a good quality probiotic.

Tanya: Okay, that’s great. Is there anything that we haven’t talk about with regards to leadership and performance that you think we should?

Dr. Tara Swart: I like that question, but I literally don’t think there is because I think we’ve talked about it so much. It’s been such a great conversation.

Tanya: Yes, yes, definitely. Tara, thank you so much for being on. I can’t wait to dig in to your book, The Source: The Secrets of the Universe, the Science of the Brain which was recently published and is actually gaining a tremendous amount of traction. Just thank you for really standing for human performance and mental clarity and the unique angle that you bring that I don’t. that’s what makes the world go around really. I’m really grateful to you for hosting me.

Tanya: Thank you so much.

Dr. Tara Swart: Bye.

Tanya: Bye.

 

The Science Behind Teaching Your Body To Heal Faster

December 5th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “The Science Behind Teaching Your Body To Heal Faster”

How amazing would it be to regrow diseased or missing body parts?

I am hopeful it will happen someday, but science is not quite there yet. What is more realistic short-term is to teach your body how to heal faster, and that’s precisely what Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler– an immunologist by trade and former postdoctoral fellow at MIT who’s been selected as one of Forbes 30 Under 30 in science– is working on. More specifically, her potentially groundbreaking research is focused on how the immune system can regenerate functional tissue.

So think of a scar that fully heals itself, leaving that previously wounded area as if nothing happened. Amazing right?

It certainly sounds like science fiction but the process of getting to a major breakthrough like this is brutal. Think, lots of failures, dead ends and questions that lead to other questions. It takes something extraordinary to stick with it and in the process of struggle, lies the possibility of breakthroughs.

Tune in to learn about what it takes to lead groundbreaking discoveries:

      • What is takes to produce a breakthrough
      • What it’s like to be a woman in science
      • How to be with failure
      • What the path to success looks like

Connect with Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler:

 

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler’s biography:

Kaitlyn Sadtler, Ph.D. joined NIBIB as an Earl Stadtman Tenure-Track Investigator and Chief of the Section for Immunoengineering in 2019. Prior to her arrival to the NIH, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with Daniel Anderson, Ph.D. and Robert Langer, Ph.D., focusing on the molecular mechanisms of medical device fibrosis. During her time at MIT, Dr. Sadtler was awarded an NRSA Ruth L Kirschstein Postdoctoral Fellowship, was listed on BioSpace’s 10 Life Science Innovators Under 40 To Watch and StemCell Tech’s Six Immunologists and Science Communicators to Follow. In 2018, she was named a TED Fellow and delivered a TED talk which was listed as one of the 25 most viewed talks in 2018. She was also elected to the 2019 Forbes 30 Under 30 List in Science, selected as a 2020 TEDMED Research Scholar, and received multiple other awards. Dr. Sadtler received her Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine where her thesis research was published in Science magazine, Nature Methods, and others. She was recently featured in the Johns Hopkins Medicine Magazine as an alumna of note. Dr. Sadtler completed her bachelor’s degree summa cum laude at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, followed by a postbaccalaureate IRTA at the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Immunology at NIAID.

* * *

Full Transcription:

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: If we can understand how the good materials work, then we can engineer further toward really promoting tissue regeneration.

Tanya: That’s Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler, an immunologist by trade and former postdoctoral fellow at MIT who’s been selected as one of Forbes 30 Under 30 in science for her groundbreaking research around how the immune system can regenerate functional tissue. In her TED Talk titled “How We Could Teach Our Bodies to Heal Faster,” she shares details on her research findings, which resonated with millions. More recently, Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler was hired by the National Institutes of Health to lead her own lab and pursue scientific breakthroughs in her field. You have a very interesting segue into the sciences and laboratory space and academia, really. You started off as a veterinarian technician. How was that experience like?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I had, really, a great opportunity growing up. I grew up about three miles away from a veterinary clinic back in rural Maryland, and I actually started working there when I was in high school. At the beginning of that, as opposed to what you think of with veterinary technicians drawing blood, things like that, I was a – I like to call it a glorified poop scooper, but it was great because I got to play with dogs. What was amazing about that clinic was the fact that the veterinarian that owned the business as well as the different older vet techs that worked there is that, even if you were the one scooping the poop in the beginning, they still were teaching you. Oh, hey, do you want to learn how to draw blood today? One of the tech’s dogs would be in, and they’d go, hey, come on over, high school kid. Let’s teach you something.

That was great because it was – before I went into college and a little bit in the summers when I’d come home, I got to work at this vet clinic. It was an exposure to medicine. I really loved animals, and I still do. They really were all about teaching you how to do things, even if early on it wasn’t part of my job description. It was a great segue into medicine and got to work with puppies and kittens, which is amazing.

Tanya: Oh, that’s really great. When you think about having a job in high school, it’s usually at a café, or bussing tables, or something like that. The fact that you got to be in a veterinary setting and learn all these early medical stuff on animals, that’s unique. Did you always know that your path was going to be in science and academia and eventually running your own lab, or how was that process of you getting into the field of immunology?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I’d say that, when I was just a young kid, I mean, I think the first career that I can think of that I wanted to be was a paleontologist, and I was probably the only 5-year-old who could say that. This was back in the 90s. Jurassic Park was huge. There was a Dr. Sattler in Jurassic Park I was very excited about. I was always interested in some of those in the sciencey fields, and I’d say that it evolved towards the medicine and molecular biology as I grew older. When I was in undergraduate, when I was in college, I was planning on being a surgeon, actually. I was thinking of going and doing an MD, and I did a research internship partially just to have some research experience for a med school application. It was with a friend of mine that I played soccer with in high school. In fact, I was on a boys soccer team in high school.

Tanya: Yeah, that’s awesome.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: His dad actually worked at a lab that was about 20 minutes away from where I went to college. I was able to do an internship with him, and wound up really liking research science. As far as immunology goes, my second summer there I worked on this platform that they were developing to try and detect food toxins so things that give you upset stomach, etc., etc. What we were doing was working with this platform that could identify different toxins and pathogens, for example, in foods. It could be like food poisoning to figure out how to engineer pieces of the immune system, specifically these two small proteins that recognize different foreign antigens or foreign substances. They were engineered so that when they bound their target it would shoot off a visible light signal, so you could see it the dish when that pathogen was present. That really interested me because it showed me the strength of the immune system really being able to be specific in identifying these different harmful pathogens that our body might come across. That’s what actually led me to, after college, joining up in an immunology lab and really focusing in. Then, after that, I had the opportunity to integrate it with some engineering in a biomedical engineering lab during my PhD, and that’s led me to where I was today or am today.

Tanya: Okay, got it. Then immunologist, really, what it does is just study everything broadly that the immune system tackles, or what is it?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: There’s a whole bunch of different kinds of immunologists. One example would be immunologists that are working on infectious disease, and that can be specified down into, for example, immunologists working on viruses or a very specific virus. There are cancer immunologists. They try and figure how exactly a tumor can evade our immune system. It’s one of the characteristics of cancer is that, though it’s something that’s not supposed to be there, our immune system is not detecting it properly, so you’ve got cancer immunologists. You hear a lot of this immunotherapy or getting your immune system to attack the cancer. All of that stuff is engineering the immune system to recognize and attack cancer. Then you’ve also got allergists, so people that look at food allergies or environmental allergens. That’s all associated with the immune system.

Where I’m working is in a relatively new field in the context of biomedical engineering and, specifically, regenerative medicine. We can learn a lot from people that have worked in the immune healing area. That’s, for example, you get a cut on your skin. Your immune system is really important in stitching that back together. What we’re trying to do is really learn from the immune system, and then promote growth of that tissue. Instead of being a scar, being actual functional tissue, something in the case of skin as opposed to a scar having hair follicles and oil glands and things like that that can function.

Tanya: In other words, your part of the research is taking a look at how the body – how you can jumpstart the body’s ability to fully recover as if nothing had happened in the first place?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: That would be the goal, yes.

Tanya: That would be a great goal. That would be a really good goal. Actually, you talk about this in your really, really, really great TED Talk, which is titled “How We Could Teach Our Body to Heal Faster,” and you talk about some organisms that exist already that have the ability to regrow full body parts like the salamander. I think the salamander, if somehow it loses a leg or an arm, it has the ability to regrow in 31 days, or actually, somebody that I know gave 50% of their liver to their father. They were a match and had the ability to live and then also regrow, so that’s another organ that human beings have an ability to regrow. Having studied this area, how far are we away from having the capabilities to not just have our liver regrow, for example, but a diseased body parts or missing limbs?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: With that, it’s speaking of quite the broad structure. For example, a limb is made up of a whole lot of different tissues, right? You have muscles. You have nerves. You have bones. You have skin that goes over it. Anytime you’re jumping to a complex tissue where it’s got a bunch of different tissue types, again, bone, muscles, nerves, skin, and that starts to get a lot more complicated. What has been looked at currently you’ll see are people that are focusing in on tissue types.

For example, I worked a bit on traumatic muscle injury. There are people that are very specific, and they’ve worked on skin. Then there are people that also have worked on bone. When we’re moving forward into these regenerative therapeutics, it’s going to be a collaboration between different fields so, for example, us immunologists working alongside of stem cell biologists to really get a handle on the whole problem or issue at play.

Tanya: Okay, I can see how growing human body parts in the absence of one would be much more complicated. What about diseased body parts, like specific organs?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: For this, it’ll depend on the type of disease. For example, if you have something like a genetic disease, that you’ll have to really focus in on the genetics behind it. You can treat symptomatically. For example, muscular dystrophy you can try and treat so that you can regain some of your muscle function, but ultimately, it’s a genetic condition. You have to deliver either cells that still have the functional protein that is missing. Muscular dystrophy is a protein that’s missing, and that’s how you get the muscle damage, or you go in, and you try and actually edit the genes themselves. That’s where you’ll see these new technologies coming into play, for example, CRISPR and other such genome editing technologies. Again, that’s somewhere where we can all very much work together in what is known as convergent research. This idea that, instead of fields being siloed separately, geneticists, bioengineers, molecular biologists, the research is really requiring multiple fields coming together and working together to create solutions.

Tanya: Yeah, in my nonmedical vocabulary, I call that triangulating. The body is so multifaceted that looking at it in a vacuum would really produce only vacuum results, so I get that. Where are we at in even understanding how our liver reproduces, and what part of that body part allows it to do that?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: We’re learning more and more about the liver. I’d say it’s not my specialty, so I myself haven’t contributed to that literature. It’s understanding ways that different immune cells work within the tissue as well as the different stem cells that reside within the tissue. On the immunology side, which is the part that I’m interested in, of course, is each organ has its own resident immune cells. Those immune cells can actually arrive before we’re born, so our whole body is populated with different resident immune cells. We have specific types of cells that live in our skin, that live in our brain, that live in our liver, and these different cells can act very differently because of their tissue context. On the immunology side, we’re learning more and more about how these tissue resident cells, these cells that arrive before we’re born – so they’re not circulating in our bloodstream. They’re hanging out in the tissue and how they’re affected by developing in that specific tissue and what responses that they’re trained to do.

Tanya: As you’re talking, I realize that I have no idea exactly what an immune system is. I have a concept of it, which is it’s a system that is going to protect my body against infections and other stuff, but what is it exactly? Is it just a collection of cells that carry out a number of different functions?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Our immune system is a collection of both circulating cells so cells going around in our blood. There are cells, again, that are resident in what we call nonimmune organs, so for example, our liver is technically – it’s not an immune organ. Our brain is not an immune organ, but those both have their own immune cells. There’s also specific immune organs. The spleen, our [14:28], and our bone marrow are all really hubs of immune cell activation. Basically, in the context of an infection, which is how it’s normally taught, so let’s say you have an infection on your skin. The cells in your skin send out a warning signal, which causes a certain type of cell called an innate immune cell. Innate, you can think of that reptilian brain style innate that goes to that infection and starts fighting. It also gathers that signal, and it can wander back to a lymph node. There it can then activate inside of the immune system called the adaptive immune system, and that’s the very specific part of the immune system.

When we get vaccines, we’re educating our adaptive immune system because it can remember the threat that it saw in the vaccine to help fight off the actual disease. That way, those parts of our immune system, the cells that are floating around in the blood, the cells that are local in that tissue, as well as the cells that are in our immune organs can all help fight off the infection or, in the case that my research and the research of our field is looking at, is how it can help heal tissue, how it can help guide our tissue to grow properly.

Tanya: Okay, so let’s focus on your area, which is fascinating. Where are you at in terms of the state of knowing how to help areas heal faster right now?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: What I have been looking at recently is understanding the way that our immune system recognizes materials that are implanted in the body as foreign. That’s going to be one of the initial steps. If we’re putting in, for example, something that we call a scaffold, we think of scaffolding for anything, like a building, something you build upon. In our case, it’s what we build tissue upon. If you put that material in, our immune system in our body is going to go wait a second. This is not supposed to be here. If you’ve ever gotten a splinter, you know it turns red and our body tries to get it out, so that’s called a foreign body response.

What we want is we don’t want this inflammatory angry response to happen around this material we’re putting in to try and grow new tissue, so we need to come at it from two sides. We need to know this from the healing side, but we also need to know how exactly our body is interacting with the materials we’re implanting. What I’ve recently done during some of my postdoctoral work is found a certain pathway that links some of the scarring that we see in an injury with some of the scarring or what we call fibrosis around a material that’s been implanted. Our immune system doesn’t like it. It tries to attack it. If it can’t attack it, it deposits a scar over it to try and block it off. That research, hopefully, will be published sometime in the near future.

Tanya: Your research really focuses on understanding the mechanisms of that dynamic.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Yeah, if we understand the mechanisms, we understand how something works. We can then target it with therapeutics, which we have begun to do as well in that project. We’re able to target that mechanism with a drug, and then decrease our body’s negative response to that material.

Tanya: I see. In other words, by knowing what the drivers are, you can actually then manipulate the drivers to have, let’s say, a forced reaction to something.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Exactly, you have the bottom up. It’s one way of doing it is the bottom up. If we understand the biology behind it and we understand the mechanism behind it so how our body’s responding to it and why, then we can develop therapeutics for that.

Tanya: Why would you implant or in what cases would you implant a foreign body into your body, like the scaffolding that you were mentioning?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: In the field of regenerative medicine specifically – for example, if you have a traumatic defect so if there is, for example, a farming accident or a bomb explosion, anything that resulted in a large piece of tissue that has been damaged and that has to be removed, what we can do and the goal would be to place a scaffold or material in there that fills that space and also gives our stem cells and our tissue something to grow onto. That is one example where we’re looking for the immune system to really interact and tell our tissue how to grow and heal itself. Then there are other sides where we just want our immune system to not even notice it’s there, so this is something that we implant where we just want it to exist and not interact at all. That, for example, would be pacemaker leads, the needle for an insulin pump, the needles for a glucose monitor, those sorts of things where we really don’t need the immune system doing anything other than ignoring it. There’s two classes of materials: ones we want to interact, which are the ones that I will be – I’m working with; the ones we don’t want to interact or we want there to be just the general tolerance of.

Tanya: What are some technologies that we can expect on the market that would help our body heal faster?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: What has been looked at recently – so one material that has been in the clinic for a few years but only over the past about ten years has been really dug into how our immune system is helping it is called a decellularized tissue or extracellular matrix. We call it ECM. Some people have seen this image that had gone around online of a “ghost heart.” It’s a heart that had all of the cells removed out of it, and so that’s extracellular matrix. This material is made by pretty much treating a native tissue or something, a normal piece of tissue. Mostly, it can be porcine so from pig donors, or it can also come from human donors, deceased human donors, and then you treat it with acid as well as some soap. That helps pull out the living cells. We don’t have that transplant rejection, but you have this nice complex material that’s been made by a body. It’s biologic. It’s not a plastic.

That has been used in multiple clinical context, including abdominal wall repair so hernia repair. What that will do is it’s – the phrase we use is remodeled, so it’s like remodeling your house. It’s been converted into more the patient’s own tissue. It’s [21:38], so that way it can slowly be processed and formed back into something that is similar to the patient’s own tissue. That’s one material that, actually, they’ve learned over the past few years is it’s really important to have the immune cells there. Our immune system actually governs quite a bit of that repair. Those are, again, currently used in different hernia repairs as well as I believe diabetic foot ulcers, just sealing off some of the connective tissues as well.

Tanya: You were mentioning in your TED Talk – this is something that I really liked. It’s almost like, when you break something, you can put it back together again, but there’s always a sensitivity or a weakness in the area that it was broken. It’ll never be as it was before. In this technology that you’re researching and you’re developing where you’re really encouraging the body to regenerate as it was previous to the injury, can you talk a little bit about that part of it?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: When I was actually speaking in that talk, I was referring to some work that we had done on these ECM scaffolds specifically, so these weren’t developed directly by our lab but have been worked on by multiple labs. With these, pretty much what we’re trying to see is do we get a scar? Do we get the dense collagen tissue that’s not super functional, or do we get real new tissue that comes out? When we were looking at muscle, what we saw was that there was a specific type of immune cell that, if those were absent, we saw more scar tissue, and we saw smaller muscle fibers that didn’t look too great, and if those immune cells were present, we saw larger muscle fibers. We saw less scar tissue. That’s when we’re starting to learn exactly how these materials work, so if we can understand how the good materials work, then we can engineer further toward really promoting tissue regeneration.

Tanya: I hope that you guys really get there. The application would be huge, and the innovation would be truly breakthrough.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: The field is definitely very excited. I will say that. There are clinical results that are really excited about the promise of the work that’s out there.

Tanya: How far do you think we are from being able to deliver on that?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: What I always say is that, though a lot of people want me to say, oh, we’re going to be regenerating arms next year, which would be great, super great, I will definitely agree. The thing is is that, for most technologies, for example, when you start your clinical trials, when you start, you filed your invention, your patent on it, and you start that. It’ll take ten years for it to see a clinic just to make sure that it’s safe. Even if we had something right now, it would take a bit of time. That being said, there are other things that have been worked on in the past so, for example, improving these materials that are helping with abdominal wall repair. Those weren’t present 20 years ago.

The way I see for whole limbs is that, as opposed to something along the lines of being able to regenerate a whole arm, as opposed to – I’d say, as opposed to Deadpool, think a little bit more Luke Skywalker. Working with people that are creating integrative prosthesis that our immune system won’t reject some of the integrative parts of that I think is the next step. We’ll see a lot more coming in with these prosthesis for whole limb. I do really hope in the future where we can start seeing therapeutics that might lead to starting with small fingers. Even the skin is a complex tissue. We don’t think about it, but it’s got hair follicles. It’s got oil glands. It’s got a little bit of a muscle layer underneath it. It’s an exciting field, and we’re starting to see some of those products coming out, and over the next several years, as this field has really started to grow, we’ll see a lot more coming out in the preclinical and clinical realm.

Tanya: Part of your job is to really discover what is not out there yet, and that takes something. It’s a tremendous discovery process, but the fact that it is even out there as a potential thing that eventually we could or we would like to achieve is a great starting point. Just shifting gears a little bit into something that personally affected my family, which is Lyme disease, it’s starting to be known as an immune disease, but not a lot is known about it. There was an amazing article that just circulated. I think it was last week about a woman’s experience in dealing with Lyme, and I sent it to everybody that I know that had Lyme. I don’t even know if this is your area of specialty, but Lyme affects the immune system. It’s known that, in long-term untreated patients that have Lyme disease, if it goes undiagnosed for a long period of time – let’s say five, ten years, whatever it is. Then they go and they take the antibiotics, and they go through the treatments. It’s well documented that patients have side effects and reoccurring symptoms periodically and for long periods of time. Seemingly, the parasite has removed or the disease has been removed from the body. Do you know anything about this field and what is actually going on there?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I am learning more. I have a close family member that has chronic Lyme and diagnosed with an autoimmune condition. It is known that infections can lead to autoimmunity. It can lead to sometimes cancers, viral cancers. For example, HPV can lead to cervical cancer, as the fun reminder to please get vaccinated. We have [28:20] vaccinated. They’re very good. Infections like Lyme can cause the state of inflammation, this imbalance in your immune system, and then you start to see things pop up that are symptomatic of autoimmunity.

This is a field that is adjacent to what I work on but not directly what I work on, but it is very interesting because it is an imbalance in your immune system that is created. There are researchers that have been working on more specified autoimmune style conditions. For example, type 1 diabetes where your immune cells attack your pancreatic islet cells, the ones that produce insulin. There are researchers that are working on that as well as multiple sclerosis and other disease that is – I believe it’s MS. Apologies, I’m not a neuro person either. Your immune system is attacking the myelin sheath around your neurons, so more and more we find out that the immune system is intricately tied to a number of diseases, not just fighting off infections.

There have been engineering approaches where we’re trying to calm our immune system down. These patients often get put on high-dose prednisone or high-dose steroids which come with their own host of side effects. Though I do not know the Lyme field that well, I plan on learning a lot more of it. [29:48] is due to the personal infection. There has been research there, but I’d say that just the role of the immune system in so many processes in our body has been – the research is absolutely exploding, and the appreciation for its importance is really increasing.

Tanya: The appreciation for the development, is that for Lyme specifically?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I’d say for multiple. I don’t know about Lyme specifically as it is outside of my field but, in general, infections and things like that. Some of these sicknesses that you’d see that people would present with, there was no etiology. They had no idea what the cause was and find out that their immune system is acting up. I think that doing more of that basic research that – when I say basic, I mean understanding the biology. Doing more of that biologic research, the immunologic research is going to open doors to some of these therapeutics. I think that it’s going to take a little bit of time to really understand that link, but that door I believe is open now.

Tanya: Yeah, I don’t know what family member you have that has that. My mom went undiagnosed with Lyme for ten years, and it showed up. The doctors thought that she had rheumatoid arthritis. Meanwhile, the disease was causing havoc in her body for all that time. Really, this is a field that’s such of interest to me, and we have such a long way to go in terms of how to treat it and how to help people that are really affected by that. I’m glad to hear that there’s advancements happening and, hopefully, a lot more.

Moving more on to the mental part of what you do because that’s – that plays a huge part in your ability to stick with the process and eventually come push the boundaries of what’s known and come up with really profound discoveries. What is your process for pushing the envelope and coming up with key discoveries?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: For me, I’d say that coming into the field as somebody that had a basic immunology, a – by basic immunology, I mean really concentrating on the immune cells, the function of them. Coming into bioengineering from that background has really helped me out. I really like to look at it, again, from that bottom up view. What’s causing it? What’s going on here? What pieces can we connect? You can go to different conferences or talk to other researchers about the science that they’re doing, and you start to see different pieces that go, huh, I see that popping up in my material that I’ve put in here. What’s going on there? What’s the connection there? It’s really thinking about the immune system. Thinking about what it does and what it’s been reported to do.

Then, just on the personal side of things, going out and going for a hike is the biggest thing. Going outside or just doing something away from the lab for a little bit can really free your mind open, and that’s, I think, for most people. Remove yourself from an environment if you get stuck and if you just need to think. I’d say going outside, going for a walk, going for a swim, or just doing whatever makes you happy that doesn’t make your brain work too hard. That gives your brain some space.

Tanya: Yeah, isn’t that funny when you have – I’ve spoken to so many people, by the way. Whether it’s scientists, or academia, or entrepreneurs, business operators, doesn’t matter, the biggest breakthroughs happened in the shower, on the toilet, taking a run in the morning. I mean, you name it. Yeah, so I guess it’s really allowing yourself that unstructured thinking where your subconscious does a lot of the dot connecting and, boom, an idea opens up. It’s amazing.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Yeah, that’s why you give yourself the mental space is – I’m going camping this weekend. Before I start up my next position, I’m headed out into the woods for a weekend to just clear my head, of course, and then come back and get ready to do some fun science.

Tanya: That’s awesome. If you look back on your career up until now, what has been single-handedly the toughest challenge that you have had to overcome?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I was born and raised in Maryland. I went to college there. I did my PhD there. Then I decided that I needed to break out of the box a little bit, of my box, and I moved up to Boston. I knew no one in the city, and it was a big jump for me. When science can get stressful, it’s really important I think, for multiple careers, to have that personal side. When you move up somewhere for work, it’s not as much like when you move somewhere to start an educational program.

For example, college, you’re starting. You’ve got orientation with all the other college freshman. Same with my PhD, when we started our PhD, we had this core set of people. For me, that move up to Boston, that going into a city where I didn’t know anyone in several hours driving radius was definitely tough for me to start, and of course, now I miss all of the friends that I made there. I’d say that moment of getting myself out of my comfort zone, which was Maryland, and now I’ve returned.

Tanya: I did it. I’m done, check, going back.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: The way I see it is that part of the reason that I stayed in Maryland so long was how much great science is in the state as well as DC. Though there are so many opportunities in the area, I just had to physically leave for a little bit. It was like, nope, stop it. I got the great opportunity to come back to the Maryland area to start my own lab at the National Institutes of Health. I’m really excited for it. Not only do I get to do science at a great institution, I get to do it around my family, which is great.

Tanya: Oh, my God, that’s like a double win. That’s incredible. As a scientist, a lot of what you’re doing is learning what doesn’t work. Ninety percent of the time you’re finding things out that don’t work, that lead to nowhere, but there’s a small sliver of the time that it leads to really great discoveries. What has been your journey like and process like to really embrace failure as a part of your journey to success?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I think that every scientist you’ll meet will have a great sense of sarcastic humor. I think that’s the one thing that we all develop is this great cynical sarcastic humor and just an ability to bounce back. When we’re saying a huge chunk of things in science aren’t working, it’s not even necessarily the big picture ideas. It might be your day-to-day. This technical thing that I tried just didn’t work, or this protocol that I read somewhere didn’t work for me. Early on, it’s rough, I will say, when you’re starting something out, and you’re like, oh, this is horrible. Nothing’s working. A PhD is not for everybody. I will definitely say that.

You learn eventually that it’ll work out. The more you learn that hasn’t worked, the more you can form that, okay, so this hypothesis was wrong, but it showed me this so knowing that you’re forming the bigger picture. You’re not going into something saying this is what I want to see. You go into something saying what am I going to see? That thought really helps when you go I don’t know what I “want to see.” I just want to see what happened.

Tanya: That’s an interesting way to frame the context of a project or even life, right? Going in and being committed to – especially when you’re pushing the boundaries of what’s known. I would imagine that that type of context is absolutely fundamental to allow you to have a particular process.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I think it’s something that has also helped with life in general. That viewpoint of que sera, sera, [39:02] of let’s see what happens. For example, when I moved up to Boston, let’s see what happens.

Tanya: Being in the science field, have you felt that you needed to work harder because you’re a woman in a male dominated field, or did you ever feel that you were different or that the ratio – what was your experience like being a woman in your area of expertise?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I’d say, of course, there have been negative experiences associated with it. I luckily had a great female PhD advisor, Jennifer [39:50] up at Hopkins, who was a great accomplished woman scientist that I worked with during my entire PhD. Of course, there are the moments where you’re at conferences, and you see everyone go to grab lunch. It’s the boys club, or there’s buddies that are friends or stuff like that. For me, I’ve always had that vision of I will work hard. I’ll do my science, and the science will speak for itself.

It doesn’t always work out that way. Sometimes it’s no matter how you work it’s not going to – you’re not going to break that glass ceiling. I’ve had good experiences. I’ve had bad experiences. Ultimately, they’ve shaped me into the scientist I am today. I haven’t let anything get me down. When you are talking to people that say, oh, they were chatting with you because you’re a 20-something female at a conference, I just try and ignore it a bit and go on with my day. There are certain things that women have definitely had a harder time than I have. I will definitely phrase it like that.

It can be rough, but at the same time, I think that I’ve been in labs that it hasn’t been as much of an issue. I’ve had some interactions, of course, that were not for best. I have been lucky in the fact that I haven’t been in labs that that really formed the basis of what people thought of you.

Tanya: Yeah, that’s great. Just to get a sense for your journey, what was the one thing, the one experience, the one negative experience that you remember that stands out?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Once I was a young scientist, I had someone tell me that I should go be a psychologist because it’s got spreadsheets, and that’s good for women. Leave laboratory science to men. That was [42:03].

Tanya: You’re kidding. Oh, my God!

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Not only was it demeaning to the field of psychology and the fact that he had suggested that it was an easier field so not only did he insult an entire field, but it was suggested that some fields, i.e. laboratory science, weren’t good for women.

Tanya: What do you even say to that? That’s crazy.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I just said that I graduated third in my class behind two other women. That was the only thing I could think of.

Tanya: Yeah, you’re like actually, no, you have no idea.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I wound up switching to working with another individual. It worked out after that. I tried to prove myself to this individual, but I realized there was nothing changing their mind. It was a moment of maybe I’m not cut out for this as a young female scientist, but ultimately speaking, it showed me what can happen and what you might come across. That was a tough day.

Tanya: Yeah, I can imagine. Yeah, it’s interesting. I’ve spoken with a lot of very accomplished women, and I also work with very accomplished women at a board level and executive level in businesses. It’s interesting because there’s always an inflection point or often an inflection point in their careers where they say they trust themselves. They have enough under their belt where they don’t feel like they have to prove themselves. It’s like I am who I am. My history speaks for itself. That’s it. I don’t care. This is not a thing anymore.

Until they reach that level, it’s a battle. It’s an internal battle, and then there’s actual external circumstances that make you engage in battle. Hopefully, with the next generation so my daughters’ generation, even less of that is going to be present because of what we’ve gone through and stood up for.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Yeah, definitely, you have those moments, and you sold your [44:22]. I’d say I still think that I’m – being a scientist that is yet to hit tenure. I go up for tenure in six years. I still have to prove myself. Even after that, I still will want to be like this is the research I’ve done. The science is good. That’s what I want is to be known as somebody who does good science.

Tanya: What do you think is important to talk about that we haven’t yet talked about?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: You don’t need to have a specific background to go into science. I think that’s one thing that I – my parents, neither of them were scientists. I have no scientists in my family. I’m the only PhD in my family. My mom went to college, and she was a schoolteacher. My dad was in the Marines and went straight into working for IBM. He worked there for 38 years. My family wasn’t in lab science. It didn’t really occur to me that much. I grew up with my parents telling me, pretty much, you can do anything.

That idea of being able to really – you can go into science. You can look for – I didn’t go to any of these science camps or anything like that as a kid. It doesn’t matter. Enjoy yourself. Find something that you enjoy doing, and if you enjoy doing science, then do science, be that going to graduate school and getting a PhD, or going straight into the research sector out of your undergraduate. There are so many amazing careers in science, and if you want to be there, then you can be there.

Tanya: It’s amazing how one internship when you were in high school changed the – shaped the path that you’re on now. It’s amazing.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Yeah, that was my friend from high school. The internship was in college. Yeah, it was early on in college, so it was after my sophomore year of college.

Tanya: Oh, that’s great. Kaitlyn, thank you for so much for taking the time to be with us today and for sharing all the incredible things that you’re working on and, really, your journey as a trailblazer in the science field, and I just want to wish you very, very good luck as you endeavor to lead your own lab in a few weeks or even next week and just really honored that you took the time to be with us.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Yeah, I appreciate being invited to come on this podcast. It’s been great chatting with you. I’m really excited what the field’s doing. I think that, as a collective, we across all these institutions really can make a difference.

Tanya: That’s amazing. If somebody wants to get in touch with you, how would they do that? What’s the best way?

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: I would say that, the best way, you can reach me on Twitter. That’s probably going to be my most public-facing platform, @kaysadtler.

Tanya: Okay, awesome. Thank you so much.

Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler: Great, thank you so much.

Announcement: Unmessable is recorded in the heart of New York City, and a special thanks to all the team involved in producing the show. Visit tanyaprive.com/unmessable to find a transcript of this episode, and be sure to subscribe to our newsletter.

Leadership: What You Can Learn From Chimpanzees

November 21st, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “Leadership: What You Can Learn From Chimpanzees”

Dr. Frans de Waal, a two-time TED Speaker, twelve-time author, biologist, and ethologist spent the majority of his life studying primate behavior and social interactions. In our oddly fascinating conversation, he debunks commonly held beliefs we hold about our closest relatives and draws interesting parallels in our leadership practices.

Who knew we were so similar in the way we operate and lead? Could that be due to the fact that we share 99% of the same DNA?

Named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 Most influential people today, Frans published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and is currently a Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University.

Tune in to learn about the striking leadership similarities between humans and primates:

      • Leadership practices that date back millions of years
      • Leadership principles that govern primates and humans
      • How cultural norms influence behaviors
      • How female and male leadership differ in the primate world
      • The role of alpha males and characteristic traits of successful leaders

Connect with Frans de Waal:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Frans de Waal: Another thing that people think is what animals do must be instinctive and what humans do is based on whatever; culture, education, things like that. I think that’s an enormous simplification because animals, of course, also have cultures. They transfer knowledge and habits to each other. A chimpanzee is adult when they’re 16 or something, so they have an enormous amount of time in which to learn how to live their life and do things. I would say in the primates, things are – the balance between, let’s say, what is learned and what is cultural and what is natural or instinctive is very similar to our species.

Tanya: That’s Frans de Waal, two-time TED speaker, 12-time author, biologist, and ethologist that, through his research, draws fascinating parallels between primates and humans, In his TED talk titled Moral Behaviors in Animals, which has been viewed by millions of people, he shares groundbreaking research that debunks preconceptions we have long-believed to be true about animals and our proximity to them. Named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people today, Frans has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and is currently a professor of primate behavior in the department of psychology at Emory University.

Frans, what drove you to studying primates and where did your love for primates, or for animals really, start?

Frans de Waal: Well, I’ve always been, as a child already, been interested in animals. At that time, it was small animals and usually fish or salamanders or something. The primates itself, that was secondary. That came much later when I was a student. Of course, I had no primates around in the Netherlands at the time.

Tanya: What really prompted your interest to start really diving into the behaviors of primates. At what point did that happen in your life?

Frans de Waal: Well, I went to study biology and I was very disappointed. I went to study biology because I was interested in animals and then all the animals I saw were already dead and I had to dissect them. It was very much focused on anatomy and on systematic of plants and things like that, and biochemistry, which we now call molecular biology. Those were the subjects that I was dealing with and I was really disappointed. I started working in a psychology lab, just over the summer to earn some money. They had two chimpanzees, which is unusual of course. In a way, it’s ridiculous for a psychology lab to have two chimps sitting around, among the offices basically. That was really fun and that got me interested in the primates. Then I moved to another university where I could do, finally, animal behavior and I started working with birds and with rats. The birds actually were wild birds, so I worked in the field a little bit with those birds. That’s how I got involved in animal behavior.

Tanya: That’s so interesting. Out of curiosity, the office of psychology was that animal psychology or human psychology?

Frans de Waal: No, this was the most ridiculous thing. It was a big building for human psychology and on the top floor they had, among the offices, a room in which they had put a cage with two chimpanzees. The chimpanzees very often escaped and ran around and people got scared of them because they’re, of course, potentially dangerous. I played with those chimps and I got really interested – their intelligence was so extremely obvious, I got interested in that.

Tanya: That is so unusual. I don’t think I’ve ever heard about that. This is just a very deep curiosity of mine. What do you know about how being around animals influences human beings or positively impacts kids?

Frans de Waal: Yes, I think all children are interested in animals, and of course, they sleep with stuffed animals and they see movies that have talking animals. I think all children are interested. I’m always curious why about half the people, when they become adolescent and adult, lose that interest because there’s a lot of people who don’t want to be compared with animals and feel that it’s insulting to call them animals. All children have this fondness of animals and are really interested in them and feel connected with them, and actually better connected with them than most adults.

We did one time research a zoo, where we looked at public reactions to the animals, and we notice that, for example, if the chimpanzees had a huge fight that was really serious, the kids got very upset and they watched it and they stared at it. Many of the adults would be laughing; they thought it was funny that they were playing. The kids had a better perception of what was going on among the chimps, I think, than the adults.

Tanya: Anecdotally, my family – I have three kids, two identical twins of two and one that’s three. We’re part of this – we have a membership to this – I live in New York City, so not a whole lot of animals around. We’re part of this membership, where we got to go to a small petting zoo that take tremendous care of their animals. You can only go for a limited amount of time and I’ve just so loved seeing my children around the animals and the compassion that they have for them and feed them and care for them. I don’t have a lot of data around how this really impacts them per sé but I can see that it is a very lovely experience for them.

Frans de Waal: Kids connect in a natural way with animals. They don’t feel superior to animals like many adults do. We are humans and they are animals. Kids don’t think they’re unnecessarily better or more or less intelligent than animals, so they connect in a very natural way. It’s only later on that people develop these attitudes that, for me, are very puzzling, where you put yourself above them and put yourself separate from them.

Tanya: Yes that’s is puzzling. I wonder how and when each – not everybody’s like that but how we develop that. Having spent most of your life – you’re a 12-time author, you’re a professor, you’re a 2-time TED speaker, your achievements are really wide. What would you say are the two things or the biggest things, doesn’t have to be two, that you’re most proud of?

Frans de Waal: In my work, I was the first to talk about empathy in animals. Not empathy of us for animals but empathy responses among animals. For example, now we have all this research on empathy by dogs or by rats or by primates. In the 1990s, I was the first to say that animals empathized with the feelings and the emotions of others and there was an enormous amount of resistance at the time. People really didn’t want to hear this because in general, people like to hear things about animals that are dark and negative, like animals kill each other and they’re nasty to each other. They try to be dominant over each other. That kind of stories people like to hear but as soon as you say they – they also can be friends with each other or they can empathize with each other or they help each other sometimes, that was the thing in the 1990s that people didn’t like to hear, especially in the sciences, but also outside.

I had to fight to get this whole concept through and now, we are at the point where we really believe that all mammals, maybe also beyond the mammals, but certainly all mammals have empathy responses, which are regulated in a way – we think it relates to maternal behavior and that’s why females have [actually] more of it than males in general. It’s regulated by the same systems across the board in all these species. That’s an idea that has really taken hold now, to the point that if you say now that, let’s say, an elephant has empathy for another elephant, people will say, yeah, of course they do, but that was controversial at the time.

Tanya: That’s amazing. You really pioneered that whole development of empathy, which is incredible. What would be a second one – sorry, before I forget. You also wrote a whole book on that, The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society. When did you publish that?

Frans de Waal: That was shortly after. I think that was probably 2005 or something, 2009. Another thing that I did is I wrote Chimpanzee Politics. That’s the first book that I wrote and I just had my PhD, I think, when I published it. That got an enormous amount of attention, also here in Washington because Newt Gingrich, Republican, brought it to the attention of the freshman Republicans, that all of them had to read Chimpanzee Politics. That was about power structure and coalition formation. Basically, male chimpanzees – more of the males than the females do that. People were really fascinated by that because it was the first time that they read that you have alpha males for example. The term alpha male became fashionable after that. You have alpha males who try to reach the top position by making friends with others and so on, so there was a very political – very Machiavellian-type story.

Tanya: How much of the primates’ behavior emulates human behavior?

Frans de Waal: Well emulates makes it sound as if they copy it from us. I think the similarities between human behavior and animal behavior are due to shared ancestry. We share ancestors with the chimpanzee and these ancestors probably did the same thing. They had probably male power structures, where coalition formation was very important. Yes, we have all these things in common. Certainly, more basic things, something like empathy or cooperation in general, those go back much further, not just even to primates; you find that in all sorts of animals.

Tanya: Actually in your TED talk titled, Moral Behavior in Animals, you define empathy as the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I thought that was interesting. One of the things that I have been speaking of with some of the other guests that have been on the podcast, including neuroscientists and other experts, is the noticeable decrease in our society of empathy. What are your thoughts on that?

Frans de Waal: I’m not sure that I believe that kind of data because personally I don’t notice the decrease in empathy so much. I know that people complain about all the use of social media and all the staring at cell phones and things like that that people do. You know, social media, we call it social media, they are social. People are interacting on these media. They have shifted their interactions and maybe also their empathy responses from direct ones that you do around the table, so to speak, to more indirect ones that you do over your phone or over your computer. I’m not sure that all the use of social media and attention to is has led to a decrease of empathy but people seem to claim that, yeah.

Tanya: Yes, there’s certainly claims of that and studies of it. Actually, when I was getting ready to chat with you, I saw a study that said something to the effect of a 40% decrease in empathy. That especially is prevalent in younger generations, starting from millennials and below. I don’t know –

Frans de Waal: The older generation always complains about the younger generation. They’re always stupid or behind or insensitive. Actually, at the moment I look at the younger generation as our only hope because the older generation of my generation, we have messed up the whole world. I look at the younger people as the ones who are maybe going to save us. Yeah, people always complain about them.

Tanya: Hopefully, we can certainly make some progress because our planet, our environment certainly needs saving, unquestionably.

Frans de Waal: Yeah, and who are the ones who are most motivated to do that? You can see that at the moment it’s the younger generation. It’s not the baby boomers who are doing to do that.

Tanya: Yeah, and in my case for example, something happened when I had kids where my motivation to really get up to speed on what is happening in the world with the climate change and everything, I was kicked into high gear when my children were born. Something about leaving our planet in a better state than when we leave it, is important to me, and having spoken to a lot of people, to them as well. Yes, I would agree with that.

Thinking about empathy and everything that you have learned about that through our fellow primates, what do you see is the connection between empathy and leadership?

Frans de Waal: That’s an interesting one. Normally in a group of chimpanzees, the most empathic individuals are usually females. They’re the ones who – for example, a typical empathic response would be called consolation. Someone has lost a fight or someone has fallen out of a tree is very upset, who is going to go over to embrace them and kiss them and groom them? That’s usually the females. The one exception in that regard is the alpha male. The alpha male is the most empathic male usually. He’s the one who provides reassurance to a lot of individuals, who also breaks up fights and protects the weaker parties very often, in that situation. The alpha male is the, sort of, consoler in chief.

I always find it interesting that in human society, that’s very often the case too. If there’s a hurricane or if there’s an earthquake, it is the Pope or the President or some high ranking individual who goes there and tries to reassure everyone. That’s a role that is, sort of, woven into the alpha male role. People always things that alpha males are bullies who beat up everybody, and they exist; there are alpha male bullies also in humans. There are alpha males who don’t do any of these nice things and basically terrify everybody, but the typical alpha males that I’ve known are peacemakers and unifiers and consolers and have a very positive role. That’s also what makes them, often popular. If they are like that, then they become popular leaders and they sometimes stay in power for very long because the group keeps them in power. The group will support them if they are challenged by somebody else, which always happens on occasion. If the alpha male is popular, then the whole group is going to support them and usually then they stay just where they are.

Tanya: How long do typical alpha males stay in power?

Frans de Waal: In chimpanzees, that would be for or five years, but there are alpha males who have stayed in power for 12 years, alpha males that are really popular. The ones who are bullies, they often end badly in the sense that as soon as there’s a challenge, of course the others are going to help the challenger usually. They’re sometimes driven out of the group or attacked by the other group.

Tanya: That’s so interesting and so many parallels we can draw here in the business world of leadership. Of that alpha male or that group of alpha males that stayed in power for such a long time, what was unique about them? Why do you think that their tenure was extended?

Frans de Waal: Well, I think the alpha males who keep the peace, who are good at interrupting fights and protecting the underdog and consoling the parties afterwards, that’s the sort of alpha male that will stay in power long because the group will support them. Alpha males who are bullies and everyone is terrified of them, they’re just waiting for the occasion that someone challenges them, a younger male challenges them. Then the whole group thinks, well that’s a good occasion to help the young male and then the position is usually ended that way.

In the wild, we now know because when I was a student, I saw a horrible case of a high ranking male who was killed by other males. At the time since I work in captivity, this was at a large zoo colony people said, well, what do you expect that happens at the zoo. Now, we know at least a dozen cases in the wild where alpha males have been terminated by the group, basically, in a horrible way. I think that happens mostly to alpha males who are bullies. Alpha males who terrorize everybody, who cannot control their aggression and do not bring peace to the group, they are the ones who then, if the occasion arises, they get punished or expelled by the group.

When they get expelled, that has also happened in the field, they get driven out of the group and they have a very difficult existence then because they cannot join another group. In chimpanzees, the groups are hostile between each other and so the ex-alpha male has then to live in the boundary areas between groups, which is a very dangerous place to live in.

Tanya: Wow! That sounds so familiar to some of the dynamics in our society, frankly. I’m wondering, having studied really the psychology and the inner workings of animals for so long, primates, what has been your biggest lessons on how to live and what have you learned from them?

Frans de Waal: You mean my own life?

Tanya: Hm-mm.

Frans de Waal: I myself, even though I like to watch all this primate behavior, I’m not very active in the power politics myself. I’m, of course, a professor at a big psychology department and so we have faculty meetings with all these big professors, talk with each other and there’s power politics going on there but I’m usually staying out of all this. I’m more an observer than a participant. I do think I have a better idea of what’s going on usually because I pick up details of behavior so easily. I may have a better grip of what is going on but I don’t use that information to further my own position, so to speak.

Tanya: What are some of the biggest lessons that primates have talked you about life and living in general?

Frans de Waal: Oh, I think we are an intensely social species, and maybe I don’t need to tell anyone that because everyone realizes how sociable we are. It is true that, for example, in the American culture, there’s a lot of emphasis on individualism and autonomy, which maybe relates to the history of conquering the West. The cowboy on the horse with his guns and everything, the independent, autonomous hero of the tale. That’s an ideal that lives in this particular culture but I’m from a very different country, the Netherlands, which is a very small place, very crowded, overcrowded country. Not militaristic at all and very much focused on what we call consensus building. We try to get along because we have to get along, since it is such a crowded place, so that’s a very different culture.

I think that also is the reason, maybe, why I was so interested in conflict resolution and reconciliation behavior and empathy responses in my animals at a time when everyone was studying competition and winning and losing and all of these things. That has, fortunately, changed now. We have a much broader view of animal behavior and also of human behavior. All this focus that we used to have on selfishness and competition and winning and losing has made place for more interesting cooperation in our societies and in animal societies.

Tanya: Well, I certainly see the rhetoric in the business world going towards collaboration and cooperation, and we, as of us versus I-type conversations, that makes perfect sense that that also would be seen in the animals and in the primates. You mentioned something about conflict resolution. I just wrote an article about that. I’m very curious, how do primates resolve conflicts?

Frans de Waal: Well, the first thing is when I was a student, I discovered reconciliation behavior in the chimpanzees, and this happened because I saw big fight in the colony that I studied. A couple of hours later, I saw two chimpanzees embrace and kiss and the whole group got vey excited by it and everyone was hooting and interested in it. I was very puzzled. I thought, what is the big deal, what’s going on here. Until much later, I realized that the two individuals who had kissed and embraced were the same individuals who had had the fight a couple of hours before. That’s when I realized that these chimps maybe reconcile after fights.

We started studying it and, yes, they systematically do that and now we know actually for lots of species, it’s not just the chimpanzees, it’s lots of primate species and many social animals like, let’s say, dolphins and elephants and wolves, they all have reconciliations after fights, which means that they have conflicting interests which lead to confrontation. The relationship remains very valuable to them and the cooperation that they derive from it is valuable to them, and so they have to repair the relationship. We now have this whole field of conflict resolution studies in animals and I think there’s not a social animal that doesn’t do it. That’s one way they resolve conflict.

Then sometimes you have more complex ways, where individuals mediate. For example, in chimpanzees you may have a fight between two males. The males are unable to reconcile, they just keep staring at each other and they don’t really do anything. Then an adult female, usually an older female, will step in and bring the parties together. It’s usually not done by males because as soon as one of the males approaches one of these contestants, it starts to look like he’s taking sides and so the males cannot really interfere. It’s not done by younger females because they are often the cause of these fights and they may make things, actually, worse instead of better. It’s an older female with a lot of authority who steps in. Sometimes, these females they move the males actually literally together. They grab the arm of a male and they drag him towards the other male and they sit sometimes between them for a couple of minutes before they disappear, so the females mediate. That’s a complex form of conflict resolution that sometimes occurs.

Tanya: Wow that’s amazing. I did not think that they – our lovely primates here would have that level of sophistication and ability to do that. One thing that you mentioned, you said that they have, on the first answer, a systematic way of resolving conflict. Do they resolve conflict 100% of the time, every time that it occurs?

Frans de Waal: No because sometimes they have conflict with individuals they don’t care about. If my biggest enemy insults me, I’m not going to bother with that, but if my best friend says something and we have a conflict, then yes. I won’t give up that friendship so easily. Reconciliation is typical of relationships that we call valuable, so it’s called the valuable relationship hypothesis, which has been tested also experimentally on animals. The more value there is in the relationship, the more you will see conflict resolution. The less value there is the less you see it.

For example, in chimpanzees, the males are more conciliatory than the females. That may sound counterintuitive because people always think the females are so peaceful and so on. Females have major conflicts sometimes and they are very bad at reconciling them, whereas the males, they take it easier in a way. They will have a fight and a conflict and then a couple of hours later, they are grooming each other and they are sitting together and they are playing together and they get completely over it, it seems.

I’m [partially] very familiar with this. I’m from a family of six boys and so I think I was prepared to see these things. Yeah, the females have fewer conflicts because they avoid conflict at all cost with their best friends and their kin, their family. The females have a certain small group of individuals that they avoid conflicts with, but if they have a conflict with one of their rivals, one of the females they don’t care about, they’re not going to reconcile. They keep grudges for a long time with those.

Tanya: Well that sounds very familiar too. It’s really fascinating to see our history from an animalistic standpoint and our apple didn’t fall so far from the tree, so to speak!

Frans de Waal: Chimps are, of course, also our closest relatives. Chimps and bonobos, we haven’t talked about bonobos yet, but they are our two closest relatives. They are so close to us that some biologists have argued that we should put all of them in the same genus. We have a special genus for ourselves, which is homo; we are homo sapiens. The homo genus is our genus but people have argued that we are so close to chimps and bonobos that we actually all belong in one genus.

Tanya: What’s your philosophy on that?

Frans de Waal: Well, I will let humans keep their own [29:30] if they like it so much. I know it’s a bit of an ego question for our species I think, but taxonomically speaking, if you would find two bird species that are genetically as close as humans are to chimps, we would obviously put them in the same genus. We would not worry about that.

Tanya: Wow, that’s interesting. For you, what are some of the biggest misconceptions on top of this whole empathy thing that you really rolled out in the ‘90s? What are some of the misconceptions that you’ve constantly bumped up against that people are just so misinformed about?

Frans de Waal: One of them is related to gender is that people saying that in the primates you have a few dominant males who own the females. Sort of the boss, but more than a boss, he’s also the owner, so the patriarchal society so-to-speak. There are a few primates who are like that, but not our closest relatives. In the primates, the females are pretty autonomous in most primates in the sense that they have their own life, and they do their own things, and they collect their own food. They’re not owned by anybody. They have to deal sometimes with aggressive males, that’s for sure. They may want to avoid those sometimes, but they’re not owned by anybody.

Then you have species, like the bonobo, which is equally close to us as the chimpanzee where actually the females dominate the males, at least most females dominate most males. People have a misconception as far as the gender roles are concerned. They have all – I think [31:14] from certain baboon studies where they have decided that males own the females, but in our closest relatives, that’s not the case.

Tanya: In baboons, is that true that males own the females?

Frans de Waal: There is a species of baboon, it’s called the hamadryas baboon, which is the sacred baboon that the Egyptians have in their temples and everything. That baboon is a bit like that. The male collects females, and keeps them close, and punishes them if they leave them. Yes, so those males have what they call a harem group. That’s very unusual. That particular baboon is very – and the males are also twice the size of females, which is really not the case in our society, or in the case of chimps and bonobos.

Tanya: That’s one. It’s really the gender roles in chimps and bonobos. What else have you noticed as just a real misinformation?

Frans de Waal: Another thing that people think is that what animals do must be instinctive, and what humans do is based on whatever, culture, education, things like that. I think that’s an enormous simplification because animals, of course, also have cultures. They transfer knowledge to each other and habits to each other. A chimpanzee is adult when they’re 16 or something. They have an enormous amount of time in which to learn how to live their life and do things.

I would say in the primates, things are – the balance between, let’s say, what is learned, and what is cultural, and what is natural or instinctive, is very similar to our species. People sometimes look at what chimpanzees do, or what bonobos do, must be instinctive compared to what we do. It’s all based on the same principles. We are a mix of biology and culture. I think the same is true in other primates.

Tanya: That’s very interesting. What are some of the cutting-edge theories, right now, that you’re working on or that you’ve seen around?

Frans de Waal: One of the main areas of research at the moment is cultural traditions. I think that for the last 20 years, people have been documenting how different groups of the same species may have very different behavior just as in humans. Let’s say, Italians have very different behavior from the Chinese. We call that cultural differences. We call it in the primates also cultural differences. You eat different foods. You prepare it in a different way and so on. These differences we find also.

For example, if you take a group of monkeys, let’s say, out of captivity, and you throw them in the forest, they’re probably not going to survive. Many people have tried these things, these release programs. They’re very unsuccessful partly because these monkeys don’t know what the predators are, so they run into dangers that they don’t know; partly they don’t know how to find their food, which foods to eat, which ones are poisonous and so on.

They are very dependent on transmitted knowledge. If you take them from captivity and throw them in the forest, they don’t have that knowledge, and so they cannot survive. People don’t always realize to what extent other animals, like monkeys, but this applies to many species, I think, how other animals are dependent on a set of cultural knowledge that’s basically around.

Tanya: How is their cultural knowledge distinctive? Is it geographic based, like humans, or how do you even see that?

Frans de Waal: It’s different from group to group. You may have one group of chimpanzees in Africa, which cracks nuts with stones and eats these nuts. Then you have another group that has the same stones and the same nuts available, but they ignore them, and they don’t do anything with them. That is based on a knowledge difference.

One group, somebody has discovered that you can eat these things and how to open them. you get an accumulation of knowledge. Now we see these differences. In the old days, we saw that all members of a particular species would behave in the same way, but now we have all these people documenting the regional variation and behavior.

Tanya: In other words, in the same region you could have two different groups that behave very differently.

Frans de Waal: They’re usually in separate regions. In all the primate groups, there is migration. The migrants, of course, bring knowledge. If you have, let’s say, two groups of chimpanzees who live side-by-side. One doesn’t know that you can eat certain nuts. They get a migrant out from another group who will show them, basically, what you can eat. The adjacent groups – and the same is true, of course, in humans. We have a lot of migration within society going on. The adjacent groups, they bring knowledge to each other.

Tanya: In what form is knowledge passed down? Is there some type of genetic pass down, or it’s from watching, and seeing, and observing?

Frans de Waal: It’s mostly from observation. Knowledge is not something you get genetically unless – there are certain techniques, like hunting techniques, that may be instinctive. The knowledge comes from watching other individuals do certain things. The youngsters, for example, always watch their mother. What is their mother eating? They will always taste what she’s eating. That’s how they get a lot of their knowledge.

Tanya: The reason I said this is because I’ve had several anecdotal conversations with people in my network where, for example, one of my daughter’s best friends, who’s also three, without seeing her father do that ever, started to enjoy eating salt. She would just put salt on the table, and literally put her finger in it and eat the salt. Her father used to do that when he was young, never did that as an adult.

Somehow, that habit got passed down to his daughter. When she did that, they were shocked that that happened. That’s why I asked is it something that is passed down from genetically, or I don’t know, energetically, or however it is passed down. We’ve seen some of that happening in humans.

Frans de Waal: Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if the taste of certain things is genetic in the sense that our families who have a different taste than other families, so-to-speak. Not based on observation, but just on their genetic background. The behavior, itself, of putting salt on the table and eating it like that, I think I would find it unlikely that that’s passed down genetically. I think there must be an element of observation in there.

Tanya: Yeah, no, absolutely, and I’m just looking at this, my notes. You said alpha males, in your alpha male talk, sex is secondary to food?

Frans de Waal: Yeah, well that’s typical of – in biology, of course, we always think this way is that what drives evolution is reproduction. If you don’t reproduce, if you don’t have offspring, you’re not in the evolutionary game. Only the individuals who reproduce are in the evolutionary game. Males can enhance their reproduction by mating with a lot of females and fertilizing them. They’re very sexed focused in their behavior because that’s what a successful male does.

Females are much more food oriented. For females, their reproductive success is not based on mating with a lot of males because they still get the same number of offspring regardless of how many males they mate with. The females don’t enhance their reproduction by doing a lot of mating, but they can enhance their reproduction by securing good food.

Having good food on the table is important if you have offspring. The females are much more food oriented. In the primate group, the typical competition among males is over females. The typical competition among females is over food. The males don’t particularly care about food. If there’s a female in estrus, meaning that she is sexually attractive at that point, the males are all looking at that female. They may completely forget to eat. They may skip food for three days, or something like that.

Tanya: This is going to sound like a really funny question, but do animals make climaxing a priority?

Frans de Waal: There are some studies on orgasm in the primates. For males, we always assume that they have orgasms because they ejaculate. For females, for a long time, people didn’t think that they needed it, or that they were not interested in it, but now we have a lot of studies. If you look, for example, at bonobos during sex, it’s clear that the females, they squeal, and they have facial expressions. I’m sure they’re very excited.

There must be something going on, which I would think is orgasm. I do think female primates can have orgasms. Whether that’s a priority, well, I’m not sure what you mean by that. Is that you mean they would skip partners who don’t give them orgasms or something like that? Is that what you mean?

Tanya: Yeah, for example, if they have one that’s better than the other, they might tend to repeat.

Frans de Waal: Yeah, it’s very well possible. The primates also masturbate, and females – for males, that’s of course well known. Females also masturbate. Why would you masturbate as a female primate if you don’t have some pleasure associated with it? That would make no sense at all. I’m sure they have intense sexual pleasures.

Tanya: Wow, a lot more similarities than I ever imagined. This is brilliant. What do you think that we did not cover now that we should? Anything that we didn’t talk about that we should?

Frans de Waal: We didn’t talk about female leadership.

Tanya: Oh, good one, okay.

Frans de Waal: My last book, which is called Mama’s Last Hug, is about a female chimpanzee whose name is Mama. Mama was an alpha female in a chimpanzee colony who was alpha female for 40 years.

Tanya: Is that the longest documented alpha female?

Frans de Waal: Maybe. The females usually don’t change position as much as the males. The males are always competing. As soon as one male gets old or weak, other males will take over his position. The females, since their rank order is mostly based on personality and age, there’s much less reason to compete over that because you cannot change your personality and age so much. Mama was alpha female until she was almost dead. She died at 59. I always find it interesting that she was such an important figure because the chimpanzees are always described as male-dominated. They are. Typically, the males are dominant over the females.

That whole colony, which was 25 chimps, was run, basically, by the oldest male and the oldest female. Mama was the oldest female, and then there was an older male. Physically, she was not dominant over the adult males, but socially she had a lot more to say in the colony than they did. I think that’s the situation that we humans also can understand. We don’t usually rank people in the company, so-to-speak, based on their physical abilities. We rank them on other criteria, like who makes the decisions. If you do that, you get Mama as a very important figure in that chimpanzee colony.

Female leadership is even more developed, I would say, in the bonobo because in the bonobo the alpha individual may be a female. Actually, I don’t know any bonobo society in the world, or in captivity, where the top individual is not a female. They are typically led by a female, so female leadership is a very interesting topic. In my talk on the alpha male, I didn’t say much about it, but I think it’s a topic that needs to be explored.

Tanya: What do you think is interesting about female leadership? How is it different? How does that manifest?

Frans de Waal: It is not different in the sense – people sometimes think that the female leader must be gentler, and nicer, and stuff like that. I’m not sure that for the female primates I could say that. A female who’s at the top, like let’s say in the bonobo group, may be very firm. She may not be frequently aggressive, but she may punish individuals who don’t obey, so-to-speak. That’s the only way to be dominant is to be firm. It is not necessarily a gentler form of dominance. I don’t know if it is really substantially different.

We did a study one time on human behavior. We did a study in operating rooms in the hospital where I looked at the teamwork of the surgeon and his team, so-to-speak. We did 200 surgeries where we looked at what people were doing. We had expected that would find some leadership differences between female surgeons and male surgeons because nowadays we have both of them and actually almost 50-50. We looked at that and we found extremely little difference between the leadership style of the male and the female surgeons.

We did find one interesting thing is that the more mixed the team is in the operating room, the more cooperation you’ll get. If you have only men or only women, it doesn’t work so well. If you have a more mixed team, it works better. Interesting finding that we have.

Tanya: Does that emulate what you also observed in the primates?

Frans de Waal: One thing that was similar to what we find in the primates is that if you have a female surgeon with a mostly male team, there is a high level of cooperation. If you have a male surgeon with a mostly female team, there’s a high level of cooperation. The problems in the team start when you have, let’s say, a female surgeon with a lot of women in the room, or a male surgeon with a lot of men in the room. That’s where you have the problems.

That’s very similar to in the primates. The alpha individual needs to prove himself or herself towards their own gender. They don’t particularly care about the other gender. A man needs to prove herself against other men. A woman needs to prove herself against other women. In that sense we found that the operating room is a microcosm of primate society in the sense that you get the same dynamics going on.

Tanya: Wow, that is very interesting. By the way, it makes sense. We work with executive leadership, and as you know there’s not a ton of women at the top. What you said, which is females having to prove themselves to other females, oftentimes the toughest ones, or the toughest competition is female to female, not the other way around. That’s interesting.

Frans de Waal: Oh yeah, you should never underestimate female competition. People sometimes think that females would get along, and they’re fine, and peaceful, and stuff like that. In all the primates, there’s an enormous amount of female to female competition. The females have their own hierarchy for that reason. They have their own rank order because this is such an important issue for them.

It’s not necessarily much nicer than what the males do in terms of competition, even though the males – in the primates, the males often have weaponry. They have big canine teeth, which makes the competition more dangerous. When males compete, it is potentially more dangerous than when females do.

Tanya: Is it unusual to have, for example, females lead like we see in bonobos, or is that actually the division of leadership is really quite equal?

Frans de Waal: In most primate systems, males who dominate females physically. What the bonobos do is a bit unusual in that it is based on female cooperation in the sense that the female bonobo is not bigger than a male. The female bonobo is actually smaller than a male. The females are very cooperative. There’s a very high level of solidarity among the females. That’s how they achieve dominance over the males. Yeah, that’s a bit of an unusual situation, but I would say in most of the primates the males may be physically dominant. That doesn’t necessarily make them the central figures of the society.

In many monkeys, the society is basically a female network of kinship relationships. The females are very close together. The males float in and out so-to-speak. They’re not necessarily a prominent part of the group. It depends on what you want to call dominance. If you mean physical abilities, that’s one thing, but if you mean who takes the social decisions, and who is most important in social life, it’s basically that the males are dominant.

Tanya: Interesting, last question, what has been one finding that really surprised you?

Frans de Waal: I think when I found that chimpanzees reconcile after fights, that was maybe the most surprising thing for me. All the books, and everything that I read until that day as a student, were about how aggression drives individuals apart. Aggression is dispersive mechanism.

Conflict is socially negative. Conflict only can lead to winning and losing. No one was talking about how damaging conflict can be to the society, and how animals and humans have ways of dealing with that damage. For me, that was maybe the most surprising thing because nothing had prepared me for the idea that the primates would try to overcome conflict and try to reduce it.

Tanya: Yes, and hopefully we as a society can get much better at that too. We’re all in training, I guess. Franz, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today and for sharing your really cutting-edge knowledge and your life’s work with us. It’s fascinating to drop parallels between what you’ve discovered of our primates and animals in general and where we are at, human beings as a society.

Frans de Waal: Yeah, thank you, and you’re welcome. That was a great interview.

Tanya: Thank you.

Announcer: Unmessable is recorded in the heart of New York City. A special thanks to all the team involved in producing the show. Visit tanyaprive.com/unmessable to find a transcript of this episode. Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter.

How To Grab Life by The Horns

November 7th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “How To Grab Life by The Horns”

Have you ever heard the expression when life gives you lemons, make lemonade?

Few people truly embody this concept like Lizzie Velasquez does, who is an ordinary woman standing for something extraordinary: love, acceptance, and peace.

Lizzie is a uniquely petite powerhouse that weighs in at 65 pounds because she, and only 2 other people in the world, suffer from a rare syndrome that prevents her body from storing fat. In a pivotal moment of cyberbullying, where she was called the ugliest woman on the internet in a youtube video that went viral, she decided to stand up for herself, in the most loving and peaceful way, and show the bullies that they are better than that.

Fast forward several years, and she is a 4-time author, college graduate and global motivational speaker, that has graced the stage at well over 1,000 events and appeared on major TV networks like The Today Show, The View, Nightline, National Geographic and on Katie Couric to name a few.

In addition to doing a Ted talk titled “What defines you?” which has been viewed by tens of millions, and resonated across the globe, she was featured in a deeply touching documentary called Brave Heart.

Tune in to hear some of Lizzie’s extraordinary life lessons and journey:

      • Get a sense for her off the charts leadership
      • How she became an agent for change
      • How she stood for global growth and empowerment
      • How she chose to counteract hate with love and what resulted from that
      • What it takes to stand up for something bigger than yourself
      • Finding courage in your darkest moments
      • Incredible life lessons

Connect with Lizzie Velasquez:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Lizzie Velasquez: I had to realize that I had been waiting for this answer my whole life, and I was 25 years old at the time. When you are so used to being defined as a question mark and then in one conversation that question mark that you’ve had for all these years is now just a period at the end of a sentence, how do you adjust to that?

Tanya: That’s Elizabeth (Lizzie) Velasquez Velasquez, a uniquely petite powerhouse that weighs in at 65 pounds because she and only 2 other people in the world that we know of have a rare syndrome that prevents her body from storing fat. In a pivotal moment of cyberbullying where she was called the ugliest woman on the internet in a YouTube video that went viral, she decided to stand up for herself, and in the most loving and peaceful way, show the bullies that they are wrong about her. Fast forward several years, and she’s a four-time author, college graduate, global motivational speaker that’s graced the stage at over 1,000+ events and appeared on major TV networks like The Today Show, The View, Nightline, National Geographic, and on Katie Couric, just to name a few. In addition to doing a TED Talk titled “What Defines You,” which has been viewed by tens of millions of people and resonated across the globe, she was featured in a deeply touching documentary called Brave Heart. Lizzie Velasquez, what were you like as a child?

Lizzie Velasquez: I was a really fun child looking back. I mean, obviously, I don’t remember everything, but I think I was really adventurous. I was very bossy. I can remember being bossy, and I’ve seen home videos that prove how bossy I was. I think I just have the same personality that I do now but just sounding more like a little tiny mouse.

Tanya: That’s amazing. The bossiness definitely served you well. This is interesting. You were born six weeks prematurely, and you weighed in at 2 pounds, 10 ounces, which is tiny. Obviously, you wouldn’t remember this, but what did your parents tell you about that experience?

Lizzie Velasquez: What they told me was that my mom had went in, and they did an ultrasound and realized that I had stopped growing and were told that they needed to have the emergency C-section. When I came out, there was no amniotic fluid around me, so the doctors have no idea how I was still, A, alive and, B, coming out screaming at the top of my lungs. I was very tiny. My skin was very translucent, and you can see all of my veins. You still can now, mostly just on my hands. I was born in 1989, and at the time, they didn’t have a medical journal or a book that they could look up and tell my parents, well, these are all the symptoms of this. Instead of being optimistic, they told my parents that the outcome was going to be very difficult, and I was going to live a life that really needed a lot of hands-on help and really wasn’t going to be able to take care of myself. Being first-time parents, you would think that my parents would be terrified or upset, and they were the complete opposite and just so happy to have me alive and ready and willing to take on this adventure of figuring out me.

Tanya: Yeah, I could totally relate. I’m very interested in the premature part because my twins were born prematurely at 28 weeks. One weighed 1.7 pounds.

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, my God.

Tanya: The other one weighed 2.4 pounds so pretty much around your size or smaller. I have so much respect and empathy for what your parent went through. How long were you in the hospital before you were discharged?

Lizzie Velasquez: I want to say a couple months. I could be way wrong, but that’s just me guessing. I was really just having to stay there just to really keep me warm because I was so tiny, and they were still doing so many tests on me. Every test that they did came back normal, so there wasn’t really anything that they were finding in that time period of my mom leaving the hospital.

Tanya: Yes, you were right that back then they really didn’t have the sophistication that they have today. In fact, a lot of the doctors told me that if my kids were born then that likely they would not have survived. They were on respiratory support. Did you need that, respiratory support?

Lizzie Velasquez: No, I didn’t.

Tanya: Oh, see, yeah, that’s amazing. That’s great. At what point in your life did you realize that you were not like the other kids and that you were special?

Lizzie Velasquez: I have a feeling that I knew. I think I recognized it, but I don’t think I knew it or understood it. I mean, being that age, you don’t really understand a lot of things. A lot of things don’t really make sense to you when it comes to being different, I guess. It’s more of just realizing things when your surroundings are bringing it to your attention, and my surroundings before I started school were not bringing it to my attention. I was just Lizzie and normal.

When I was born and went back home, my mom decided to stay home and take care of me. She had been working at a daycare center, and she didn’t want me to grow up isolated I think is the word. She started babysitting one of my cousins who’s a few months older than me and one of my – I call her my first best friend. She started babysitting her when we were both 6 months old. It was more so my mom really just wanting me to have this environment of normalcy, and it was incredible. I’m so grateful for it.

I went into kindergarten expecting the same surroundings and support and a non-issue of people being afraid of me, and starting kindergarten, I was very – I feel like it was just a very big wakeup call for a 5-year-old that you don’t look like everybody else, and that’s not a good thing at the time. I was very confused for a long time, more so confused because at home and around our church family and my very large extended family I was normal. At school, it just did not make sense to me that I wasn’t normal there. Starting at such a young age, I think I started realizing what was happening, and I wasn’t upset at the beginning. I was just very confused.

Tanya: Being a mom myself, I can’t even imagine how I would prepare my child for what would potentially be to come as they enter a different environment. Do you remember any conversations that you had with your mom at the time or your dad?

Lizzie Velasquez: My dad was an elementary school teacher. I think that was something that really helped my parents, but at the same time, I know it was still very terrifying. I know all of these things just because during my freshman year of college I had went – I came home for a weekend, went back to school, unpacking my luggage, and I found a large, like a brown mailing envelope. Inside was three composition notebooks. I opened them, and they were letters my mom had written to me since I was born, every day, just describing what I did that day…

Tanya: No way.

Lizzie Velasquez: …how I acted, which is also how I know I was bossy. She would just describe everything that was going on. There was the point where I got to the letters, and I was just bawling my eyes out the entire time. There was a part that just got me, and it was I don’t know when I’m going to give you these letters. I don’t know where you’re going to be. I don’t know how old you’re going to be, but I hope that, when I do give them to you, you’re reading them when you’re in college. I was reading them in my dorm room at the time.

Go back to the question how I know what I talked to my parents about, she had actually written me letters from the time I was born to about fifth or sixth grade, and at first, they were every day. Then they started spacing out. Once I got a little bit older, she started explaining more, more so in the sense that they knew that I was upset but I wasn’t telling them anything, and the things that they did behind the scenes that I didn’t know of, my mom just being very paranoid, and of course, just like any parent is when your kid starts school. There was other funny stories of other teachers calling my dad and saying your wife is staring at her through the window, and [00:11:38]. My dad would have to go take her away.

Tanya: That’s funny. Like a hawk, she was watching her baby like a hawk.

Lizzie Velasquez: Absolutely, yeah. My dad just was more of the reassurer that I’m here. It’s fine. Everyone knew him, and everyone knew me adult-wise. I know that I didn’t talk to them about it. I knew that, if I did, if I went to them and I said I’m being picked on, or they’re staring at me, or whatever it might be, it’s so easy for my dad to just to walk down the hall and go tell the teacher. I didn’t want to be that girl, so I totally just kept everything to myself.

Tanya: I mean, it makes sense. It’s amazing that you had that foresight at such a young age to internalize it and not share it with your family out of fear that something would happen. You would be that girl, and maybe you would make things worse or whatever. That’s such a unique experience to go through. You finally, if I get this correctly, got your diagnosis much later in life. What was it, and how did you come about knowing what’s going on with you?

Lizzie Velasquez: The whole journey to my diagnosis has been a crazy, crazy rollercoaster. Before I started elementary school and I think throughout middle school as well, my parents really just wanted answers, and I think more so my mom just wanting to get more answers and be prepared. As far as medical things growing up, I did get – I was sick a lot when I was younger, which I think is normal with kids being around other kids, but my immune system was and still is very weak. I was getting a lot of colds that would take me down for not just a few days but maybe two weeks, and it would turn into a cold and asthma and then pneumonia and all these other random surgeries. We found out I lost my vision in my right eye around the time that I was about 4 years old. We don’t know how. We didn’t know what caused it or when exactly it happened. My mom did laugh and say is that why she will hold a paper right up to her face? I’m thinking, mom, [00:14:14] anything a long time ago? You’re just now saying that. You noticed me doing this?

There is a lot of other medical things that we did take care of here at home in Austin. There were also a lot of genetic specialists that my mom would read about back then in newspapers or parenting magazines, and she’d reach out to them. They took me at least once or twice a year to see a genetic doctor when I was younger, and I hated it. I very, very much remember feeling like I was just a thing and not a human. Having adults walk in and just stare at you and just randomly touch your head or touch your arm, it just – I hated it. I hated all the bloodwork, and it just was not fun for me. Everything that we were told throughout all of these years was the same exact thing. She fits some characteristics of one condition, but she doesn’t fit them all. We can’t tell her this is what she has.

There were so many times that I would get my hopes up and think we figured it out. I’m good to go. Just to find out that it’s not what they thought it was, so I felt like was wasting so much time. Once I started getting a bit older and could really speak for myself, when I was about 12 or 13, my parents allowed me to decide whether I wanted to continue seeing genetic doctors or if I wanted to take a break, and I decided to take a break. I would go to Dallas to see a genetic doctor who I had seen for – I think he was the most consistent one that we had been sticking with. He was really great with me. We really liked him, but I would have to go during spring break. I would call it hospital jail, and I would have to just stay in there. It was during my birthday every time. I hated it.

I decided to take a break. At that time, even though I was still developing, I was a teenager, preteen, figuring things out. I just knew that, if I keep going to doctors, if they tell me I have a cure for you, am I actually going to want it? I knew deep down that I didn’t despite everything else that I was going through, so it was just like I’m fine right now. I have my doctors here. I’m just going to give it a rest for a little while. That little while turned into many more years. We stayed in touch with the genetic doctor in Dallas just talking about – talking to him whenever I would have surgeries or anything, just keeping him up to date.

Fast forward to my – towards the end of my freshman year of college, I was on The Today Show. I went on it. It was great, super fun, came back home, and was flooded with tons of emails and messages from people saying we have the same thing as you. I just stopped believing people when they say that. I hadn’t met anyone who had the same thing that I did. I didn’t even know what I had. In one of the emails, a doctor from Houston reached out, and he said he was a genetic doctor. His wife had saw my interview, and she told him about me. I hadn’t gone to see any doctors, and I knew my mom was wanting to go see one just to check on things.

I agreed, and we went to Houston. He was super nice, of course did tons of testing, which I’m very much used to at this point. He also decided that he wanted to check not only my DNA but my parents and both my siblings as well, so they also had to do bloodwork, which made me happy. Now they had to be a part of this. We just did a bunch of testing. It was more of a wait and see game, and I’m going to study these things. My life just went on normally, seeing him every six months to a year, no changes, nothing. We were all on the same page, and everyone knew that I was never going to believe a diagnosis unless the doctor that I was seeing and trusted sat me down, looked me in the eye, and said, Lizzie, this is what you have. If you tell me anything else besides that, I’m not going to believe that it’s real. Everyone was very respectful of that, and we, again, kept on with our lives.

In 2015, I was in Barcelona with my – the director of my documentary and my mom. On our last day before we were going to fly home, we went to have lunch. We sat down, and they both sat across from me, which right away I was like what’s going on? What are you going to tell me? My mom started getting really emotional, and she couldn’t really talk. Sara, our director, just said we got a call from your doctor in Houston, and he has your diagnosis. He wants to see you when we get back home, and that absolutely came out of nowhere. I hadn’t seen him recently at that time. I hadn’t talked to him. None of this was on mind whatsoever, so to hear her say he has your diagnosis and he wants to tell you, I knew that it was real.

I didn’t say anything. I just sat there and processed. They both thought I was mad at them, but I wasn’t. I was just processing this crazy news. I had a flight from Barcelona all the way back to Austin. Lots of super fun time to think about what do I have? What does this mean? Do I want to know what’s in store with this diagnosis? There were just so many questions.

At the same time, we were filming my documentary, and I was still speaking a ton and working on my newest book at the time. Things were crazy. So much so that I never actually had time to really process things after that, after I got back home. Our whole crew went with us. This was not supposed to be part of the documentary. They asked if I would want it, if I was okay with including it and said it was totally up to me. I knew that if I was sufficiently diagnosed that it was probably going to be in the media somewhere, and I wanted to be able to have control of that story. I agreed, and the camera crew went with us who had become our family at that point. My sound guy had just found out that he and his wife were expecting their first baby, and he wasn’t going to be able to go with us to this big appointment, the appointment that so much was being built up for. That morning, I went downstairs from my apartment, and he was there. He said my wife agreed that I think I need to be here for you for this.

Tanya: Oh, my God. Wow!

Lizzie Velasquez: I have this incredible support system with me. It was me and my parents and then our crew and one doctor from Austin who I’d become really close with. She just went with us just to help explain things. We drove from Austin to Houston. Sorry this is such a long story.

Tanya: No, this is great.

Lizzie Velasquez: We drove from Austin to Houston, and I don’t think I – I didn’t really have many emotions while we were going. My mom was very emotional all the way there. She was just very worried about what they were going to say. We got to the meeting, and I thought I was probably going to be either really quiet and crying and scared, or I was going to be okay. At one point, in the beginning, I realized that I was comforting my mom and comforting my doctor and giving them tissue. I was sitting up and asking questions like, okay, now, what does this mean? That was very surprising for me.

We go, and he sat down. He looked me in the eyes like I said I wanted, and he told me that I was being diagnosed with neonatal progeroid syndrome, NPS for short. He explained that it is made up of two different conditions. One of them is called lipodystrophy, which basically means the absence of fat, so something that we’ve obviously known my entire life that I’m not able to gain weight. The second thing is that I have a condition called Marfan. I had heard of it before, but the type that I have is very, very rare and very specific. Basically, what Marfan affects is your eyes, your bones, and your heart.

Hearing all of those things just made – I felt like the pieces of the puzzle were coming together. The eyes thing, that made sense now, and I probably lost my vision because of this condition. The bones thing made sense. I’ve only broken a bone once in my life, which I think people think I’m very breakable, but I’m not whatsoever. It was a trampoline accident that wasn’t even my fault. I had all of these other things.

Of course, the biggest news being told that the problem with my heart and with this condition is that it can dilate your aortic valve so much so to the point where it bursts, and it’s very hard to catch. There is a possibility when it happens that I could be life flighted to a hospital and have this emergency surgery, but it’s just very risky. It happens out of nowhere, and so of course, that was the scariest thing hearing that. The game plan was to see a cardiologist every six months. There’s medication when they start noticing it’s dilating at all. I can start being put on blood pressure medication to stabilize it, and so ever since then, we’ve been checking.

Thank God everything’s been really great, but I think the biggest takeaway besides, obviously, officially being diagnosed is the weight that it lifted off of my mom that I never realized she was carrying the entire time. There was a point where it got quiet, and she just said it wasn’t my fault. My doctor looked, and he said it’s impossible. What I have was not genetic. It wasn’t passed down. It’s just a mutation in my DNA, which I quickly corrected him. I told him I don’t want the word mutation. I want the word my difference. That’s how it happened, and so my mom had been living with this thought that she was the reason why I was born the way I was born.

Tanya: Can you imagine your mother carrying that burden, in a sense that weight of guilt, which has nothing to do with her? That’s amazing.

Lizzie Velasquez: Yeah, it was an incredible, unexpected time. I think that, after that appointment and after the official diagnoses, the next few months after that was very hard for me, very, very hard, more so because after that appointment – I mean, I had to realize that I had been waiting for this answer my whole life, and I was 25 years old at the time. When you are so used to being defined as a question mark and then in one conversation that question mark that you’ve had for all these years is now just a period at the end of a sentence, how do you adjust to that? I had been so used to being the undiagnosed girl and carrying that name with me. I dealt with a lot of thoughts of, well, now that I’m diagnosed, am I not going to be inspirational anymore? Now that I’m diagnosed, do I have to find a different career? All these crazy things that looking back now made no sense but, at the time, it was all I could think about.

Those fears then quickly started getting a lot darker. I had stopped filming my documentary. It was time for it to be edited in L.A. My schedule wasn’t 24/7. I was finally sitting down in a place for longer than a few days, and after really catching up with rest that I hadn’t had in almost a full year, then I really started thinking about the diagnosis. I think the heart thing is what really scared me, and I just kept thinking – in my mind, the only thought I had was one day my heart is going to explode. Why am I going through all of these things? Why am I putting my family through this of just waiting for it? It was just a very, very, very hard transition for me to understand, but I’m at a point now where I’m just so thankful that we know, more so because we have game plan in place now.

Tanya: How do you make peace with what may potentially happen? We know that doctors have been wrong in the past, so that’s something on your side. How do you make peace with that information?

Lizzie Velasquez: I think it’s a mindset. It’s a mindset combined with faith. My family has raised me and my brother and sister in the Catholic faith. It’s been something that has been such a pillar in our lives, and I really had to get back on this journey, this faith journey of mine. I feel like I had strayed from that path for a while. Getting back on it and realizing that God has had the plans for my life long before I was even born. Why wake up every morning in fear of what plan is ahead of me? Instead, wake up with more of an excitement of what’s to come.

Tanya: I love that. You mentioned something that I want to highlight for a minute. More recently, you posted a YouTube video that you very courageously came forward with something that you’ve been challenged by for the last year. What has that been?

Lizzie Velasquez: This past year, 2019, I really thought was going to be an incredible year. I think we all have these optimistic thoughts of what the New Year is going to bring, and everything that has happened this year has been the complete opposite of what I could’ve wanted or imagined. It has been probably one of the most difficult years I’ve had in a long time. I had been working nonstop since I graduated college in 2013. I’ve never taken off longer than two weeks. It’s always just been go, go, go, go 24/7. I really realized that I needed to slow down at the beginning of this year.

There were other factors that came into play workwise that was really showing me that I do need to take a break, and I need to slow down. This is what I’m meant to do right now, so I enjoyed it. I played with my dogs, and I binged watch every show and spent time with my family and my friends. It was great, and then when that stopped, it was just like, okay, I’m getting bored. I need to go back to what I’m going to do next. Then I realized, well, what am I going to do next? It’s one of the things where you can imagine us being at home. You know what’s inside, and you know that you can either do laundry or go lay down. You know the activities that are inside your house, but then there comes a time where you need to leave and walk out. You have to open the door and ask yourself where am I going? I feel like I’ve been stuck standing in that doorway for a very long time.

There were times where I had lots of fear of what was out there, and so I would just come back inside. I would just feel sorry for myself and scroll on social media and fall down dark holes of comparison. Asking myself what have I become? I have gone from doing all these really big incredible things and meeting all these people to now things are slowing down. Are things slowing down because no one wants to hear what I have to say anymore? All of these really dark thoughts were coming back, and I think I was more so lost than anything. Just very much feeling like what do I do? How do I do it?

All of these thoughts just kept coming, and I think I finally had to realize that I really needed to lean on what always picks me back up again, and that’s my faith. I don’t open up about it very often just because I’ve – I haven’t been allowed to in certain places, or they don’t want me to talk about it. Then, if I do, it’s very feeling like I’m walking on eggshells and not really saying what I want to say, so I just stayed away from it. I just felt that I was having this really big wakeup moment and realizing that I don’t know what’s in store for me, but I have to change my mindset and realize that, yes, those same plans that God had for me that He showed me when I was 25, they’re still there. I needed to open my eyes and, really, my mind and my heart back up to all of these possibilities, and really work on not comparing myself to other people. Really realizing that I don’t know what I’m going to do next, but I’m the one who’s going to figure it out. I have to stop waiting on someone else to figure it out for me.

Tanya: First of all, the fact that you so authentically shared what was going on for you is incredible. By the way, I’ve been through – it’s ebbs and flows. Sometimes you feel great, and things are clicking. Sometimes it’s not. It means you’re human. What I found in the dips is when there’s an opportunity for growth, always, and they are strategically placed in your life at times where you need to elevate your game.

Lizzie Velasquez: Absolutely.

Tanya: Yeah, what has it been like to live with your syndrome your whole life?

Lizzie Velasquez: Very normal. I’ve been really grateful for the fact that I was born with it. It sounds kind of crazy, but it’s one of those things where it’s the only thing that I know. I sometimes forget. It’s funny when I’m out with either really close friends of mine or extended family who I haven’t been out with in public in a while. We go out, and they’ll see people staring or just like – now it’s different because we don’t really know why they’re staring, if they recognize me or something else. Before I was known, it was always funny to see their reactions of them either getting really offended or really wanting to be really defensive of me. It was just something that I forget that’s a part of me because it’s just who I am.

Tanya: You mentioned that you had to go through all these medical challenges, eyes and bones. You broke your leg. What were those mostly due to? Is that part of the syndrome or the diagnosis?

Lizzie Velasquez: No, it’s funny. Anytime something like that happens, the first question is always is this because of the condition, or is it just because it happened? We don’t really have a definite answer to these things. We know the reasons why they happen, and some of them are just because of my own stubbornness. I did cheerleading in middle school and all throughout high school. I loved it, and I was, of course, the one who was thrown up in the air. I would fall and get right back up again, and it was just the normal thing that I did. It was fine, but then there were times where I would feel like I needed to be really careful because I don’t want to get sick again. Then, at the same time, I don’t how this happens. It just happens, so I’m not going to stop doing the things that I normally like to do.

With my feet, I fractured my right foot. Almost every three months I was fracturing my right foot. It was because I – since I have no body fat, on the bottom of my right foot, there’s no padding. I had a very severe arch, and I refused to wear supportive shoes because they were not cute. [00:37:59] outfit. When I would walk a lot, I would fracture my foot because there was no support, so that’s how that happened. It was all really just my fault being really stubborn. Eventually, it got to the point where I had to have total reconstruction on my right foot because I had what they call a claw foot, meaning my toes where curling up, and they were rubbing against the top of my shoes. It was just getting really painful to walk on, so I had total reconstruction. I had a bone put in my ankle, and there’s a pin in my toe. It’s all straightened out, and everything is great now.

My eye surgeries, we’re not sure what caused it. The pressure behind my blind eye would build up so much that it looked like my eye was going to pop out. It was bulging, so I would have to go in and freeze the pressure points of my eyeball and wait for it to go back down to size. Then that became routine throughout high school. The only bone that I actually broke is my collarbone jumping on the trampoline with my dad. He wanted to see how high I could go. I landed, and I was crying. He thought I was laughing and kept jumping, and so I broke my collarbone. It was the most dramatic unnecessary scene of having to call 911. I was like you owe me so many outfits now.

Other than that, the other surgeries were more just I had to have my appendix taken out. I got an infection after that and had to have another surgery. We just roll with it, and we don’t really know the exact cause of it or why it happened.

Tanya: My God, your threshold for pain at this point must be so high.

Lizzie Velasquez: It is.

Tanya: Given everything that you’ve been through.

Lizzie Velasquez: It is, shockingly.

Tanya: Yes, no, it’s the weirdest thing. I mentioned I have twins that were born prematurely. My littlest one that was 1.7 pounds, she was in the NICU, the neonatal intensive care unit for 6 months, 180 days. She went through heart surgery, and she had IVs almost the whole time. She was on respiratory support for 210 days, on a feeding tube for 300 days. My other was in the NICU for 129 days, a heart surgery as well, feeding tube for 100 days, respiratory support 100 days, and all types of IVs and poking and prodding and you name it. If they crash into a wall, or they fall, or they scarp their knee, you don’t hear a peep. I’m like, oh, my God, it’s unbelievable.

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, yeah, it’s crazy.

Tanya: There was a pivotal moment when you were a teenager where you were in your room or wherever. You were browsing on the internet, and you found something. What happened?

Lizzie Velasquez: I was 17 years old at the time, and I was, of course, in high school and still living with my parents. I was on YouTube and really just looking for a song to play while I did homework. At the time, YouTube was still fairly new, so not a lot people really knew a lot about it. It wasn’t the big thing like it is now. I saw a photo, like a thumbnail, on the right-hand side. It looked familiar, but I didn’t really think, oh, my gosh, that’s me. I clicked on it, and it was a video that someone had posted. The title was “The World’s Ugliest Woman,” and there were four million people who had seen it and just thousands of comments under this video that was eight seconds long. It had no sound. It was a clip from a talk show that I was on when I was 13, 12 or 13, and it was just them bashing me and saying how horrible and awful and disgusting I am.

Tanya: My God, I can’t even imagine what that was like for you.

Lizzie Velasquez: It was horrible.

Tanya: Yeah, I mean, probably the worst thing that had ever happened in your life and for your parents’ life and your family’s life. I mean, it’s so much hate.

Lizzie Velasquez: Yeah, I mean, I think my first instinct was being shocked, and then my second instinct was realizing I need to protect my parents from this. I knew it hurt me within those few minutes, and I felt so helpless. I couldn’t even imagine what they were going to feel when they realized it or saw it. My dad wasn’t home at the time. My mom was. She had walked past my room and saw me upset, and then she saw it. She got really upset, and she called my aunt over. My aunt came over. Then my dad got home, and so it became this whole thing. My first instinct was really I wanted to protect them more than I wanted to protect myself.

Tanya: That is unconditional love. That’s amazing. What did you do with that? How do you even process this? What were you thoughts? How did you move through it? What were the conversations with your family about this? Did you ever reach out to the person that posted it?

Lizzie Velasquez: I did reach out that day. Again, YouTube was new. Nobody really knew how to go about taking a video down or contacting people. I went to the page of the person that posted it, and there wasn’t a name, or a photo, or anything. There was a way that you could message them, so I messaged them and basically just said, hey, I’m the girl in the video. Can you please take it down? He messaged back pretty quickly. I say he. I don’t know if it was a he or she. I still to this day don’t know.

They just said no matter how hard you try or whatever you do I’m just going to continue to re-upload the video. I just left it at that, and I never had contact with this person since then. I don’t know where they’re from. I don’t know anything, but we flagged it. We tried getting it taken down, but I think it had went viral at that point. Even if we did get that one taken down, there were so many others that were in other languages and more so just the title and the comments were in other languages. The video had no sound. There were just so many that it just got to the point where it was like why try if it’s just going to keep coming back?

Tanya: What kind of conversations did you have with your parents during that time?

Lizzie Velasquez: I was devastated. My mom was devastated. My dad had a very weird reaction that I thought at the time. He was upset, but his first out loud reaction was that I needed to forgive the person who posted it and that I needed to forgive the people who were saying horrible things. That made me so mad, and I felt like he was taking their side and not thinking this is a big deal. Looking back now, I realize that he knew that I wasn’t going to be able to really fully move on if I didn’t forgive those people. It took me a lot of time, and I now 1,000% fully forgive them. Even the person who did it, I completely understand why they possibly did it, but my parents’ reactions were both very different.

Tanya: After this happened, what was the point that you really shifted from I can’t believe this is happening to me and I’m devastated to, wait a minute, they’re wrong, and I’m going to fight back.

Lizzie Velasquez: I think, initially, a few months. I didn’t want to talk about it at all after I found it. Of course, my close group of girlfriends knew about it, but I realized pretty quickly going back to school that a lot of people had already seen it. Everyone just didn’t want me to see it because they knew that it would upset me, so it seemed like a lot of people already knew about. I would often just go back and read the comments, and my friends knew me so well that they didn’t even have to see my screen. They could just see the look on my face, and they would just go and shut my computer, or my phone, or whatever it was and just say don’t look at that. Focus on whatever it is we’re doing.

That was the first stage of it. Then it was more of I didn’t have my own personal YouTube channel at that time. Then I thought, well, why don’t I make a channel? I’ll post a video. I’ll just explain to them my situation but in a very angry way and quickly realized that that was going to be pointless, and I just shouldn’t do that. I think it was then my stubbornness kicked in again, and I knew that I had to figure out a way to show them who I was and not in a way that was negative but in a way that came to me naturally. I started the YouTube channel, and I looked at starting this channel as a window of sorts for people to look into my life. I would have control of what they saw, and they wouldn’t just see two or three minutes of me in a TV interview. They would get to see my life, and they would see what I’m doing. Who are the people in my life? I have control of what that looks like, so that’s how it really started for me to just take that control back into my own hands.

Tanya: Did you have any concerns when you launched your YouTube channel and really started putting yourself out there?

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, yeah, of course I did. I mean, before I even got my YouTube channel, back when Myspace was a really big thing, I really wanted my own account, and it was a conversation that my parents had with me. I think it’s a conversation I really encourage other parents, or guardians, or whatever it might be to have with their kids who want to get on social media. It was more of an I’m not going to tell you no because then that’s going to start this I’m going to do it secretly. Instead, I want us to talk about this, and I want you to really understand and be aware that we are going to support you getting this account. We will monitor it, but there are going to be people who might say things that are not so nice. There are going to people who say things that are nice, but if you don’t think that you can go online and not take their words personally, then maybe you’re not ready to have this account yet.

These were the conversations that started my presence online, I guess. I think, at that point, I had already been so used to a lot of negative things being said, so I was ready to go from that sense. At the very beginning of starting my YouTube channel, I didn’t know subscribers were a thing at all until way later. I didn’t really pay attention to views. I just wanted to put up my truth and put up who I am. At the beginning, the comments were pretty nasty and mean and referencing to the bad video, as they call it, and it was hard. There was a lot of times where I would just explain it once what my condition was and just say thank you for watching my video, but here on my channel, we really want to keep it positive.

Fast forward now and it’s very rare that I get any negative comments. Don’t get me wrong, I still get them, but I have now built this community of people who understand my goal and my mindset. I can now go and read comments on any video, and someone will say something not so nice. There is going to be at least two or three people replying back and saying, hey, this is Lizzie. Here’s her situation, and we are nice to each other around here. I feel like a proud mom when I think about my comment section now.

Tanya: My God, Lizzie, your strength is just so incredible. I was mentioning this to you before we started recording that, if my daughters can half the strength you have, I will have done my job. It’s so incredible that you had the foresight to not counteract such a negative force with another negative force but with a positive force, with a positive light, and with love. Whether the person that did this and the people that said the horrible things in the comments realize the impact of what they did or not today, they will, and eventually, it will all make sense to them. My belief is, unfortunately, people do that because they’re hurting themselves inside, so they had something that they really needed to face within themselves.

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, yeah, I couldn’t agree more. Hurt people hurt people. It’s very important to keep that in mind when you are in situations where you feel like you are being attacked. Yes, there is a certain line where you do have to hold the person accountable, but at the same time, there’s not just a victim and a bully. There’s two humans in the situation. One is hurt and one is hurting. If you’re able to help them channel that or figure out a way that they can express that in a way that doesn’t harm someone else, that’s a lot more of where our focus should be versus how dare you do this? Go sit in a corner.

Tanya: Yes, absolutely. I mean, it mind boggles me that you had that foresight to do it at such a young age. It’s amazing. Now that there’s been – now that you’ve been on this incredible journey and this – you’ve been a motivational speaker, and you’ve graced the stages of I don’t know how many events and TV platforms and you name it. If you were to synthesize some of your biggest lessons and takeaways from the point that you were born up until now, what would they be?

Lizzie Velasquez: I think what I’m realizing now is the power of my voice and vulnerability. It’s something that I could’ve never imagined the mountains it could move. Realizing that, for a long time, I allowed my size to be the volume of my voice, and I thought that no one’s really going to pay attention to me. It was just going to – they’re just going to sweep me under the rug and not hear me. Then I had to learn how to ignore the fact that, yes, I am small, but my voice is big. How can I make sure that it’s heard? Throughout my life I’ve learned, number one, how to find my voice. Number two, I learned how to use it. That came through, at the very beginning, speaking and accomplishing these personal goals of graduating college and writing my first book and doing all these things to then having built this unbelievably amazing platform that I can now use to not only use my voice, but I’m now at that stage where I’m able to help others find their voice and be the stage that they might need to really amplify their own.

At the same time, the journey to that and through that that it was and still is going to be takes a lot of vulnerability and honesty. Knowing that, at the end of the day, we all can relate to some sort of self-doubt, or feeling like we’re not good enough, or nothing’s going to change, and it’s always going to be bad. We all know what those feelings are, so the sooner we’re able to recognize that and own it and go into a situation where you’re nervous or afraid, just be open about it. Let people know I’m really nervous right now, or I might be really quiet. Don’t think that I don’t want to be here. It’s just my personality, or especially on social media, it’s something that we can do every day. We have access to it 24/7. Not only using your voice but also using it in a way that’s positive but also real. Not everything is rainbows and sunshine, and that’s absolutely okay. It’s important we embrace it, and it’s important we post about it and share it. That is often ignored, and I feel like, if we’re able to just be as real as we can be underneath all of the filters of social media, hopefully, that message is going to be able to be one that helps other people.

Tanya: Yes, no, I mean, what you said about vulnerability is something that we really ought to be working towards. What we post is rainbows and sunshine and great pictures and the best part of a fraction of our lives or maybe even a portion that’s staged, and it’s really not serving us.

Lizzie Velasquez: Yeah, absolutely.

Tanya: You actually gave an amazing TED Talk, which has been viewed by millions and millions and millions of people talking about how one should define themselves. Given what you’ve been through and how you’ve chosen to define or not define yourself, what kind of guidance can you provide for others that might be looking to discover who they really are or find their voice?

Lizzie Velasquez: It’s funny. I did that TED Talk in December of 2013. I put it online in January of 2014, and I had absolutely no idea it was going to go as viral as it did, especially because of the fact that I made up my speech as I was going.

Tanya: Yeah, that’s amazing.

Lizzie Velasquez: How do you define yourself was something that was – I’ve never spoken about. I have no idea where it came from. I didn’t plan it. It just came out of my mouth, as crazy as that sounds. It couldn’t have been a bigger message of a turning point in my life than it was. How do you define yourself has been something that has really, really stuck around my life. Even until now, I still have people who are just now seeing my TED Talk. Last week I was in Chicago speaking at Northwestern from the dean who – the dean had asked me to go speak about how do you define yourself for these students.

To look back and see that this message has impacted so many people has really blown my mind. At the same time, I realized that how do I define myself will never be one singular answer. It’ll never be one – it’ll never be a list of three things of this is how I define myself because there’s always a new season in our lives. There’s always new chapters in our lives. We’re always feeling fulfillment in many different ways depending on where we are at that time. For me, defining who I am and what I do is always so very different. I think, at the end of the day, always has the same core beliefs and values that I’ve always had.

Tanya: Yes, I like what you say about defining yourself or almost like pinpointing yourself into being a certain way, or acting a certain way, or doing a certain thing is really not giving yourself justice. You could be so much more and so multifaceted, and ultimately, if you decide tomorrow that you want to invent yourself into being a motivational speaker like you did, you get to create that with your mouth and have the actions follow. Ultimately, the sky is the limit. You are who you say you are, and that might change with time, period.

Lizzie Velasquez: It’s so exciting. Even now for me, there are times where I’ll randomly just think I could decide I want to be a nurse, and I could somehow make that happen. The thought of that was so crazy but so amazing that we are able to have these ideas. It might not be easy to obtain them. We can’t just go to a store and get it or take one class and become what you want to be, but the opportunities and the possibilities that come with reaching for the sky is so exciting.

Tanya: Yeah, absolutely. What is the one thing that you feel the most proud of that you’ve accomplished in your life?

Lizzie Velasquez: I think I would say it’s two things. I would say it is the pure and unbelievably strong acceptance of myself that I did not have for so many years, that I am so extremely proud of to be in a place where I am so fully just thankful and excited and happy to be in the body that I’m in. Granted, there are some days where it’s frustrating. It’s annoying. Being able to look in a mirror and just smile and know that I’m smiling from the inside and not just smiling to show people I’m smiling, I’m so proud of that.

I think the other thing is reminders when I need it when I’m out in the world. No matter where I’m at, there will be someone who will come up to me and tell me their story or be so emotional that they can’t even talk because they’re so moved by something that I said. I say that not in a way that makes me sound like I have a big head, more so that I’m just so thankful that what I’m doing is working. Going out and hearing these people’s stories and seeing how much it’s changed their lives and how they’re so excited now that they’re in a place in their life where they can go help other people, helping create that chain of change is really awesome.

Tanya: Yes, the impact that you have – I said, actually, before we started recording that who you are for me is an unbelievable message of love and light. Not just for me, for millions and millions of people out there, and you continue to be. Going back to the first one, acceptance, really just having accepted yourself and being happy and grateful that you have the body that you have and all this stuff, at what point did that happen for you because you went for a long time not having that?

Lizzie Velasquez: I think towards the end of high school. At the end of high school, beginning of college, it was a process. It wasn’t a day where I was like, okay, I accept myself, and you look great. It wasn’t that. It was [01:03:26].

Tanya: Although, that would be great.

Lizzie Velasquez: [01:03:29] so nice. It was some more of really just realizing I’m stuck in this body, for lack of a better way to describe it, and I need to learn to love it. How can I do that? It was baby steps. Baby steps of realizing how often I was comparing myself to other people. Realizing how quickly I was to automatically think people are staring at me, or they’re thinking all these bad thoughts about me when, in reality, no one was probably looking or thinking anything. It had to start with myself and my mindset and really being aware of what I was telling myself and what I was allowing myself to believe. Once I was able to get past that, the next thing was, as cliché and corny as it sounds, learning to love yourself from the inside out. That was the plan of action to really accepting myself.

Tanya: So many people can relate to what you just said is learning to love themselves, and it doesn’t matter what kind of body they have. Whether it’s all kinds of bodies, colors, ethnicities, race, whatever, short, tall, big, thin, it doesn’t matter. Everybody struggles with that at some level. I think that’s why your message and your journey has been so inspirational. It’s like, well, my God, if Lizzie could do it, I could do it.

Lizzie Velasquez: I hope so.

Tanya: Yeah, just on a lighter note, do you have any fun or interesting stories that happened or a moment when you met somebody that was, I don’t know, famous or influential?

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, man, just like the TV shows, I think about it, and I forget everybody I’ve met.

Tanya: I’m the same way.

Lizzie Velasquez: I think one that was really, really special to me and one that – I mean, a lot of people might not know who he is. Do you know who Bill Rancic is? His wife is Giuliana Rancic.

Tanya: Absolutely, yeah, uh-huh.

Lizzie Velasquez: Back in high school, when I decided I wanted to be a speaker, when I was looking up videos of people speaking, I found videos of Bill. I just loved the way that he spoke, and I had just admired him for so long. I don’t know. There was a picture of him that I had found, and it was him standing in front of an audience of thousands of people. I thought to myself, if I’m ever in that position, that’s when I know I’ve made it. That’s when I know I’m a speaker.

I talked about in press later on and telling people this is who I really admired and really wanted to be like. Somehow his manager got in touch with my manager, and we were able to meet up when I was in L.A. for lunch, and oh, my gosh, I was geeking out. I was so nervous, but I was so excited. I got to sit across from him, and he really was just so great in giving me advice and just so, so kind. A couple weeks after I had met him, I realized when I was on a stage speaking that I – I thought of the picture, and it was the same moment. It was this full circle of realizing, okay, I had lunch with Bill who I really wanted to be like, and now I’m in the moment that I always – that that was the goal of being in front of lots of people.

Tanya: What a gift. That’s such an incredible moment to come full circle and realize that you’re there. You got it. You reached your goal.

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, yeah, very exciting but then also, okay, now what?

Tanya: Now what? Exactly, now what? Then the void comes in. There’s that peak and then whoop. Then you go back right down. Keep you grounded.

Lizzie Velasquez: Oh, yeah.

Tanya: Awesome. What are you going to be focusing on now?

Lizzie Velasquez: Now I feel like I finally – I’ve had this dream of doing some sort of a kids’ series. I don’t know exactly if it’s going to be a book, or animation, or what, but I’ve always wanted to do this. I’ve never had the time to do it. This is the time. This is the time that I want to do something for kids, and I’m really excited about what it’s going to be.

Tanya: Amazing. How do people get in touch with you if they want to say hi?

Lizzie Velasquez: I’m all over social media. I think almost everything on social media is littleLizziev, or you can just google my name, and it all comes up. I’m all around there.

Tanya: You’re all around. That’s amazing. Lizzie, first of all, thank you so much for taking the time to be on the show Unmessable and for just sharing your story and being so authentic with the journey that you’re on and inspiring millions of us to really have strength and keep going.

Lizzie Velasquez: Thank you so much.

Announcement: Unmessable is recorded in the heart of New York City, and a special thanks to all the team involved in producing the show. Visit tanyaprive.com/unmessable to find a transcript of this episode, and be sure to subscribe to our newsletter.

Money Shame: Getting Real About our Relationship with Money

October 17th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “Money Shame: Getting Real About our Relationship with Money”

Tammy Lally — a certified money coach, author of Money Detox and TED Speaker — works with her clients on the one thing that prevents people from reaching financial freedom, and that is our relationship with money. Financial planning is not a mysterious thing that only certain people understand and get access to. It’s actually straight forward (and there’s a lot of resources out there to get informed), but where we go awry is in our relationship to money. How it makes us feel. How we think it makes us look. How we value ourselves against what we own. So, in order to feel empowered and get to financial freedom, the emotional part of the equation needs to be addressed first.

Many of us were taught to never discuss money, religion, and politics at a dinner table, and for good reasons. But Tammy says that in order to break free from the money shame and/or whatever else you have going on in your relationship with money, you have to be willing to talk about it. Get uncomfortable. Get real. And only then, will you take ground.

Tammy’s journey to financial freedom is very personal. In 2007, things came crashing down. Tammy lost her brother Keith to suicide, shortly after he received a foreclosure notice, which was the last straw in a long battle of financial shame and suffering. Then, she lost her business overnight and was forced to eventually declare personal bankruptcy. 

In this episode, Tanya and Tammy get real and talk about what it took to crawl out of the toughest moment in Tammy’s life and how she helps her clients do the same.

Tune in to get the full conversation and learn about:

      • How money shame manifests itself for people
      • Where it stems from
      • How to overcome relationship constraints that exist around money
      • Getting to financial freedom
      • Breaking free from inherited cultural behaviors that don’t serve you
      • What it looks like to have financial integrity
      • Personal well-being and healthy mindset

Tammy Lally’s biography:

Tammy Lally is a Certified Money Coach, TED Speaker, and Author of Money Detox. She helps others master their finances by first conquering their emotions around money, then by creating a comprehensive financial plan.

Tammy has over 17 years of experience in the financial industry and 27 years of study in psychology, addiction, recovery, and spirituality. Her teachers include Brené Brown, Marianne Williamson, Pia Melody, and Byron Katie.

Tammy brings a distinctive blend of financial industry experience, psychological knowledge, and spiritual consciousness to her work. She offers a compassionate approach to money and money shame, which is truly powerful in helping her clients achieve transformative outcomes.

Tammy created her signature “Money Detox” process, a seven-step journey that allows anyone to achieve financial freedom and joy. “After seventeen years in the financial industry, I know a ‘financial plan’ is not enough to help those looking for the path to financial freedom and to escape the loop of money shame. Money issues and shame continue to be a major life struggle for millions of people, and I have dedicated my life to assisting them.”

Tammy’s combined professional experience and passionate commitment to assist others on their path are keys to helping her clients achieve unparalleled results. Tammy is most often sought out by individuals, couples, groups, and businesses.

Connect with Tammy Lally:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Tammy Lally: My own money shame and my lack of awareness around it drove me into some real, real trouble, real problems.

Tanya: That’s Tammy Lally, Certified Money Coach, TED speaker and author, who has been outspoken on our need to rid our shame around money. This subject touches close to home, as Tammy lost her brother when he committed suicide shortly after he received a foreclosure notice, which was the last straw in a long battle of financial shame and suffering. Tammy believes the only way to help others master their finances is by first conquering their emotions around money, and only then, creating a financial plan that actually works is possible.

Tammy has over 17 years of experience in the financial industry and 27 years of studying psychology, addiction, recovery, and spirituality. Money Detox, the book she authored, distills her knowledge into actionable frameworks you can use to reach financial health.

Tammy, before being a money coach, you actually did a lot of personal development, and I’m assuming maybe even possibly still do a lot of personal development. Actually, you studied psychology, if I remember seeing that correctly. What has your journey in your personal development been like?

Tammy Lally: I think that when I was a young person, I was just really curious. I was curious about people. I was curious about what people said and what people did and the contradiction that I often saw in my family of origin. I think because of the family I grew up in, there was a lot of unspoken and spoken words that were very confusing to me. I think I just had a deep curiosity about people and behavior. It just started there.

I used to ask a lot of questions. I used to ask a lot of whys. Didn’t get any answers, so I just kept seeking through – when I was a kid, I just asked other people. I went to my neighbors that seemed a little bit more interested in me and I would ask questions. That’s really how I started to learn that there’s a difference between what other people are doing in their house and in my house, and I started really recognizing some behaviors that were concerning.

I grew up with a single mother and it was hard for her. She was young and had a lot of her own emotional struggles. She grew up in a way that was very naïve and her belief system was grounded in Catholicism, so it wasn’t challenged. We just didn’t have a – there was no other way. If you asked why, it was, “Because I said so,” and that was pretty much it. That didn’t satisfy me, so as I got a little bit older, as a teenager, I ventured out of the house. I just started going and exploring. I started doing things that weren’t common in my family, like going to a retreat or participating in some kind of meditation.

Now this is back in the ‘80s, so –

Tanya: Wow, and it wasn’t in fashion to go and do that. Today, it’s totally common, people do it. I’ve done it. I love them. You’re right, back in the ‘80s that was actually something quite unheard of.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, witchcraft! It’s witchcraft. I also witnessed a lot of – I have two older brothers and I really witnessed them coming of age, becoming teenagers. There was a lot of dysfunction. There was alcohol abuse and drug abuse, just a lot of upset in my family. When I turned 18, I started going to therapy. I really struggled with alcohol addiction, alcoholism, when I was a teenager and it really became problematic and I got into illegal drugs, cocaine and smoking pot and it became a problem. I decided on my own to go into treatment when I was 22, which is crazy. I [summoned up] the courage.

Tanya: Wow, there’s so much to unpack there.

Tammy Lally: Yeah. The short of it is, I had some really good friends, older friends that I was surrounded by at work. They recognized patterns in me that they had in themselves. One of my co-workers asked me to lunch and he took me to an AA meeting.

Tanya: Oh my God! God bless him! He sounds amazing.

Tammy Lally: I was like, what are you doing? What do you mean, AA? It took two years for me to really get that I couldn’t stop drinking on my own, there was a problem. That’s really how it started. At 22, I went into 12-step recovery and I’m still in it, I haven’t stopped. I just learned a tremendous amount about myself. Through unpacking so much of my family’s story, it was just – I just kept going with it.

I became a coach back in my early career. I was actually a professional salesperson, working for a large corporation. I had a lot of skill at really coaching and helping people and they put me through a coaching program. It was just a really natural fit for me to be a coach. To be somebody that could listen, could hear, could empathize, could offer really strong, clear direction. That’s how I landed into – my own personal process landed me into giving back and being of service to other people in the industry that I was in. Then it translated into what it is today, but always through the industry. It was sales and then it turned into finance.

Tanya: What was the journey from that initial sales training, where you actually got to be the coach and work through your own challenges when you were younger, to now being an amazing money coach that – by the way, I have to acknowledge you for not taking the money approach that everybody takes, which is if you come to me, we’ll put together a sound plan and you’re going to be on your way. No. Obviously, if it was that easy, everybody could do it. There’s emotional stuff and you’ve recognized that and you’ve been very upfront about that.

How did you get into being a money coach, with a real clue into people’s psychological states?

Tammy Lally: Well, it’s my own story, again. That’s how it unfolded. I always struggled – I grew up in a working class blue-collar family, very proud people, so work ethic was very high and it was very important. I had a childhood experience that my mom was a single parent with three kids, divorced, in the early 1970s, in a Catholic town. She experienced a lot of discrimination and shame from the wealthier part of the community, which is where we rented – we rented an apartment within a wealthy community and my mom was the help.

Several of the families looked down upon my mother and we went to school with their children, so the children then teased us, and we were bullied. We had a lot of money shame. A lot of what are you wearing, where did that come from? I was teased a lot. What happened for me is I internalized that to mean that money was my worth.

When I became old enough, I chose a career that suited me – where I could earn a high net worth. That was the specific reason I chose my career. I didn’t choose it because I liked it; I was actually more introverted. I went into sales, became extroverted and learned a craft to be able to earn a high income so that I could change my social-economical level. I grew up in blue collar. My mother married blue-collar. We stayed in middle class blue collar and I wanted out of there.

I got out of there and went into a white-collar profession. When I say white and blue collar, I don’t know if the listeners can connect with that, but the bottom line is it was – you either worked with your hands or you worked with your mind. The people that worked with their hands, were considered blue collar and people that worked with their mind, were considered white collar.

Tanya: That’s an interesting analogy. I never thought about it like that. It makes a lot of sense.

Tammy Lally: Yeah. That was just how I made sense of it and how I saw it as a kid. It was like, who were those people that go to work in their Mercedes every day versus my stepfather going to work in a pickup truck every day as a carpenter, or my uncles had plumbing businesses. That was the difference.

My own money shame and my lack of awareness around it, drove me into some real, real trouble, real problems. Unbeknownst to me – I chose professions where I was a high earner but I was a shopper. I saved the 20% you were supposed to save in your 401k and I spent the rest. I took care of a lot of my family, my friends, and I was a big shot. What I didn’t know is that my self-esteem was very low because of my childhood, and I used money to fit in, to belong, to feel approval, to find love, to feel worthy, all of it. I had no idea I was doing it. Nobody confronted me about it. Even though I had a therapist, he didn’t really bring it up much. He always gave me a lot of accolades; you’re so successful and you work so hard. I had a lot of shame and I used money to cover up the shame.

Fast forward, this is where so many millions of people can relate to this story. It’s 2007 and I lived in Florida. I currently live in Washington DC but I lived in Florida in 2007. The housing market crashes and the stock market crashes shortly after that. I owned a mortgage company at the time. I had got out of corporate sales seven years prior and had a really great ride in the mortgage industry, but I was young and didn’t think it would ever end. I was facing bankruptcy, personal bankruptcy, due to my overextended and I basically lost my income overnight, literally. When the mortgage industry closed, it closed. You could no longer earn a living in it [as a sole proprietor that I was].

At the same time, my brother, Keith, had got caught up in what a lot of people got caught up in at that time, which was refinancing their house and taking cash out of the house. That was a really common thing that happened back then. My brother got caught up in a bad mortgage, high payments, and him and his wife got really underwater financially and they faced foreclosure. After a couple of family bailouts, they weren’t able to change the behavior and my brother was devasted and hopeless by it and took his life, committed suicide, right at that time. He committed suicide in 2007. I lost my business shortly after.

I didn’t really understand what he was experiencing around money and shame and how he could take his life. He had a couple of children and a wife and he was 40 years old. I didn’t really get it, but within about six months, having lost my job, I totally got it. I was experiencing debilitating shame. I never had asked anybody for help. I was very self-sufficient and I was single. I had no money. I didn’t have an income. Instead of letting people know and really seeking some counsel, I internalized it as I had really screwed up. This was my fault. I did something wrong. I should have been more responsible. I should have been less – I shouldn’t have spent so much money, on and on, plus I was grieving my brother’s death. It was just a disaster.

Tanya: To add on macroeconomic issues, the whole world was in shambles at that point.

Tammy Lally: Right, but I didn’t see that. Intellectually, I could see it but the internal pain was so huge that I couldn’t even allow myself to ask for help. I didn’t tell anybody. I really lived in a lot of secrecy around it for almost a year. I got myself right up to a breaking point where I had to either file for bankruptcy or not. In order to do that, I had to tell somebody because I needed some help. That was the turning point.

How I got into coaching was, the mortgage industry closed so it was easy for me to just step into the insurance – the financial industry. I went and got certified and took my exams and became a financial planner because people in the community really trusted me with their money. As a mortgage broker, I had a lot of trusted friends and colleagues so it was an easy transition. Once I got there, I was now sitting across the table from people going through the recession, and it didn’t matter if they had millions of dollars or if they were living paycheck to paycheck. Everybody felt the same way, which was everybody had a lot of shame, a lot of fear, a lot of guilt. Most of the conversations I was having was about emotions, not what should we do.

Tanya: Tammy, just so that I can rectify for myself the events that happened, you were at the point where you lost, unfortunately, your brother, which I have so much empathy and sympathy for you and his family. Then overnight, you lose your business. For a year, you didn’t tell anyone what was happening and you were internalizing everything and you were at a point where you needed to make a decision as to whether you filed for personal bankruptcy or not. Did you?

Tammy Lally: Yes!

Tanya: You did, okay.

Tammy Lally: I did, and it freed me.

Tanya: Right, which is amazing. Okay so that –

Tammy Lally: No, I had a tremendous amount of shame about doing that, so I’m not [16:50]. In my family, you don’t do that. You don’t eat, you pay your bills. You pay your bills first before you eat. For me to get to the point – and back then, when I finally told somebody and they suggested I file for bankruptcy, I was horrified. Then once I got passed the mortification, I went and actually talked to an attorney. He said, “This is what we call strategic financial bankruptcy.”

At the time, President Obama was newly elected and there weren’t all of the safeguards. There wasn’t all the options that you had to refinance your house and to remodify. It didn’t exist yet so the banks weren’t allowing me to remodify my house because I didn’t have an income. They wanted to take my house, so I’m fighting for that and I’m whatever. It was awful.

The bankruptcy made financial sense and I was told, and I want to say this for anyone that’s listening, that it was put in the financial system for a reason. Good people deserve a do-over and that’s how the attorney explained it to me. He said, “You’ve been doing all the right things your whole life, this is a difficult situation.” I had real estate that needed to be incorporated into the bankruptcy so that I wouldn’t be on the hook for the short sales. Back then, you were on the hook for the difference if you sold the house for less than you owed, even though the market crashed. President Obama put all that into place later, so bankruptcy was what made sense at the time.

In doing it, it allowed me to keep my home and get my head back in the game. Then I could really hit the ground running as a financial planner. It was extraordinarily challenging to navigate all that emotion.

Tanya: I can imagine. Here you are, you finally find the strength to pick yourself up. Was the filing for bankruptcy the catalyst that gave you the juice, like you said, freed you up, to move on and find that strength.

Tammy Lally: Likely. There was a combination of quite a few things, but it definitely had a bigger psychological impact than I would have admitted. I didn’t even know but the minute I sat down and decided to file – and I qualified for a bankruptcy because you really have to qualify, they just don’t let everybody just file. When I saw it in black and white that I actually did qualify and I did actually experience a hardship, and the lawyer really helped me through that, then I felt better about myself. It took about five years for me to admit that I had a bankruptcy after that. It wasn’t an easy thing to –

Tanya: Accept.

Tammy Lally: Yeah. It was loaded with shame, so it took a while to work through.

Tanya: After your bankruptcy, you went and got certified as a financial planner and now were helping people plan for their finances. In that coaching relationship and advisory relationship, did that help you get your financial plans in order as well?

Tammy Lally: Sure. I think we teach what we need to learn. I was sitting across from people day in and day out and it literally helped me continue to pay attention. Really look at where I was being really irresponsible with buying things that I didn’t need. When you’re looking at people’s budgets and you’re watching the money go in and out, I was doing the same thing previously. Now I had no money, I couldn’t do it, but I was going to come back. I was going to have money again and I was going to have credit again and I knew that I needed to do that differently. I hired a money coach. That’s how I really became a money coach, as I hired one for myself.

Tanya: At what point did you hire a money coach and what was that experience like?

Tammy Lally: It was maybe a couple of years in that I started making money again. I was like, okay, okay. I didn’t even know there was such a – I have many, many friends that are in coaching and I didn’t know there was a specific niche for being a money coach. How it came to me was a friend of mine called me and said, “I’m getting my money coach certification and I need practice clients. Would you be interested?” I was like, oh my God, she had no idea. I’m like, yes!

I will tell you that first – it was a complete game-changer. We had a one-hour coaching call and it completely shifted my perception around my behavior with money in this way. I had done a lot of psychological work for years, therapy, looking at my co-dependency, looking at my addictions, all this stuff. I never made the connection that what I was doing – my behaviors and my money were also laced with co-dependency, which is basically just rescuing people. Playing God in other people’s lives. [22:45].

I didn’t see that until I had to write out my money story. Then it was like, oh my God! It blew my mind. I was sitting there and I said to her, I’m doing this, I’m doing this. I’m going to be a money coach. I’m going to do it. It led me to find the Money Coaching Institute, which is where I got my certification as a money coach and went through their certification program. Then I just tagged it on to my financial planning. That’s really what happened. It was something that I desperately needed for myself, and when it all clicked and my whole – I basically put on a new pair of glasses and I saw things in a way I’d never seen them. I got so fascinated with it that I had to do it for a living. I had to show other people this way.

Tanya: Well, it’s interesting because a few things, well a lot of things you’ve said is very, very fascinating to me. This idea of using money as an extension, and it could be money, it could be food, it could be work, it could be working out, it could be alcohol, it could be all types of stuff, but money is something that shows up often for people. You were using money as a way to comfort the insecurities that were actually going on inside. A way of feeding the ego. Short of being aware that that’s going on, there’s no effective way to address, or even reach, some type of financial health.

Taking shame for a second. How did we get to this place in society where, and it’s not just you, it’s so many people and probably me too, how do we associate our self-worth with our bank account or our income? How did we get there?

Tammy Lally: It’s a belief. That’s all it is. Not that that’s all it is, but it is that’s all it is. We believe, as a society, one family at a time. If you just break it down, you have to look at the whole world, it’s a little complicated. If you look at our family, just look at our family of origin. What did they say about money? What energy, what words are associated with money, how do people react to money, how do people behave with money and your family. That’s where it comes from.

Not everybody has money and shame, not everybody does. I’ve met some people that are pretty healthy with money and it’s not even a thing for them. However, the majority of the people that I talk to have something going on with money in terms of shame, secrecy, guilt. It starts in your family. It’s a belief system. I also believe that it’s been handed down for generations and generations and generations, so it’s not just your family of origin, it’s also three, four generations back, five generations. It goes back and all of that learning and all of that belief system gets handed down.

Why I believe it’s an epidemic, like what you’re talking about, how did we all get here, I believe it’s an epidemic because nobody’s ever investigated the thinking. We don’t [take it on]. We’re taught and told, don’t air your dirty laundry. Money is a taboo topic, don’t talk about it. Well, if you’re not talking about it, you’re not looking at your beliefs about it. If we want to change the epidemic, we just have to talk about it. That’s why I do the work because I want people to talk about it. I want to have the hard conversations. I love it. I love having the hard conversations.

My brother died because my family didn’t create a safe space to have hard conversations. My family of origin, unfortunately I didn’t grow up with parents that could create safety, so he had nowhere to go with that information. He had nowhere to go with his feelings. That is what I also experienced when I came up against the dark night of the soul for me with money. It’s what I hear with all of my clients. They don’t have anywhere to go. They don’t talk about it with their best friends.

That’s how we change the paradigm, we just talk about it and we get uncomfortable and we share. Like, how much credit card debt do you have and how often – that’s a big secret. We all pretend we don’t have credit card debt. [Every American] has $15,000 in consumer debt. How do we not have it? How can our circle of friends not have it?

Tanya: Absolutely. Actually, one of the things that blew my mind. The founder of Bridgewater Associations, Ray Dalio, has this really neat video on YouTube called The Economic Machine or something like that, Economic Machine. He distills in a very simple way what are the levers within the economy that make the economy work and what are the drivers. Even as he distills it, it’s still quite complex.

In that video, he says that there’s something like – our actual cash spending power in the US is something around $2 trillion, $3 trillion, around that neighborhood. Our actual spend, so plus credit debt, is in the $50 trillion. If you look at that ratio of what we actually make to what is actually spent, that blew me right out of my seat. I was, wow!

Tammy Lally: Yeah, I know. The way that I see this country, I live in the US so I don’t know what it’s like in other places, I just feel like they’ve got us so numbed out. We’re checked out. We’re numbed out. We’re addicted to this. We’re addicted to that. They’re just taking everything we’ve got. They’re just taking more and taking more and taking more. The corporations, the wealthy, the people that are like, watch them, watch how we get them hooked on this.

Tanya: Yes, and actually it’s hooked on – there’s a war for your wallet and for your attention and that’s true in algorithms, anything. If you go on Netflix, on Twitter, on Instagram, on Facebook, on Google, there’s a competition for your attention. Then with that comes what are you going to spend on? Yes, it’s brutal.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, but it starts with talking. Just like this. I’m always grateful to be in this conversation is really the truth.

Tanya: What’s really nice about your approach is you lead by example. You actually open up with your story, which puts everyone else at ease. Okay, I’m not alone. There’s other people that have been through this. Do you find that – the people that have stuff going on with money, is that mostly men, or women, or is it pretty much equal?

Tammy Lally: Yeah, it does not discriminate at all. There’s not one gender that has more problems. There’s not race that has more problems. It doesn’t discriminate. It’s the same for everyone. The human experience, you either have or you don’t. It doesn’t matter if the person has no money or the person is extremely wealthy. What I’ve seen is that the money beliefs are what drive them. Understanding the money belief that you have and the things that you say about money all the time, they dictate your outcome in your life. It doesn’t matter because everybody on the planet is touched by money. We live in that world, so no, I don’t see people suffering more.

I think, the difference, one thing I can say is I believe men suffer greatly, and I think the wealthy suffer greatly more than we know, and they don’t reach out for help. Women do suffer, but women get help. Women are very different. I work with a lot of women. I’d love to work with the same amount of men. More and more men are finding me because of my TED Talk. That’s great because they’re watching that in the privacy of their own home, and it’s very specific to my brother’s death. The conversations I have with men are different than the conversations I have with women, and I believe that men and the wealthy are at the highest risk because they don’t talk about it.

Tanya: Are at the highest risk of?

Tammy Lally: Of suffering.

Tanya: Of suffering.

Tammy Lally: Suffering could be addiction. It could be suicide. It could be just loneliness and despair, just living in more of a place of scarcity and lack, and so many people don’t believe that. A lot of people think, oh, they got money. They could just buy their way out. It’s not the truth. People that have money have a whole set of responsibility that people with money don’t have. It’s very difficult, especially when people inherit wealth. Oh, my God, the pressure that comes with inheriting wealth is very, very intense for a lot of people too.

Tanya: Why do you think that especially men and especially people that are wealthy suffer from – suffer around money?

Tammy Lally: Men I believe suffer because they’re told that they’re supposed to be strong, so they don’t ask for help. Also, their brain’s wired a little bit differently. They’re not going to dive into their emotions in the same way that women dive in, and so men just buck up. They’re a little tougher. They just keep going with – rolling with the punches. What I see in marriages often – and it doesn’t have to be a heterosexual marriage. It can be a gay relationship as well. It has a dynamic. You get somebody that’s a high earner, and there’s a lot of pressure on one person to carry a family, and men internalize that. They do it differently than we do. They hold it.

Men die younger for a reason because of stress, typically, stress-related illness like cancer and heart disease, so I believe that is the issue with men. With the wealthy is who are they going to talk to that’s going to have a lot of compassion, right? They’re going to go to their friend who might have a little less money or whatever and say, hey, I’m really struggling with this money thing. What do you mean you’re struggling? You got money. Go buy some help. That really happens, and the other piece with the wealthy is a lot of times they don’t share that they have wealth because they do not want to be discriminated against in the way that confusion of why people are in their lives. I hear this often. I don’t know if that person’s my friend because they’re just my friend or because I have money. I know.

Tanya: Yes, absolutely. I mean, when you get to a point where you do have wealth, you have a bullseye on your back, and people sometimes, not always – and there’s certainly ways to deal with this, but people’s motivation to be around you now becomes your bank account. That’s tough. I have a lot of friends in that situation. It can be very suffocating. I can see how even though there is wealth there’s still that mental prison, so to speak, around the conversation of money, and short of getting that addressed, the prison is very real regardless of the assets available.

How do you define financial health? How would I clue in as a person that, ooh, something is wrong? Maybe I’m not quite balanced here, or I might have an issue with finances versus somebody that’s in a really good position or even okay position.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, financial health for me is a feeling. It’s a feeling more than anything. It’s a feeling of being in your power and being in your power with money specifically, meaning that your day is not dictated whether it’s going to be good day or a bad day based on your bank account balance, or based on if you’re going to get that job or not get that job, or if your mom sends the money or doesn’t send the money, or if you’ve got – it’s just being in your power. Being in your power I believe takes a good deal of self-inquiry. You’ve got to really study yourself. You have to understand your thinking, understand your mind, and the only way to have financial wellness, financial health is to have wellness of your mind.

You can’t fix money problems with money. It’s an inside job. You have to go inside. You have to go inside, and so if you want financial health, you have to feel whole as a person. The only way that I know to do that is I have to ask myself questions. I got to get curious about my behavior. The only way I can do that is I have to have practices that allow me space inside my mind so I can see what’s happening, and I always have a coach, a therapist, or a spiritual advisor on hand because I can’t do that work on my own, never been able to do that.

Tanya: It’s interesting because there was – well, in some cases, it still is, but mostly before, there was a very big stigma around having a therapist or somebody to help you. Actually, if you think about it, most high performing professional athletes have coaches. Why? They need to see blind spots that they have, things that they cannot see themselves, have feedback loops, and now it’s very much becoming more accepted in the business world. Corporations are really starting to invest in their people. In fact, that’s actually quite top of mind lately that it’s not just about shareholder value, but it’s also about investing in your people and the mental well-being of your people and the development of your people. It makes total sense that you would have to start with your mental space around money and really get a coach. What is the experience like that you bring your clients through when you onboard a new client?

Tammy Lally: I first have to explain a little because people don’t know what a money coach does, and there are money coaches out there that do very specific things. What I do in my practice is a little bit more than money coaching. It’s very much transformational development work through the lens of money. As a financial planner, we do the budgeting. We do the blueprinting. We do retirement planning. We look at investment strategies. All of that happens. I don’t give advice because that’s not what I do anymore, but I help people, empower them to go off and implement with the right people.

First I have to give them an idea of what’s going to happen, and people find me. I don’t go out and find them, but people do find me. It’s really helping people understand that there’s three ways in is how I see it with money. You’ve got to go into the money story. You have to understand ad unpack your money story. You have to know what your beliefs are. Just think about this. Your money beliefs are in your subconscious mind. They’re not at the forefront, and they’re largely false, and they impact every decision that you make all day long about money. Wouldn’t you like to know what the story is?

Tanya: Yes, I would. It’s funny. Actually, in your case, you were mentioning that there – your childhood. In a child’s mind, the decisions or the way that you interpreted people bullying you, or people judging you for not having this clothes or that clothes, or being the help in a wealthy neighborhood and all that stuff that you internalized is probably what made your decisions or made who you were to later dominate all the decisions. It sounds like it wasn’t you the adult, the rational thinking person that came up with that at a later point. It’s all influenced from when you were a kid.

Tammy Lally: You got it, sister, and let me give you an example. I’m 30 years old. I drive into my driveway in the brand new convertible Porsche Boxster that I just bought. I open the driveway, and there is a Mercedes sitting in there already and a company car, and I’m single. There was a problem. There was a problem, and I didn’t even know there was a problem. My mind kept telling me just get more stuff and people will love you and accept you and want you and love you, blah, blah, blah. I had no idea what that childhood experience did to me. It had me literally going to car dealerships. Every time something bad happened like a breakup if I was in a relationship, I would get a new car, an expensive car.

Yes, that’s why I lead with you have to know your money story. You have to, and in the money story, a lot of things can be uncovered. There’s traumas. There’s addictions. There’s a lot of family stuff that comes in that money story, so you can’t do this work with somebody that isn’t skilled at really helping you through that level. I might work with somebody that has an issue. I mean, I’m not a therapist, so I’m not going to pretend that I am. They have an issue that is trauma related, and I will say I think it’s a really good idea to do some trauma therapy and find a therapist if you don’t have one and do some work. The mental health issues really show up in the money story, and there’s a lot of people that have mental health issues.

That’s the other piece to this is that, if we can’t follow a budget – okay, let’s just keep it basic. If you have $10 and you spend 20, you’re going to owe somebody 10 bucks. I mean, you’re going to be in debt, big debt. The math doesn’t lie.

Tanya: Yes, and actually, of that $10 that you’re going to owe, it’s probably going to be more like 12 or 15 over time because it’s accumulating interest, so you’re paying to even borrow that debt, which a lot of people don’t think about.

Tammy Lally: Exactly, but why would you make a decision like that? That’s what you have to find out about yourself, and that’s what’s in the money story. If you’re using debt to – if you’re living beyond your means, it’s because there’s a story about that, and you want to know what it is. If you don’t, you’re going to be broke. You’re always going to be broke. You’re not going to save. You’re going to be at the end of your – or towards the middle of your life or towards the end of your life going I have nothing, and that will break you down. That will create sickness. That creates depression. There’s a lot in that.

The approach is you got to go into the money story, and the book that I wrote which is called Money Detox really approaches this that way. It’s you got to go into the money story. Then we can go into the math. The second piece is, as doing the financial work, okay, now let’s look where the money is going. Why is the money going there? Let’s look at the story. It makes sense that the money is going there because here’s the story. Here’s what you believe, right? It allows people to really start to have more compassion and understanding for themselves and their families, which allows them to forgive. Forgiveness is the experience of really allowing yourself to bring more space into your life, so you can have more of what you want and less of what you don’t want. Forgiveness is, I believe, the only way to financial freedom.

Tanya: Forgiveness of who?

Tammy Lally: The only path to financial freedom.

Tanya: I mean, I agree with you. I love forgiveness, but in this case, in the context of money, who are you forgiving?

Tammy Lally: Often your family, your parents, a neighbor, somebody that might’ve said something really derogatory, but parents, parents get – they set up our belief system. Our belief systems are created by what we hear from our folks and what we see them do, and often our parents make a lot of mistakes. Then, as adults, we start repeating them. Then the forgiveness is parents, but then it’s to ourselves. Sometimes we have to look outwardly at others and blame them to be able to look inwardly and forgive ourselves.

Tanya: On that path of thinking about our family and our parents probably inherited whatever belief system their parents had about money. As a parent myself, as you’re talking, I’m thinking, hmm, what kind of mistakes am I perpetuating here? What would you recommend for the parents out there to really set their kids up for financial success or at least stop this money shaming or this self-worth equating to money thing happening?

Tammy Lally: Okay, Step 1, parents have to do their work. They have to do their personal growth work. You can’t change something if you don’t acknowledge what it is and understand it for yourself, and kids don’t believe you. My mom used to say – and I love my mother. I have deep forgiveness for her. What I used to hear her say was don’t do that. I would say why? She’d say because I said so, and then I’d see her do it. I remember that she did it. I don’t remember what she said. I remember what she did.

For parents, you have to practice healthy boundaries with money. You have to say no and mean no. You have to set limits and keep them. You can’t bargain with children. Children are going to run you over if you do that. With money with kids, kids watch us like hawks. I mean, children are watching everything every minute. My clients tell me, well, my kid doesn’t know anything. Bullshit, they know everything.

Tanya: Totally, and if they don’t…

Tammy Lally: They know everything.

Tanya: Oh, yeah, and if they don’t connect the dots today, they will tomorrow, guaranteed.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, they might not be able to say it verbally, but they know it energetically. They know exactly how to navigate it good. They’re brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. They’re our best teachers. For parents, don’t go down the rabbit hole. Don’t think, oh, my God, I screwed my kid up because that’s not going to help. I’d say get a copy of Money Detox. It’s a great place to start, and do the work. Do your work.

Look at your stories. Look at your behaviors, and do your work, and forgive yourself. Teach your children what you want them to be, so if you want your kids to be really financially responsible, practice showing them how to be financially responsible. One way to do that is, when they get money from family members, be intentional. Set up an account for them. Take them to the bank. Show them what real money looks like. They think credit cards are free money.

I mean, I work with a lot of families, and the kids are in on it. I work with families, individuals, couples, but I love when I work with a family because the parents think, oh, my kids doesn’t – oh, watch this. Then I get the kids individually. Hear the story. Then we share it with the parents, and the parents’ minds are blown. Kids think that a credit card is magic. They don’t know what that is. They’ll just, oh, the money’s on that. What do you mean the money’s on that? They don’t see it anymore.

You just go back, and you teach your children the way that your great-grandparents were taught. You have them write things down. You keep a ledger. You get real money out. You let them touch it. When all else fails, you go back to the olden days.

Tanya: I love that idea. It’s great. I have a 3-year-old and two kids that are 2, two identical twin girls.

Tammy Lally: Oh, fun.

Tanya: As an activity, we go sometimes to the store. I give my credit card to my daughter, and I say, okay, pay. She does whatever she does, and she loves it. She feels very empowered with it, and then she just leaves with the thing. You’re right. No concept of limit, amount, what you start with, what you end with, zero. It’s like, ooh, you just swipe this thing.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, it’s a magic card.

Tanya: I get it, yeah.

Tammy Lally: That’s really cool that you can see that. You’re right. When kids start becoming – especially a 3-year-old, they can conceptualize. What you could do is take a $20 bill and start breaking that money down and just having her hand you – okay, give me $2. I mean, I don’t know where she is in…

Tanya: Yeah, we’re getting to counting, so we’re right there, yeah, so right in time.

Tammy Lally: Bring some cash in. Stores still take cash right now.

Tanya: Yeah, this is amazing. Okay, so first you go through the mental – first you explain what you do, what your actual role is, which is to first look at the story, and then get really clear on where the money’s going, which ties back to the story. Then once people get really – get a visual on all this, that’s when you can really start doing financial planning.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, what the story and the budget will do is it will show you what you value and what you hold a priority. Once you see what you make a priority, you can really start to look at your values and see if that’s even aligning. If it’s not aligning, it causes a lot of unrest in your body, irritation, upset, resentment. You don’t even know it. When you’re out of alignment with yourself, meaning you’re lying to yourself about something…

Tanya: Ah, yes, I like that.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, it becomes really clear. If I’m looking at my spending and I go, God, I spent $500 last month on blah, blah, blah and I’m like I didn’t even enjoy that, I get pissed, ra-ra-ra-ra-ra. God, I’m stupid. What was I doing there? Then if I go back and say, well, wait a minute, maybe there was a belief there. Maybe I was emotional. Maybe something happened. Maybe something hijacked me and got me running over to Ben & Jerry’s and blowing up my diet.

It’s like that. It’s like being able to – and that’s what I do with my clients. It’s like bringing in a lot of compassion. Okay, here’s where the money’s going. Where do you really want it to go? What’s the life you really want? What’s the daydream? How do you want to live?

Helping them align their day-to-day practices with the ideal life, and money has to be a part of that. Money is part of our whole being. I mean, it impacts us spiritually, psychologically, emotionally, physically. We think about money thousands of times a day. We have so many exchanges of money. It’s really just approaching it from a kinder place. Really understanding that, if money isn’t flowing well, if there’s some hiccups there, it’s emotional. You’re continually coming back to that. You’re having an emotional reaction. This is not practical math.

Tanya: What’s the process? How long do your clients typically work with you until they get to where they need to go?

Tammy Lally: About a year.

Tanya: About a year.

Tammy Lally: Yeah, so six months, we start. That’s the minimum. Six months is the minimum requirement, and then it always turns into a year. It depends on the person. It depends on what they’re up to, but if they’re really starting to step into their power, I have some clients that have been with me for six years.

Tanya: Oh, I can see why people would want to keep you around. You’re brilliant. Yes, okay, so then between six months to a year. What’s the frequency of coaching? Is it once a week, twice a week, once a month?

Tammy Lally: Yeah, it’s weekly for the first three months, and that’s on purpose because we fall into – first, we establish trust. Talking with somebody about money like this, you have to really establish trust. I’m real friendly, and it’s an easy thing to start building the trust because I’m so personal and vulnerable. I just say what it is, true. All the stuff I struggle with, I don’t hide. I might be a money coach, but I’m still learning. It’s weekly, and that really helps me and them see the pattern. We all have patterns. We’re creatures of habit. We do the same thing over and over, so it really helps them be seen.

A lot of times in coaching – when I was coached in the past from other types of coaches, business coaches, I didn’t feel – I could hide out. I could really still hide out in my shame and my whatever I was up to, so I know that. I know that, if people really want to be the best that they can be inside themselves and really experience financial freedom, enjoy, they have to be seen. They have to let somebody in.

My philosophy is I really want you to have the experience of being seen, and I get it that it’s going to be shame – there’s going to be shaming. I’m not going to shame you. I get it. We’re going to have hard conversations, but I’m never going to tell you what to do. I’m just here to really empower you to live the way you want. It’s like that because we’re building that level of a relationship. We’re really getting in there together, so I ask for weekly.

Tanya: That’s great. Tammy, this has been – first of all, I want to acknowledge you for the incredible work that you’re doing. For those listening, Money Detox is Tammy’s book, really, really amazing. I’m actually going to get myself a copy, and I highly recommend watching Tammy’s TED Talk, which really goes into depth about her story, some of what you heard today, really amazing. If people want to get in touch with you, Tammy, how do they get in touch with you?

Tammy Lally: Just go to my website, which is tammylally.com.

Tanya: Okay, great.

Tammy Lally: Google me. Find me on Facebook. My website, it’s got everything right there.

Tanya: You know what, Tammy? The good news is you have a lot of work to do with a lot of people. I just love it. I love the approach, and I think that this is – we’re in a cultural shift right now where we’re bringing everything back into alignment. Actually, up until this conversation, I knew for myself that I needed to have career alignment, health alignment. Yes, I knew I had to be within budget, but I didn’t understand the connection with the overall alignment of my purpose with where I’m spending my money and how I’m using money to either soothe or further what I’m up to.

Tammy Lally: Nice. Do it, [58:20].

Tanya: Really, really cool stuff, Tammy. Thank you so much for being unmessable, and I applaud you for the difference that you’re making.

Tammy Lally: Thank you so much. I appreciate you.

Announcement: Unmessable is recorded in the heart of New York City, and a special thanks to all the team involved in producing the show. Visit tanyaprive.com/unmessable to find a transcript of this episode and be sure to subscribe to our newsletter.

Synthetic Forests: A Possible Way To Remove CO2 From The Air

October 10th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “Synthetic Forests: A Possible Way To Remove CO2 From The Air”

In this episode, Dr. Jennifer Wilcox, who is the James H. Manning Chaired Professor of Chemical Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a former Stanford Professor and acclaimed TED speaker shares her research findings on how we could remove CO2 from the air to help fight against the global climate crisis.  “We have the capability to build synthetic forests that have the potential to remove some of the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere each year, ” Dr. Wilcox said. “Ideally, we avoid CO2 emissions to begin with, but we are not doing that at the scale required to meet our climate goals and so now we have to start pulling CO2 out of the air to avoid reaching a climate change tipping point.”

In addition to honorable awards received such as the NSF Career award and authoring the first carbon capture textbook, according to Google Scholar, Dr. Jennifer Wilcox’s work has been cited close to 7,000 times (and growing).

Tune in to get the full conversation and learn about:

      • Global climate crisis
      • Climate change
      • Global warming
      • Carbon capture
      • Removing CO2 from the air
      • Greenhouse gases

Dr. Jennifer Wilcox’s biography:

PhD Chemical Engineering University of Arizona 2004
MA Physical Chemistry University of Arizona 2004
BA Mathematics Wellesley College 1998

Jennifer Wilcox works on ways to test and measure methods of trace metal and carbon capture, to mitigate the effects of fossil fuels on our planet.

Jennifer Wilcox is the James H. Manning Chaired Professor of Chemical Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Having grown up in rural Maine, she has a profound respect and appreciation of nature, which permeates her work as she focuses on minimizing negative impacts of humankind on our natural environment.

Wilcox’s research takes aim at the nexus of energy and the environment, developing both mitigation and adaptation strategies to minimize negative climate impacts associated with society’s dependence on fossil fuels. This work carefully examines the role of carbon management and opportunities therein that could assist in preventing 2° C warming by 2100. Carbon management includes a mix of technologies spanning from the direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to its capture from industrial, utility-scale and micro-emitter (motor vehicle) exhaust streams, followed by utilization or reliable storage of carbon dioxide on a timescale and magnitude that will have a positive impact on our current climate change crisis. Funding for her research is primarily sourced through the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and the private sector. She has served on a number of committees including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society to assess carbon capture methods and impacts on climate. She is the author of the first textbook on carbon capture, published in March 2012.

Connect with Dr. Jennifer Wilcox:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Jennifer Wilcox: It’s only going to get worse if we continue not to act in a way that we need to. Now we’re at a point where it’s like avoiding CO2 is just no longer enough, and now we need to also remove it from the atmosphere.

Tanya: That’s Dr. Jennifer Wilcox, the James H. Manning Chaired Professor of Chemical Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, former Stanford professor, and acclaimed TED speaker who’s actively working to remove CO2 from the air to help fight against the global climate crisis. In her TED Talk, which has been viewed by millions, she proposes different solutions to help produce global warming in a hopes to save our beloved planet. In addition to honorable awards such as the NSF CAREER Award and authoring the first carbon capture textbook, according to Google scholar, Dr. Jennifer Wilcox’s work has been cited close to 7,000 times and growing. You were brought up in Maine, and I’m wondering if that was somehow a catalyst to you developing your love for nature and the planet.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, I think it was, actually. I grew up in a very rural part of Maine, in central Maine, and we grew up in a house that was on about 22 acres of land that had a stream. A lot of the neighbors had solar and were off the grid and battery storage and things like that. We did not at my house, but I was definitely exposed to that kind of living at a young age. I always felt that appreciation for having independence in that way. Yeah, really, I think it’s about the culture that I grew up in, and in my house, my parents were very much into having a garden and growing our own food when the climate was good in the summer and things like that. We had a well on our property, so we were very aware of water, our access and the availability of it. There was a time when I remember being a kid, and we ran out of water and had to change your habits significantly when you don’t have water, running water. Definitely grew up in an environment very different than what I’ve been exposed to essentially in my adult life where everything has been available. All resources that provide us comfort are at my fingertips now. Growing up in that environment has absolutely shaped my appreciation for nature, and not to take those kind of – these kinds of things for granted.

Tanya: I wish that every kid would have that opportunity to be exposed to limitations of water and self-sufficiency with energy and such an appreciation for nature. Actually, what’s predicted to happen by 2050 is that two-thirds of the population are going to be living in cities, and so like you said, access at the fingertips – I’m in New York – is going to be more readily available than ever before. That’s where we’re trending. It’s just there’s such a loss of touch of what’s actually happening macro-wise with our planet and also why I think your work is just so important, so that was really awesome that you got to experience that. Just out of curiosity, what were you like as a child?

Jennifer Wilcox: I was always interested in science and nature. I think more so the perspective of a scientist than an engineer, even though I’m an engineer now, but when I was really young, I remember feeling a sense of boredom, even though we had – you’re playing outside all the time with a sense of boredom. I remember thinking, if I studied a lot, if I read a lot, if I – I spent time, I guess, memorizing things so that then when I had space with nothing around me I would still have something to do because I could be thinking about things. I would have enough to think about, which is just a little odd. As a kid, I really did – I remember my mom took us, my brother and I, to a bookstore and said you can pick out any book you want, which was a big treat. My brother picked out a fiction book, and I picked out a book of the human anatomy. I thought, wow, this is such a big thick book. There’s so much for me to memorize. This will take me forever.

My mom was like are you really sure? I was probably only 10 or 11. Are you really sure that that’s what you want to pick out? I was so excited. Even at a young age, I memorized all of the elements in the periodic table and also was really interested in insects and thought I wanted to be an entomologist at a young age and, yeah, just really excited about knowledge and learning. I think it goes back to – speaking before about independence, it’s more of an intellectual independence. If you gain all of this knowledge, then you don’t have to be so dependent on things around you because you have what it takes to figure things out and move forward. I always felt that that was really empowering. Knowledge was power, and so I saw that and recognized that and was just excited for that.

Tanya: That’s interesting, I mean, the fact that you had that realization, the need for independence, and the recognition of knowledge is power at such a young age. Where do you think that stemmed from?

Jennifer Wilcox: That’s a good question. My parents know this about me, and they don’t know where it came from.

Tanya: Oh, a mystery.

Jennifer Wilcox: My mom’s a social worker, and my dad’s a teacher. It wasn’t like they had the same kind of science curiosity that I did. Honestly, it’s really hard to – I will say, as a kid, I had a lot of time because my mom was a young mom. She had my brother and I under the age of 20 and so very, very young, and made a decision when I was young that she needed to go back to school for education, to get a degree to be able to get a good job and things like that. Because of that, she was working a lot and going to school a lot, and so that provided with a lot of empty space for me to just explore and read and figure things out but also recognize how important – seeing her as an example, how important it was to do the education and to get that and let that be able to instill within myself a situation that I can do that first, and then have a family later kind of thing.

Tanya: Yes, that served you very well. How did you move into chemical engineering? This is something that I was reading, and it just blew my mind. In 2004, you got your master’s in physical chemistry and a PhD in chemical engineering at the same time.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, that’s right.

Tanya: How do you do that? Are you just like one of those people that has an amazing brain that can just suck everything in and retain it?

Jennifer Wilcox: No, I’m not one at all. I will say that I work very hard, and that’s what I tell my students too. I don’t have a photographic memory or anything like that, but I have a pretty strong work ethic. It started a little bit before grad school. Again, growing up in Maine, the high school that I went to didn’t offer calculus or four years of a language, and I went to undergrad ultimately at Wellesley College, which doesn’t have chemical engineering as an undergraduate major. The path was a little – it wasn’t straightforward that I took to end up getting into a graduate program in chemical engineering.

In high school, I recognized, if I wanted to go to a four-year college, I needed to have calculus, and I needed to have four years of a language. I went to the principal and just simply asked if I could teach myself calculus, and I did well and paid out of pocket for my book and for my AP exam if he would be willing to put it on the transcript if I did well enough on the AP exam. He said sure, and I had taken all the math that the high school had available to us. My last year, I worked with three other students who were also interested in going to four-year colleges, and we all worked together to teach ourselves calculus.

Tanya: My God, was that the first time that the principal or that school had ever dealt with that before?

Jennifer Wilcox: As far as I know, yes. That was calculus. Then the other piece was they offered French and Latin but only two years, but I developed a very strong friendship, still friends to this day with my Latin teacher. I asked her. I said can we just do an independent study for two years, and you can call it Latin 3 and 4? She agreed. She was very encouraging in terms of me going to a four-year college and did everything she could to help to make that a reality. We did things like translated The Aeneid and read a lot of Latin poetry.

It was a lot of fun. I mean, we had a lot of fun together. That was my four years of language, and so when I got to Wellesley, I took the entrance exam for math. I thought I wanted to be a Latin – a classics major.

Tanya: Oh, wow!

Jennifer Wilcox: I had all this background. I got to Wellesley, and I took their entrance exam for calculus. Even though I did fine on the AP exam, I felt like it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t enough for my principal to – I think the best score you can get is a five, and I got a three, which now in retrospect was pretty darn good for teaching yourself.

Tanya: Honest to God! I mean, amazing that you even had the foresight to enroll your school and principal and other students to go on this journey. This is the first time I’ve heard anything like this. It’s amazing.

Jennifer Wilcox: All four of us went to very good schools. One of my friends went to Yale. I went to Wellesley, another one University of New Hampshire, and then the fourth one, WPI, which is where I teach today. We all ended up really doing fantastic. Wellesley had me take this entrance exam, and they said you’re testing into Calc 2. I said no, no, no. That’s not possible. I taught myself. I don’t trust that I know the material, and I want to retake Calculus 1. They wouldn’t let me. Anyway, I ended up taking Calc 2, and I ended up being a math major.

Tanya: Oh, my God.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, I did pre-med in math, and I thought that’s what I wanted to do. I started a graduate program at the University of Oregon in pure math, and I was miserable. It was a really hard time for me because I’m not very good at quitting things. Something that I always try and teach my students is there’s a difference between pushing yourself and getting stronger and pushing yourself to injury, and it’s really critical to understand the difference between the two. For me, it was just I don’t mind pushing uphill. I don’t mind working hard, but not when there’s no feel good at the end. You have to get some reward along the way to keep pushing.

I didn’t see that in that field for me. I didn’t feel like I was a natural of any kind at it. I worked my butt off, and the best I could ever do was a B+. For me, I was like I need to find something that’s applicable to – I was very close to my grandparents growing up, and I wanted to be able to go visit them and talk to them about what I was doing and have them have appreciation and understanding that I was doing something that was absolutely applicable to every day and to making our future better. Then I ended up finding engineering, chemical engineering specifically. It was really a cross between the math and the chemistry that I was really good at, so almost like an applied chemistry.

Honestly, Tucson, how did that happen? I was in Oregon. I decided to quit the graduate program in math, which was, again, a really tough decision for me. It was also raining all the time, and somebody said to me, hey, move to Tucson. It’s sunny every day. That was literally the – that was the reason I moved to Tucson.

Tanya: It’s a good reason.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, I did. I moved to Tucson, and I got a job waiting tables because you can always do that. It’s money right away, so it made a lot of sense. I got bored, and so then I met up with a math professor in the applied math department at the University of Arizona. I was trying to figure out doing a tutoring job or something in my spare time, and he said, look, you need to go back to graduate school. What are you doing waiting tables and tutoring? Then I said okay, and he introduced me to the chair of the graduate committee at the University of Arizona in Tucson in chemical engineering. Yeah, that’s my story of how I ended up there.

Then the way to get the two degrees at the same time was because my project that I was working on was specifically focused on understanding how mercury – how we can capture mercury from coal-fired power plants. Part of that was very – it was theoretical modeling in addition to experiments, but the theoretical modeling was all based upon quantum mechanics. I didn’t have a background in that, but I had a pretty solid background in chemistry. I decided to take every physical chemistry course offered, and by the time I was done, it ended up being a master’s degree. It was really course work master’s. I did it all so that it could help me understand my project for my PhD, and so I had that solid background. That’s how I ended up getting the master’s and the PhD in the same year.

Tanya: Wow! What was that year like for you? Were you just always heads down working?

Jennifer Wilcox: I spent four years in both the PhD and master’s program there. It was four years total combined. I mean, I work really hard and always have, and I try not to set other people by the standards by which I work. It’s just who I am, who I’ve always been. When I was in graduate school, I didn’t just go to graduate school. I did teach at a community college the entire time. I waited tables, so I continued to do that for the first year or two. I ended up buying a house while in grad school. Nobody does that.

Tanya: Wow! You have one speed, and it’s go.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, I don’t do a lot of downtime. I like to sleep. I do, but I don’t need a ton. I get what I need, but then the other time I think I maximize. I don’t have a lot of efficiency losses in my day-today, I guess. I just make every minute count. I try to. It’s really just who I am, but again, I try not to expect that same level from others. We all need different things, and we all fill our cup differently. For me, that’s what worked, and it’s what drives me and gets me excited.

Yeah, I worked really hard and finished in four years, and again, I knew exactly what I wanted to do. I knew I wanted to help to mentor other students and people in this field. I did not do a post-doc. I went straight into a faculty position back in New England where I’m at now, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, yeah, and that’s where I really started my academic career there in chemical engineering.

Tanya: Wow! While you were in chemical engineering at school, did you – what was the ratio of male to female in your class?

Jennifer Wilcox: I’ll just say too I was not used to this. Of course, I was one of very few women. At Wellesley, it was an all-women’s college. I came from a place, four years at Wellesley. Certain parts were really difficult and competitive, but I loved the fact that there was only empowerment happening. I was in science, and I was in math. Honestly, there weren’t a – in my math program there, there weren’t a lot of us. I mean, I would have five, six students in my classes. We got really direct interaction with the faculty, and that was really good. In my math program, I was the only one at the University of Oregon in that program that year, so it was a shock.

Tanya: Oh, my God. I mean, how many students?

Jennifer Wilcox: In that program that year, there was probably 15 or 20. To go from all women in your classes to the only was a shock. Yeah, I don’t think that was a reason for me being unhappy. It was really the material, the lack of application that I felt and even the lack of newness associated with it. In terms of just pure math, you’re doing a lot of redundancy and proofs that have already been done before. In Arizona, I was also one of a few women in the program.

I’ll add too I’m a runner. Back when I was not a mom and balancing and juggling everything, I had more time, and I was a competitive runner. It was funny. In my work life, I was one of few women, and because I was competitive, I was often finishing in say the top five or ten in a race of women and so which meant that you look around you. You just see men. That’s what that means. It was like when my – when I would do races and running, I’d look around me. I’d just see men, and in my professional life, that’s what I see too. I guess I’ve gotten used to that.

There was one time I went to a meeting in my professional career back when I was at Stanford. There are about 50 people in the room. There was an administrative assistant who was female, and then there was me. The rest were men. I was quiet, and I am a lot of times. Unless I have something that’s different than what everybody else is saying, then I don’t – I’m not going to repeat what other people have said. I don’t do that, and I don’t speak to just be heard. I’m very careful about what I say and when I say it, but in that case, it was also – it was a meeting talking about the economics of carbon capturing. I was still new to the economics aspect at that point.

One of my mentors was there, and at the break, he said, Jen, you’re awfully quiet. I said imagine you were in a room with 49 women. He looked at me, and he thought, oh, my God. Yeah, I wouldn’t say a word.

Tanya: Yeah, that’s a really good analogy.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, but it’s how it is. It’s just how it is. It’s something I think I’ve just gotten used to.

Tanya: Do you feel like you’ve had to work harder to really prove yourself or be on par with the rest of the team being that it’s all men or not really?

Jennifer Wilcox: You know what? I don’t think about it. I just am. Maybe I used to think that way, but again, I think the background of having Wellesley as a – just where I began, that never really enters my mind. I just do it.

Tanya: That’s really awesome. My day job is consulting, and I work with a lot of executives and board level, head of countries type roles. Consistently, the women in those positions – as we know, women are very few up at the top, as well as in male dominated fields. Not everybody but a lot of women felt the need to really be tough and to be tougher at some point in their career. Then once they reach an inflexion point, it’s almost like, okay, who cares? I know I can trust myself that I have the chops, and I have something to say. Then it’s all a moot issue, but there’s that period where they have to go through that I think for themselves.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, I think that – okay, so there’s two perspectives that I see with that. I think there’s the perspective that I have. I am who I am, and sometimes it’s very, very strong when I need to be and maybe even abrasive. Then there is also people’s perception of me. I’m thinking mostly from my students perspective, not necessarily my colleagues and day-to-day. I’ve noticed in being an advisor to students that I’ll say something. I’ll be myself, the strong personality. It will be interpreted in a certain way of they – there was a wish that I was a little more sensitive of how I handled it, and then I think to myself, my gosh, if I was a male, I don’t think they would have a problem with how I handled that or how I said that.

Tanya: Oh, yeah, definitely not, absolutely not.

Jennifer Wilcox: Do you know what I mean?

Tanya: Yeah.

Jennifer Wilcox: That absolutely comes up, and that drives me crazy. For a while there I was even – and my students will listen to this and laugh, but for a while, I was like, okay – I try and have heart-to-hearts with my group. Okay, let’s get together and openly communicate and discuss what’s working. What’s not working? Let’s all make changes as we need. Again, I make every minute count, right? If I’m trying to respond to an email, I don’t go on and on and on if I don’t need to. My responses are succinct. That’s because there’s a lot of responses because there’s a lot of emails, or there’s a lot of things on the to-do list. I went through a period of putting smiley faces at the end for my students, and it helped.

Tanya: It’s a happy tone. It’s short but it’s happy.

Jennifer Wilcox: Exactly, and they told me. They’re like, gosh, when you put smiley faces, we feel so much better, and I said, okay, fine, smiley faces all around.

Tanya: That’s funny.

Jennifer Wilcox: Whatever it takes for you to know that I’m not trying to be mean. There’s nothing mean here. It’s just quick, quick, quick. Let’s move on to the next thing.

Tanya: Yes, that’s great. Let’s shift a little bit into your work because this is really, really amazing, and I want to give it the attention that it really deserves. I could explain it, but I’m sure you would be so much better at it. What area of research are you focused on now in engineering?

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, so specifically focused on carbon capture. That could be interpreted in different ways. There’s carbon capture where we are capturing CO2 on a point source. What that means is say from a coal or a natural gas-fired power plant, or even an oil refinery, or an iron and steel plant so preventing CO2 emissions to begin with, just preventing it from entering the atmosphere. The other part that I’ve been putting a lot of energy into probably over the last ten years is something different, and that is taking the CO2 that’s been accumulating in the atmosphere back out. That also can be interpreted as carbon capture, but it’s a little different. We call it carbon dioxide removal because it’s removing CO2 from the air, and the other one is avoiding CO2 emissions to the air. They’re both required chemical engineering, chemistry-based approaches to interacting with carbon dioxide. One just happens to be extremely dilute, the air, and the other one more concentrated. That’s really where I’m focusing today on my work.

Tanya: You’ve done a lot of progress in that area, and actually, you have an amazing TED Talk that talks about a proposed – it almost looks like a wall, a huge wall. You call it the direct air capture contactor, right?

Jennifer Wilcox: Mm-hmm.

Tanya: Does that thing actually exist? It’s 20 meters wide. It’s like this big wall with circles, seemingly circles in it.

Jennifer Wilcox: The technology to do this exists today. That image is theoretical because that’s on a scale that we haven’t achieved yet.

Tanya: I see, okay. For those of you that have not seen the Ted Talk, which I highly, highly, highly recommend you do, Jennifer was speaking about creating this – it’s like a synthetic forest that essentially would go and clean the air, the CO2 from the air that’s already out there so, essentially, cleaning up the damage that we’ve already caused in the air.

Jennifer Wilcox: That’s right.

Tanya: Has that been really the focus of the last ten years of your research?

Jennifer Wilcox: Here’s the thing. It is probably about a little over ten years ago I looked at this approach of using chemicals to take CO2 out of the air. I thought, well, why would we ever do that? Why the heck would we ever do that? I mean, I also – as you know, I’ve taken a lot of courses in physical chemistry. I understand thermodynamics pretty well at this point, and a coal-fired power plant is 300 times more concentrated in CO2 in the exhaust stream than the air. We have a coal problem. We have even a natural gas and oil problem. We have a fossil fuel addiction. How about we deal with the addiction first because it’s just easier and cheaper? I was very skeptical of doing direct air capture a decade ago. Now, the point is, a decade later, oh, look, we have these goals for climate, preventing 2˚ C by 2100 or 1.5˚ C by 2100.

Tanya: Just for those who don’t understand what that means is, basically, we’re trying to prevent the global temperature averages to rise 2˚ Celsius. Is that right?

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, we’re trying to prevent greater than 2˚ C warming global average, exactly right.

Tanya: That would be a tipping point, so to speak.

Jennifer Wilcox: That’s exactly right, yeah.

Tanya: Where are we at now?

Jennifer Wilcox: I’m not exactly sure exact numbers of how much warming compared to preindustrial levels. The issue too is that a lot of the damage is already done, and it’s not reversible. We can’t bring ice back. We can’t bring endangered species back. We can’t reverse storms and the damage that that has had in terms of the infrastructure of ports and things, and it’s only going to get worse if we continue not to act in a way that we need to. Now we’re at a point where it’s like avoiding CO2 is just no longer enough, and now we need to also remove it from the atmosphere. There’s a lot of good work in doing this, but it’s currently at a pretty small scale.

The point too is it’s like some folks will say but wait a minute. If we focus on negative emissions or direct air capture, aren’t we taking the attention away from avoiding CO2 to begin with? To me, it’s like we need to do everything. We no longer have an option of one or the other. The new portfolio is both and all of the above. It’s like I don’t want to talk about moral hazards and distractions. I think that’s the distraction is the discussion of this or that. That discussion just is slowing us down. We need to do all of the above, absolutely everything, and we’ll be lucky if that still will be enough.

Tanya: Yeah, I like your approach. What we hear a lot is reduce carbon footprint, reduce emissions, but we don’t hear a lot about cleaning up what we’ve already done. It sounds simple when we talk about it but actually quite complicated. How does that even happen? How can you do that?

Jennifer Wilcox: Also, I’ll just say there’s two definitions here. There’s carbon dioxide removal, which is really just the act of pulling that CO2 back out of the air. Then there’s also something called negative emissions and negative emissions technologies. What that would mean is you pull CO2 out of the air, but if you put that CO2 that you got from the air into a product like fuel and that fuel is burned and the CO2 goes back into the air, or if you put the CO2 from the air into a carbonated beverage and you depressurize – you open the beverage, or you drink it. Eventually, the CO2 goes back in the air is the point, and that’s not negative. All you’ve done is left the CO2 pretty much neutral in the air, right?

You took it out, but you put it back. It’s important to think you’re not just taking it out. You’re not just doing CDR or carbon dioxide removal. You want to remove it permanently. You want to take it out of the air, and you don’t want it to go back ever, right? In order for that process to be permanent, that removal process, that’s the first stage is just understanding that is huge. You got to take it out and not let it go back.

The question then becomes, okay, well, what do you do with it? Oh, by the way, it’s like gigatons. It’s a lot of CO2. What you can do with it is you can – you need to be able to – if you are storing it into something, that something that stores CO2 needs to store it on the order of 1,000 years in order to positively impact climate, and so you can store it in the subsurface in the earth, which is called geologic storage. Today, where oil and gas comes from is from rocks that have pore space in which the oil and gas have been stored for millions of years, and we can put that CO2 back into the rocks from which the fossil fuel came to begin with. That’s one method. There are also formations in the earth that may not have originally stored oil and gas, but they’re porous. They have good trapping mechanisms, and so there’s other kinds of formations that you can use to geologically store CO2 on a time scale that would impact climate in a positive way.

Tanya: That would be 1,000 years, right? It has to be trapped under the ground, under that pressure 1,000 years. Then what happens to that CO2 that’s over time…

Jennifer Wilcox: Ultimately, what happens is the CO2 has different stages of permanent storage that it undergoes, so initially, it might interact with water and dissolve somewhat because it’s in what’s called a super critical phase, which just means, as you said, you’re deep in the earth, like say below 300 meters. It’s at the right pressures and temperatures so that it’s in this form such that it can mix with water and dissolve. Then, ultimately, what you would like it to do is react with the minerals in the earth, in the rock, so that it will form – it will mineralize over time and be permanently sequestered. In fact, there’s a lot of effort that’s being done, which isn’t necessarily my area of expertise, but I know about it, which is monitoring and understanding how the CO2 might move in the subsurface and looking at any kind of leakage or movement and migration of the CO2. That’s a really important aspect of any project is to be able to monitor that. There’s been a lot of projects where CO2 sequestration has been done, like hundreds of projects globally. If the formations are pretty well characterized ahead of time, then there’s a lot of – there’s safety associated with putting the CO2 in the earth and very, very low probabilities associated with any leakage back out. This is very well-known science.

Part of it is because, look, the oil and gas has been stored for millions of years. CO2 storage is not that different from storing oil and gas in the subsurface. The biggest hurdle behind that really is the public perception of storing something in the earth. We do it with natural gas all the time. I think it’s just going to be a matter of deploying more projects, doing more monitoring, more understanding, and more teaching and communicating the science and the safety of the process to the general public. I think all that needs to happen. In fact, this is the cheapest part of any project. The most expensive part is capturing the CO2 to begin with. That’s really the limiting aspect.

Going back of how do you actually do it, that piece is important. You’ll never be able to get negative. You’ll never even be able to do conventional, what I call conventional, which is the point source capture from coal and natural gas-fired power plants, without this thing figured out, without really having the acceptance of being okay with putting CO2 in the earth. We need to be okay with that.

Tanya: Is this something that’s happening now?

Jennifer Wilcox: Absolutely, yeah.

Tanya: Okay, and it’s accepted, or it’s still controversial?

Jennifer Wilcox: Absolutely accepted. What we do today is – in fact, there’s a lot of activity surrounding what’s called CO2, using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, and so this is really something that’s popular in the United States, in Texas, in New Mexico, in Arizona, in Colorado. A lot of the oil that’s recovered is done so by using CO2 as a mechanism to enhance the recovery of oil that would otherwise be left in the earth because it’s too difficult to get out. By injecting the carbon dioxide into the oil at the temperature and pressure conditions of the oil in the subsurface, you change the properties of the oil essentially, and it’s easier to recover.

The CO2 that’s used for that is ultimately stored in the earth. We bring it back up, but only to recycle it over and over again. With every cycle by which oil is taken out of the earth, some CO2 is lost to the earth, and in the end, that CO2 is permanently stored in the earth. This has been going on for decades we’ve done this. Why is that so accepted (maybe because the oil industry drives that)? I don’t know.

Tanya: Probably.

Jennifer Wilcox: That’s more a philosophical discussion. I’m really bad at those. The truth is is we know how to do it. We’ve been doing it with EOR for decades. Now it’s not just – it’s not coupled to oil recovery necessarily. It’s specifically being okay with just purely injecting CO2 in the earth for the purpose of getting rid of that CO2, and there’s no economic incentive to do that today, at least not great enough.

Tanya: Yeah, that’s problem number one. If there would be economic incentive, people would really move, but let me just add a little bit more context here. This was interesting. On your TED Talk, you proposed this huge machine, this direct air capture contactor, and the synthetic force that it would essentially clean up the air to the degree of approximately 5% of CO2 that the US emits per year. That’s something. Why do you think that – if we were to actually build this machine, why do you think that 5% is going in the right direction?

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, so I’m going to back up a little bit. That 5% was based upon a lot of assumptions. I started that with imagine if we were to find climate as important – the US in particular, if we were to say I’m going to – as federal government, I’m going to make an investment on the order of what was made for the Apollo program. That dollar amount that was invested in order to get us to the Moon first and back to Earth, the dollar amount, the percentage of GDP that was invested at that time, if we were to take that same amount today, relative to today’s GDP, if we were to invest that same percentage not just in DAC but in negative emissions in general – we haven’t really talked about what the other options are. Direct air capture of chemicals is one of many options. I said, okay, because DAC is really just one of several other options in a portfolio, imagine that 20% of that investment went towards direct air capture.

I took a certain dollar amount of maybe what the federal government would be willing to invest if we found this as important, climate that is, as the Apollo program was back in the 60s, if we were willing to do that same equivalent investment and DAC being just one of several technologies to invest in, so say 20% of that original investment went to DAC projects. Then what I said is, okay, well, we know what the cost is of direct air capture today. There’s a company called Climeworks. They’re based out of Switzerland. They have roughly a dozen or so commercial operating direct air capture plants globally, and they openly say that it costs about $600 a ton today to capture CO2 from air. They also say but we have a vision over the next 5 to 10 years where we think we can get the costs down to $200 a ton, and that’s maybe over the next 5 or 10 years.

What I said in the TED Talk was let’s suppose that we could do better than that. Let’s say that we could get the cost down to $100 a ton. In my group, we’re actually trying to do this little side experiment. Can we come up with what we might think a theoretical minimum might be to direct air capture? That’s a separate story. We said suppose you could get it down to $100 a ton, and then you use that number, again, a percentage of GDP, to say what the federal government might be willing to invest if we had the relative importance today of climate as we did with the Apollo program, like a moonshot kind of thing.

We do that. That would equate to if we built – and by the way, it’s not one direct air capture plan. It’s a bunch of them. It’s thousands. We’d have to build thousands of these things, and it would add up to only 5% of the US emissions today. In my TED Talk I said, well, that doesn’t sound like much, but in fact, it is significant. Of course, I’m arguing we need to pull it back out of the atmosphere, but there’s also other things.

There’s going to be sectors that are very difficult to avoid; sectors like the transportation sector. Even if we were to electrify transportation, is it going to be broad reaching to long haul trucking, which is 25% of transportation emissions? How is it going to translate to aviation? How is it going to translate to shipping? There’s aspect of the – and oh, by the way, not everybody wants to drive around in an electric vehicle. Somebody’s going to still want to have a hummer, and it’s like, in America, are we going to say they can’t have it? I doubt it. Oh, by the way, even if you were to tax somebody or say it’s really expensive to drive a hummer, well, who cares? The people that want to drive them are going to do it. Who cares, regardless? There’s just aspects of the transportation sector that are very, very, very difficult to avoid.

There’s also aspects of the industrial sector that are difficult to avoid like when we make cement, when we make iron, when we make glass. All of these things involve a process by which CO2 is chemically produced in a reaction rather than from stationary combustion. It’s like controlling those emissions is very difficult today. That 5%, I said, yeah, it doesn’t sound like a lot, but in fact, it could help us in offsetting the emissions associated with these sectors that are very, very, very difficult to decarbonize today. That’s another role that negative emissions could play. Not just taking CO2 back out of the air but helping to offset those emissions that are just really, really tricky to avoid today.

Tanya: Yeah, I would just love to see our federal government recognize the importance of funding climate change stabilization programs or clean ups, but actually, we’ve seen very much the reverse happen, sadly, including getting out of the Paris accord and shutting down other special climate task force within the Navy and on it goes. I know that part of your funding comes from government institutions. Has your ability to research this technology and really experiment been impacted with the current climate of our government?

Jennifer Wilcox: One thing I’ll say on a positive, we do have – there is a federal tax credit that exists today that was passed under the Trump administration where, if you are a utility and you emit on the order of 500 kilotons of CO2 per year and you use the CO2 for EOR, or you carry out geologic storage of…

Tanya: EOR is what?

Jennifer Wilcox: Enhanced oil recovery, yeah. You can either use it for enhancing oil recovery, or you permanently sequester it in the earth, in geologic formations. The tax credit can be up to $35 to $50 per ton respectively for each of those end uses of the CO2 if it’s a utility. The question is and this is something we work on in my group is is $50 a ton the right number and which percentage of those – of the power sector, what percentage is it really going to impact? That’s something that we’re working on in a couple of studies that we’re doing in my group. The fact is is it’s started, so we have that federal tax credit. Whether or not we can keep it going, I don’t know. It’s another question. I hope so.

The other piece that I’ll say is promising is that – I was co-author on National Academy of Sciences study that came out in January 2019, and the charge of that group – there’s probably, I don’t know, 12, 15 of us as co-authors where we look at all negative emissions technologies. Not just direct air capture but other as well. In that, what we did is we established a research agenda. We tried to say, hey, if – what are the technologies available that can do this today under $100 a ton thinking that that’s a pretty good number, under $100 a ton? We outlined all of the technologies that exist today that we could do for under $100 a ton. We said, okay, well, we’ve got these technologies. We can do it. They’re affordable. We need to start doing it today at say 10 gigatons of CO2 removal per year up to mid-century in order for this to significantly impact climate, meet our climate goals so just like we had targets ten years ago of avoiding CO2 by fuel switching, by increasing energy efficiency by switching to renewables, but the fact is is we’re still along that business as usual trajectory and, in some cases, worse.

We can outline in our Academy of Sciences study of what can be achievable today, but whether or not we’re really going to do it is a whole other matter. The point is is that there are other things like direct air capture more expensive than $100 a ton. Our point was like, okay, so the research agenda should be deploying more of these direct air capture plants. Climeworks has a bunch across the globe, but the scale is too small. We need more. We need a lot more. Maybe as we build and we learn, we can get the costs down by learning, by doing, by learning by experience, and so if we can get the costs down, then that will help us to deploy more. That’s the idea.

The good news is is that I’ve been invited out to DC several times now. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with the staff of one of the senators for the state of Massachusetts and also one of our representatives who are very interested in negative emissions. In one of those meetings, somebody actually had a hardcopy of the Academy of Sciences report. In fact, it was cited in the recent energy and water bill that was passed through Congress and specifically saying that there are going to be dollars that will go into the Department of Energy’s budget specifically for these kinds of projects. I mean, before I started on the Academy of Sciences committee to participate in this effort, I did ask the question what impact is this going to have? I was hopeful, and I was really excited. To me, that is a win, getting it into the bill, right?

Now, it’s like what you said. I just hope to see the actual action. I hope to see the – not just the solicitations for proposals, but I hope to see the funding. I want to see the awards take place. Yeah, so that was good news.

Tanya: Yes, everything comes back to incentives, ultimately. First of all, the fact that your findings and agenda and all of your research has made it onto the bill, that’s amazing. That’s a great start. The other piece of this is we need to get the big players that are contributing all the CO2 into the atmosphere to participate, and so you said something interesting, which is there are tax incentives. I think it was they get some portion of their – some money back per whatever they put out. How is that again? They get a refund on whatever they reduce.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, it’s a federal tax credit. It’s a per ton basis.

Tanya: Okay, got it.

Jennifer Wilcox: There are qualifying limits. If you’re a power utility like a coal or natural gas-fired power plant, you have to be able to capture on the order of 500 kilotons of CO2 per year. In the work that we do in my group is we try and outline those opportunities. What does that number mean? How many power plants are of that size? It turns out there’s a lot of them. Then the other question is is how much does it truly cost using today’s technologies to separate the CO2 from the exhaust stream, to compress it so that it can be easily transported and in high purity form, and then to actually do the geologic storage, the injection? We look at the total cost from the entryway to the final storage piece. Is $50 per ton enough?

Tanya: Yes, is it?

Jennifer Wilcox: It’s a little short. It’s definitely not enough, but hey, it’s a start. Now, the other thing I’ll say is we talked about CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. That’s up to $35 per ton. Okay, that’s not enough either, but since you have operators doing the enhanced oil recovery that are willing to pay for the CO2 today, you can imagine that, if you’re getting $35 as a tax credit from the federal government to do EOR with it and the operator may be willing to pay you something too depending on – it really depends on what the price of oil is how much they’re willing to pay. Maybe those two things collectively could be enough, but then there’s a community that doesn’t like that. It’s like, okay, well, now we’re enabling the production of more oil. It’s tricky. That’s a tricky one.

I will say there is two companies, Occidental and Chevron, who are openly supporting a direct air capture company called Carbon Engineering. They’re out of British Columbia, and they’re building a direct air capture plant or at least starting the concept of doing that in Texas today for enhanced oil recovery. The fact that you have a company like Occidental signing on to something like that, to me, it goes back to what you’re saying. They have to be willing to participate. Guess what? These guys are. They’re stepping up to the plate, and they’re funding the building of this plant in Texas. They will ultimately have demonstration scale opportunity to do CO2 enhanced oil recovery using CO2 from the air, and that’s a lot better than the way that it is being done today because 80% or so of the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery today is actually taken from the earth. It’s naturally stored CO2 in the earth.

Just like oil and gas has been stored for millions of years, there are reservoirs of CO2 in the earth, and it’s been exploited. It drives me crazy. It’s like really? We have plenty of anthropogenic, human CO2 that we could be using. First step is stop using natural CO2. Next step could be using anthropogenic CO2, but of course, using CO2 from the air would be best of all. It goes back to just being real. Would I love us tomorrow to switch all to renewables and not have any dependence on fossil fuels, absolutely, but can we guarantee that everybody globally can do that? It’s not real to imagine that we do that overnight. There’s going to be a transition period. There’s going to be dependence that we have on liquid fuels to some extent, and so to me, the steps like something that Occidental’s taking is really great, and that’s the kind of progress we want to see.

The other thing is Chevron’s involvement is because they’re very interested in looking at an alternative way for liquid fuels, so using carbon dioxide with hydrogen and using catalysis to do the chemistry to produce hydrocarbon fuels based upon CO2 and hydrogen as a feedstock. That would be an alternative process to recover oil from the earth. You’re synthetically making it in this case. Their release of funding, that work is really just happened in this past year. I think that’s good news.

Tanya: What do you think – why now? What do you think is the motivation for the timing?

Jennifer Wilcox: Twofold, I think. There’s the low carbon fuel standard that California is offering. Then there’s also this federal tax credit, 45Q. Both of those incentives, I think there might be an economic path today for a company to do CO2 with enhanced oil recovery, but we will see. We’ll see. That’s the reason I think are those two things.

Tanya: How can anybody listening or the pubic really get behind your initiatives and the air carbon capture research projects to support it?

Jennifer Wilcox: I think, if we have listeners that are interested in supporting it, the best thing they can do is find jobs in these fields. Find jobs that have to do – we spend a lot of our day doing what my 5-year-old daughter calls just work, right? I don’t call my job work, although some days, of course, it feels that way. For the most part, I enjoy what I do, and part of it is because of the application of my work. I know that I’m doing everything I can to make it so that my daughter and her grandchildren and her children have the same access to nature that I have had in my whole life. When I give talks and young people are asking me what can I do, I say, well, if you want to go into a PhD, I’ve got room in my group. I’ll take you. Otherwise, it’s like if you’re not happy in your “job,” let’s take some time to reflect and figure it out if you’re interested in being part of the solution.

The other piece is I really think – I firmly believe in our day-to-day choices that we make on just how we choose to live. I really try hard to walk the talk. In my academic career that started back in 2004, in every home I’ve lived in, if it didn’t have solar, I went through the effort of putting solar. I’ve done it three times now. Getting a little more sophisticated every time. I’m raising my daughter with a garden so that she understands what sustainability means. Believe it or not, we have two goats. We have a pig. We have ducks.

Tanya: Oh, wow!

Jennifer Wilcox: We do.

Tanya: That’s awesome.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, it’s exciting, actually. I just feel like we need to be a role models, and I can’t imagine putting everything I do into this work without knowing that I’m making my choices for my day-to-day consistent with that vision.

Tanya: Yes, for the people that live in cities, or don’t have access to a garden or being around animals, or even putting solar on their apartment complex building, what choices can we make, we as in I live in the city? What choices can we make that would really contribute to just reducing this train wreck that we’re heading towards?

Jennifer Wilcox: I know. I mean, there are little things that one could say, oh, well, I’m not going to do that because it’s just – I’m just one person. It’s not going to make a difference, and I disagree. I think we’ve got a global population here, and it’s like one little thing times a big number gets you a big number in the end and small, small things. Changing your lightbulbs to LED make a huge impact on your own energy efficiency, and we’ve done that. Again, it’s a lot of lightbulbs, and we’ve done it now in two homes. We’re serious about it.

Then we have Nest thermostats in our house too. They’re easy enough. I mean, my husband, he’s an ER doctor, but he’s also very handy. Still, we installed them ourselves, the Nest thermostat, so that things turn off when they’re not needed. It’s funny because my air conditioning just turned off just now as I say that. The other things are too. Not using plastic bags. Not using the bags at the grocery store can make an impact on your carbon footprint and choosing cloth bags every day and an electric car but depending on where you live. If you live in Wyoming, you have a very large carbon footprint for electricity because of coal, same with Colorado.

With electric car, you do have to be careful. I know too it’s like what do you do if you live in an apartment, and you don’t have access to plugging your car in overnight? Again, we go back to we spend a lot of time at work, and there’s a lot of places that are talking about central plug-in access for the work hours and looking at those kinds of opportunities. Can you drive part way, walk a little more than normal, or ride a bike the rest of the way if your central plug-in access is further than a walk? I mean, really just trying to make those day-to-day choices, these types of things, I mean, in terms of the impact, even using cloth bags and the light changing, even at Christmastime. We all want to have a Christmas tree. The decision to buy a living a tree and planting it somewhere afterwards is better than buying – even that or even having an artificial tree or something like that. I mean, these are small decisions, but they make an impact. If we all get an awareness and make these decisions, they collectively would add up to something quite significant.

Tanya: I think people are starting to understand that you don’t wait for somebody else or a group of people to do it. It’s like you said. If one person does it and multiple people do it, that, in aggregate, it actually makes a difference. I love those nuggets of things that people can do to really do their part and also if they want to do a career switch or completely 360.

Jennifer Wilcox: [01:02:39].

Tanya: Yeah, they could go contribute to coming up with a really, really brilliant solution.

Jennifer Wilcox: Go back to school. Get your PhD. I’ll take you, exactly.

Tanya: That’s amazing. Jennifer, thank you so very much for being on the show. You were amazing and your knowledge in this field is so incredible. Wow! I just want to thank you for actually putting in the work to help not only your children, my children and the gens to come and even our gen. That’s something that’s very, very important to me, and I know it’s important to a lot of people, so thank you.

Jennifer Wilcox: Yeah, well, thanks for having me.

Announcement: Unmessable is recorded in the heart of New York City, and a special thanks to all the team involved in producing the show. Visit tanyaprive.com/unmessable to find a transcript of this episode, and be sure to subscribe to our newsletter.

How To Boost Your Performance at Work and in Life, According to Science

October 3rd, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “How To Boost Your Performance at Work and in Life, According to Science”

Does your full schedule eat into how much you sleep at night? Are you frequently in noisy areas? Have you ever thought that maybe your sleep deprivation and surroundings (even if you can function well) are impacting your short-term performance and long-term health? Well, it is. And science can prove it.

Dr. Mathias Basner — an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine– who spent the past two decades researching how sleep and noise impact your cognitive functions (short-term performance) and long-term health, shares startling research findings that you might want to know.

Among other things, Basner’s research showed that at six hours of sleep per night, you will reach similar cognitive decline levels to those who do not sleep for a full night after 10-12 days, and at four hours per night, you will reach this level after five to seven days.

The brain, while sleeping, performs critical functions, including emotional processing and information triaging. Basner shared that one of the hottest theories right now is that sleep allows for brain plasticity, meaning your brain’s ability to modify its neural network connections or, in other words: rewire itself. If brain plasticity is impaired, you experience lowered ability to focus, memory problems, higher emotional instabilities, etc…

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg… think about how this affects your experience of life and effectiveness as a leader.

Tune in to get the full conversation and learn about:

      • Clarity of the mind: effective leadership
      • Emotional Intelligence
      • The role of sleep in your life and for your body
      • How sleep deprivation may be impacting your ability to lead effectively
      • Short-term effects of sleep deprivation
      • How sleep impacts cognitive functions
      • Sleep deprivation research findings
      • How noise impacts your health short and long term
      • Research findings on brain plasticity
      • The trap (hint: blissful ignorance)
      • What is the optimum sleep amount per night
      • Key workarounds if you can’t get enough sleep

Dr. Mathias Basner’s biography:

Mathias Basner, MD, PhD, MSc is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. His primary research interests concern the effects of sleep loss on neurobehavioral and cognitive functions, population studies on sleep time and waking activities, the effects of traffic noise on sleep and health, and astronaut behavioral health on long-duration space missions. These research areas overlap widely. Basner has published more than 80 journal articles and reviewed articles for more than 80 scientific journals. He is currently on the editorial board of the journals Sleep Health and Frontiers in Physiology.

Between 1999 and 2008, Basner conducted several large-scale laboratory and field studies on the effects of traffic noise on sleep at the German Aerospace Center. For this research, Basner was awarded the German Aerospace Center Research Award in 2007 and the Science Award of the German Academy for Aviation and Travel Medicine in 2010. Basner developed an ECG-based algorithm for the automatic identification of autonomic activations associated with cortical arousal that was used in several field studies to non-invasively assess the effects of aircraft noise on sleep. He is currently funded by the FAA to obtain current exposure-response functions describing the effects of aircraft noise on sleep for the United States. Basner has been an advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) on the effects of traffic noise on sleep and health on a number of occasions. He performed a systematic evidence review on the effects of noise on sleep for the recently published revision of WHO’s Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region.

Basner is currently President of the International Commission of Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN) and member of the Impacts and Science Group of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). He also represents the University of Pennsylvania in FAA’s Aviation Sustainability Center (ASCENT).

Connect with Dr. Mathias Basner:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Dr. Mathias Basner: It’s such a fundamental process. First of all, everybody’s doing it. I mean, we as humans are doing it. Dolphins are sleeping. The fruit fly is sleeping. Basically, life without sleep is impossible.

Tanya: That’s Dr. Mathias Basner, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, TED speaker, and leading researcher on how noise and loss of sleep affect your health and cognitive functions. Dr. Basner has published and reviewed over 160 scientific journals. His research on the effective traffic on sleep at the German Aerospace Center won him the German Aerospace Center Research Award in 2007 and the Science Award of the German Academy for Aviation and Travel Medicine in 2010. More recently, his research, which is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, is focused on obtaining the effects of aircraft noise on sleep. Mathias, for somebody that spent an amazing amount of time studying how noise and sleep impacts health, I am dying to know in what environment do you live in. Do you live in a city or a really quiet, serene place?

Dr. Mathias Basner: I personally live in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Obviously, noise and the environment, in general, was one major driver for picking that location. We actually almost bought a house that was relatively close to a busy road. Then I said to myself with all the research I’ve been doing in the past, I really cannot buy this house because I know that it is affecting my health and the health of my children and my wife, of course. We decided against buying that house. Now we live in a house that is still very close to a lot of important infrastructure. The highway entry is just a couple of hundred feet away, but we don’t hear the highway. I believe we’re far enough away not to be affected by the air pollution that is generated by the traffic on the highway. That’s something that I generally suggest to people that they should make noise a priority whenever they pick a location where they either rent a place or even buy a place.

Tanya: Yeah, well, that’s going to be problematic because there’s studies that show that by 2050, two-thirds of the world population will live in urban areas.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, correct. There’s growing urbanization and it’s getting harder and harder to evade the noise, but I think this is why I, myself, and my colleagues were doing this research, basically showing what the negative health consequences are of irrelevant noise exposure. We’re hoping that not only politicians and regulators but also urban planners and architects, that they all take notice and that however we will be designing our urban environment in the future, that that is taking noise and also air pollution into consideration. They’re great examples. I mean, in many big cities, you will have blocks of houses, but then when you go through the house, there’s a beautiful courtyard basically in the back of all the houses, which is a refuge, which also means that if you place your bedroom on the back side of your apartment that is facing the courtyard, that noise is not such a big issue anymore. That is your own house is basically shielding you from the traffic that is going on on the front of the house. You have that refuge at the back of your house. You can basically make use of that.
Tanya: Yes. I mean, if you have that luxury, which is a huge luxury, yes, of course that’s great. Then also, for example, I have – so I live in New York City in a very, very busy area, I mean, not downtown, but still busy area right on a major street. I have double windows, which make all the difference. I’ve been in places where there’s not double windows, and my God, there’s constant noise. I just want to step back a little bit just so everybody knows, what area of research have you focused on?

Dr. Mathias Basner: I am very proud and happy that actually my research is not only in a single area, but it’s widespread. That developed naturally, I would say, but I think it’s a big advantage. Rather than being somebody who has been and is working, for example, just on a single calcium channel in the heart, I’ve been working on several areas that are all somewhat connected. Actually, when we were talking before this recording, it was mentioned it’s relevant in the sense that one area is sleep. Everybody’s sleeping. Everybody knows how detrimental it can be if you’re not getting enough sleep, either acutely or chronically. That’s sometimes a problem. Everybody, of course, thinks he or she is an expert in sleep because everybody’s sleeping and, of course, that’s not always true.

My career started actually at the German Aerospace Center. I wanted to become a – I studied medicine and I wanted to become a neurologist. I was interviewing and didn’t really find a good match with the department chairs. Then I saw that job opportunity at the German Aerospace Center. They were looking for somebody who had done sleep before. Actually, my dissertation was on sleep and I had worked in a clinical sleep laboratory, so I thought that was a good match. I was going to work there for 18 months and then go back in clinical medicine and I never did. I mean, I basically stayed there for 10 years before I moved over to the United States. They just started doing a study at the German Aerospace Center on the effects of aircraft noise on sleep. They were looking for somebody who knew the sleep part. This is basically how everything started. Then I already came with the sleep baggage, a little bit from my dissertation.

Once I came over to the United States, I did a deeper dive into the sleep area. Then I also expanded my research. At the German Aerospace Center, I mostly did affects – worked in aviation and looked at aircraft and traffic noise, but then here in the United States, I expanded my research into the space area. I’m very much interested in astronaut behavioral health and how we can succeed in sending a number of people, very likely four for the first flight, safely to Mars and actually bringing them back from Mars. The interesting thing is that sleep is a big issue in space flight as well. Noise is a big issue in space flight as well and, of course, noise affects sleep. There’s these three thematic areas are nicely overlapping. That makes it very interesting.

Tanya: I wouldn’t think of space as being a noisy place. I could get the sleep part. You’re in small confines with people. You’re floating, I mean, but a noise? Where’s the noise coming from?

Dr. Mathias Basner: The International Space Station is a marvelous machine, and there’s lots of pumps and mechanics and alarms. That is generating a lot of noise. I mean, it’s not up to the point where you would consider it dangerous for hearing, but it is pretty loud. It can definitely affect astronauts on their six month or even longer missions, and some of them even report that, that that can be very stressful.

Tanya: Yeah, actually, I was speaking with somebody, actually, on the Unmessable podcast that had been in the Navy for 32 years and spent 10 years at sea. For Navy people to be on a ship where there’s constantly things happening on a 24-hour basis where you get 3 hours or 2 hours of sleep, it’s brutal, and that’s a real issue. Okay, so one of the – a lot of your research is extremely interesting and pretty much touches everyone, but the one that I want to start with is neurobehavioral effects and cognitive function. You’ve studied the neurobehavioral effects of noise and sleep and how they affect cognitive functions. What is neurobehavioral effects and cognitive functions for people that don’t know?

Dr. Mathias Basner: We like to use the term neurobehavioral because it’s neutral, and it basically tells you everything you want to know. I mean, it’s, basically, neuro is the central nervous system, and behavior is what we’re interested in. It’s also what is basically what the central nervous system is doing. It’s like our brain is processing our environment and is eliciting our behaviors, so it’s a very neutral term that basically encompasses what we as human beings but also what many animals of course are doing. There’s so many different definitions of what cognitive means, of what psychologic means. We just like this term because it’s so nicely – just links our central nervous system to what we’re doing, behavior, and this is what I am very interested in. It’s the behavior. What are people doing? Why are they doing that? What is this doing – what is it doing to people in other ways that we could change that behavior that would lead to more healthy lifestyles?

Tanya: What are the effects of sleep loss on neurobehavioral and cognitive functions?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Oh, my, I mean, sleep is such a fundamental process. First of all, everybody’s doing it. I mean, we as humans are doing it. Dolphins are sleeping. The fruit fly is sleeping, so basically, life without sleep is impossible. We will notice very quickly after these typical 16 hours of being awake. Once you go beyond that, you will notice rapidly that you’re getting sleepy. You have the droopy eyelids. Really, it’s a very potent drive, this drive to wanting to go to sleep, which makes it also so dangerous. This is why about 20 to 25% of the traffic accidents – actually, sleep deprivation is considered the major cause of these accidents.

Tanya: Oh, wow! Twenty-five percent of the car accidents are due to sleep?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes.

Tanya: The need to want to sleep. Wow! I didn’t know that. That’s a big number.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes, this is actually why a world with self-driving cars, although many people are afraid of that, is going to be a much safer world in the end.

Tanya: Absolutely, 100%. Wow!

Dr. Mathias Basner: Also, these accidents tend to be more severe. Obviously, you’re falling asleep, and you’re driving towards a tree. There are no countermeasures because you’re basically having a micro-sleep. You’re not aware of your surroundings. Then you crash into that tree, and there’s a lot of fatalities, or people are permanently injured because of those accidents.

Tanya: Yeah, actually, sleep is a funny word. I mean, we all sleep, but I guess there’s different stages of it. If we take the car, for example, so many times I’ve been – I drove from one place to the other and had no recollection of the journey, which is frightening. That’s not a state of sleep, right? That’s just absentminded or something like that?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes, I would think and hope so. I mean, you made it home safely.

Tanya: Yeah.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, sleep is a very weird thing. Actually, 150 years ago, researchers thought that sleep is a very passive mechanism. It’s, basically, we’re shutting down. We’re conserving energy when quite the opposite is true. Sleep is an extremely active mechanism. Lots of things are happening in the brain. The sleeping brain consumes almost as much energy as the awake brain. Specific hormones are excreted exclusively during the night, and actually, the brain is still working on things that you experience during the day.

In fact, one of the hottest theories right now in sleep research is that sleep is the price we are paying for the brain’s plasticity so for the ability to change its wiring based on what we experience during the day. The idea is that, first of all, there’s limited space in our heads, right? I mean, what happens during the daytime, we gather new experiences, and that, basically, the neuron anatomical translation of that is that there are new neuronal connections made in the brain, or existing connections are actually enforced. That couldn’t go on forever because there’s only so much space in our heads. Basically, there has to be a time, and the idea is that that is sleep where we basically shut out the environment. We are looking at all these new information we gather during the wake period and compare that to already existing information, and then there’s a decision made whether, that connection, new connection that was made during the day, is it really worth keeping that connection, or should we make – get rid of that and make room for new experiences during the next day?

Actually, [00:16:49] and [00:16:50], who are the proponents of that theory actually termed sleep also as “clever forgetting.” It’s, basically, identify what you can forget and get rid of that. Of course, on the other hand, it’s memory consolidation, so basically, what we’ve learned, we want to consolidate that. The equivalent for would be like a computer scientist. Basically, getting it out of the temporary memory and writing it to the hard drive so that it is available for later retrieval.

Tanya: I mean, what you just talked about where the brain is doing all of these functions and triaging information and reinforcing current information while we’re sleeping is something completely new to me. I had no idea the brain was doing this, but the one thing that came up is it’s doing this subconsciously. There’s no conscious thought around triaging and doing all this stuff. It’s like your brain has a life beyond what you are aware of when you’re awake but also when you’re asleep. That’s fascinating.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Absolutely, there is so much happening in the brain, and we’re only aware of a tiny percentage. Actually, the brain is problem solving. There was a very clever study done by a colleague of mine, Jan Born. He was in Lübeck at the time. He basically had a task for subject. It was an arithmetic task. There was actually a very easy pattern behind that, and once you knew the pattern, you could go through the task very quickly. He basically gave that task to, I don’t know, 100 people, and 30 figured it out that were out of the study. The remaining 70, some of them were allowed to sleep, and the other half, they were not allowed to sleep. Then they both got a recovery sleep, but it turned out that, those people who had the sleep opportunity, way more of the subjects found that trick behind the arithmetic task the next time they did it. That is the brain – during the sleep episode, the brain was basically working on that problem, and those who did get the sleep opportunity then had that insight whereas the other people who didn’t have the opportunity to sleep over it – and this is why we say that, oh, you better sleep over it, makes a lot of sense because the brain is…

Tanya: Anecdotally, yes.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, absolutely, the brain is still working. Another very important thing why you should sleep over things is that sleep is extremely important for emotional processing. Actually, during REM sleep, what is happening is that, many of the emotional responses we had during the day, the memory of that is decoupled from the physiological arousal, and that’s actually a big problem in post-traumatic stress disorder.

Tanya: What do you mean is decoupled from the physical arousal?

Dr. Mathias Basner: The PTSD example is a good one. That if you have – let’s say you have a traumatic event, and of course, you have physiological arousal. Stress hormones are being excreted. Your heart rate rises. You basically have a panic attack, so what happens during sleep is that you – that this physiological arousal is decoupled from the memory of that event. Basically, the next day you could think about the event, but you don’t have that response anymore, right? That is what’s going wrong in post-traumatic stress syndrome. This is why many sleep researchers today believe that, if somebody had a traumatic event, you need to try to get that person to go to sleep and get that important REM sleep so that, actually, the physiological arousal can be decoupled from the memory of that event so that that person is not reliving not only the event over and over again but also the physiological arousal that is associated with the event.

Tanya: Oh, my God, that is so fascinating. Okay, so going back to some of the core research, what does sleep loss effects have on your body and on your health and on your cognitive function? Specifically, I’m thinking about – I mean, everybody goes without sleep if you have kids, if you have an intense job like lawyer consulting. I do consulting. We have pulled all-nighters. I’ve done 16, 18 hour days. Medical students that are doing their residency or fellowship, I mean, those are – that’s scary stuff. Those are extreme cases. On the lower spectrum, what’s the impact, and then on the higher spectrum, what’s the impact?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, so before I forget it, actually, sleep is also very important for sound decision making. A lot of the time, actually, politicians will pull an all-nighter, and then they step in front of the negotiation doors at 4 AM in the morning and present their decision or whatever. That may not be the best decision because of the sleep deprivation they engaged in. Fundamentally, yeah, we already talked about the neurobehavioral consequences. I mean, one thing that is early on affected and strongly affected is what we call vigilant attention, so just the ability to attend to a stimulus is very early on affected. Of course, that is the prerequisite for many of the more complex cognitive tasks. You cannot attend to your screen, for example. You will never be able to write your dissertation or whatever. A lot of the other more complex cognitive functions, like we already talked about memory, abstract reasoning, working memory, executive function, they are all, at some point, affected by sleep. Of course, that translates to that people who are sleep deprived are more prone to make errors, and that often translates into accidents. We already talked about the traffic accidents, but also, if you’re working at a nuclear power plant, for example, you don’t want to be sleep deprived, or if you’re just working the factory with heavy machinery, it’s more likely that you’re making errors and having accidents.

Aside from that, sleep also has metabolic consequences. There have been a number of studies, acutely sleep depriving people, also chronically sleep depriving people, which means not getting enough sleep on a chronic basis, that have been shown – these studies show consequences for blood pressure regulation, glucose tolerance but also for appetite stimulating hormones. These are all, basically, precursors for manifest diseases like high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes. There is good biological plausibility that if you are acutely sleep deprived multiple times or chronically sleep deprived that the likelihood for these metabolic diseases increases. Lo and behold, there’s – so on the one hand, we can do these experimental studies looking at what happens acutely to people. Then there’s also a host of epidemiological studies that basically asks people how much sleep do you get on a regular basis? Then they either follow them up or do that cross-sectionally, look at the health outcomes. There’s tons of studies out there showing that people who get either less than seven or less than six hours of sleep that they’re much more likely to have a much higher risk for these negative health consequences of diseases I just mentioned.

Tanya: That’s six to seven hours per night.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, that’s actually a big problem. It was actually the National Institutes of Health who approached the Sleep Research Society and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and said, hey, guys, we’ve been funding you for 40 years. You still cannot tell us how much sleep people need? They took that task, basically, and got together a group of experts. They were tasked at looking at all the literature on sleep deprivation. Basically, looking at all the diverse literature, they came to the conclusion that adults should get on average seven hours of sleep or more per night to promote high levels of cognitive performance and health in the long run.

Now, obviously, there’s inter-individual differences. We’re not all the same. There are people who truly get along with six hours. There are people who truly need eight hours. If somebody tells you, though, that he or she is getting along with four hours, I would not believe that. That is definitely not enough to promote cognitive performance and health. A good ballpark estimate for the average person is 7 hours per 24 hours to promote optimal performance and health.

Tanya: Let’s say you’re a resident doing your residency in the hospital, and you have to pull a 24-hour shift. If you sleep let’s say 14 hours the next day, is that a cancellation of the negative effects that happened before, or it really has to happen every 24-hour period?

Dr. Mathias Basner: You know what? We don’t know a lot about that. We and others have done studies trying to find out what is this recycle rate. What’s happening a lot in our society, not even talking about physicians who have to do – there’s a lot of other occupations who have to do 24-hour shifts.

Tanya: Yeah, absolutely.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Just the standard population, we all have typically a five-day workweek, and we tend to sleep deprive ourselves during this workweek. The idea is that we then catch up on the weekend, right? There’s a number of studies out there now showing that, actually, oversleeping on the weekend, that that is not enough to get off – to get rid of the sleep that we basically accumulated during the week. I mean, in general, it’s, though, we have done studies looking at the question about does it matter how sleep is distributed across a day? At least the few studies out there right now do suggest that it doesn’t really matter whether you get eight hours at night or whether you get two hours during the day and then six hours during the night. It’s, basically, total sleep time that matters and not necessarily how you distribute it over the day.

The problem is, though, that there is something that we call sleep inertia in sleep research. It basically means that our brain needs some time to transition from the sleep to the wake state, very much like it takes some time to transition from the wake to the sleep state, so typically, when you go to bed, you don’t fall asleep right away. It takes a couple of minutes. I myself, I fall asleep after three minutes. My wife may take 20 minutes. Other people need 30 minutes, but it takes the brain some time to transition from being awake to being asleep.

The same is true in the morning when you get up. It’s not like a switch, and you’re performing at 100%. It takes up to an hour or sometimes even longer to get to that 100% performance level. That is why, distributing your sleep over multiple sleep periods, that may be a bad idea because you always have these transitional periods, and that can affect you. This is why we often suggest that, if you’re taking a nap and you know it’s going to be a short nap, probably actually have a cup of coffee before you take the nap. It will take some time for the caffeine to kick in, and actually, it will help you get over that sleep inertia after you wake up after the nap.

Tanya: Oh, my God, that’s a revolutionary idea that I have never heard before. I love that.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes, somebody actually called the term nappuccino.

Tanya: Nappuccino, that’s brilliant. Okay, so this is interesting. Okay, studies have shown that, on average, depending on the person, you need about seven hours of sleep within a 24-hour period, and you may or may not put it all in one chunk. Two things come up. One, sleep quality has to play a part in this. This is a huge part of your study as well is how does noise impact sleep? While you might think that you had a really good night of sleep – actually, on your brilliant TED Talk, which I recommend everybody to really go check out, you share a lot of great information. Some of the studies that you were monitoring didn’t necessarily doc the best quality of sleep.

It’s interesting because I have three kids under 3, and I have two dogs who bark at night when one kid gets up or hears anything. Even if there’s just a fly on the wall, they’ll bark. It’s horrendous, and so quality of sleep is a real big thing in my house. I could get up once. On a good night, I don’t get up. On a regular night, which is more often than not, I have one or two kids getting up, crying, dogs barking, and so it could be one to two to three times a night. I wake up, and I’m exhausted. Even if I have let’s say cumulatively seven hours of sleep, I am wiped, and my cognitive function is not as sharp. I can’t think quickly. It takes more effort to do things whereas if I have quality or what I think of quality I feel much better. What’s the story behind that?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, these awakenings that you mentioned are only those where you’re consciously – or you regain your waking consciousness, and it takes about two to three minutes for the brain to basically make you aware, consciously aware of yourself and your environment again. There may be many more briefer awakenings or what we call arousals that you may not even be aware of. I mean, first of all, it’s absolutely correct that it’s not only about sleep duration. We always say you need high quality sleep of sufficient durations, so there’s really these two qualities to the sleep, the sleep quality and the sleep duration. The sleep field has a little bit problems, though, of what is a good way of defining sleep quality? One major problem is that sleep is not very well accessible to subjective assessments. Typically, a lot of the things researchers do is hand out surveys and ask people how they feel or what they did, and sleep is this strange period where we know we are unaware of ourselves and our environment.

I mean, a very good example is the studies on the effects of traffic noise on sleep that I myself and my colleagues did at the German Aerospace Center. We put all these electrodes on people to measure their sleep, and then they get up in the morning. You ask them, oh, how was it last night? They say perfect. I feel asleep right away, and then you woke me up. I had a wonderful night. Then when you actually look at the electrophysiological data, you can see what’s actually going on with the brain. In some of them, we saw these numerous arousals. Basically, the brain not getting the rest it needs.

As we alluded to earlier, sleep is not a uniform process. There’s different sleep stages. There’s light sleep and deep sleep, and then there’s the rapid eye movement sleep or REM sleep. Basically, every 90 minutes you cycle through these different sleep stages but what is very important for sleep recuperation is continuity. That is that you have a longer bout of deep sleep, for example. If you have noise intruding into your sleep and waking you up out of that bout of deep sleep, then you have to find your way back into deep sleep, and then there may be another noise event and waking you up again. Actually, this is what we found in many of our studies. The amount of the different sleep stages is probably not even that much affected. I mean, there are small effects, but just this fragmentation and disturbing this natural process that sleep is going through, that is just so detrimental for what is happening in sleep.

It’s a colleague of mine, [00:35:23]. He had a very nice example just in terms of not getting enough sleep. He always has the example of a washing machine where you would never put your clothes in a washing machine. Then start the process, and then take everything out after half an hour. Everything is still dirty and wet, and the whole thing needs to go through the whole process before you have the finished product. The same is true with sleep as well.

Tanya: How would someone know if they’re getting enough sleep and enough quality of sleep if they’re investing seven hours or so per night? Like you mentioned, some people have even said that they feel great, but effectively, it wasn’t enough sleep.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Right, aside from if you’re as lucky as I am and you have access to measurement equipment, right? I just recently measured my own blood oxygen saturation overnight just to make sure I don’t have obstructive sleep apnea, which is this sleep disorder where your airway collapses, and then you’re not really breathing. Then the oxygen saturation falls in your blood, and that wakes you up. Again, this is one of the examples. There are lots of people with that disease, and they have no insight whatsoever. They think they slept perfectly because their sleep pressure at that point is so high because their sleep is not recuperative that they – after each event, they will fall asleep right away again, which means they’re not consciously aware of what’s happening to them, but they still have this massive sleep fragmentation that is basically ruining the whole recuperative value of their sleep.

The only chance you really have is if their sleep quality is very low and you’re not getting enough high quality sleep. That will have affects. You may feel foggy. You may not be able to concentrate, or you’re actually falling asleep in situations where you shouldn’t fall asleep. I mean, obviously, the car is a good example. Also, you want to watch a movie at night, and you fall asleep in front of the TV, or you’re in a lecture, or you’re in a meeting, and you’re falling asleep. That is very good and important sign telling you, hey, you are not getting enough high quality sleep.

Now, what the reason for that is, of course, it could be manifold. You could have a sleep disorder, not knowing about, and obstructive sleep apnea is just one out of many. You could be somebody who needs – even if you get seven hours of sleep, you could be somebody who just biologically needs more, or perhaps you are in the situation like you where you have three kids and two dogs. You’re having fragmented sleep. Not even having the insight into that your sleep is fragmented. I mean, this is – that’s really the only thing outside from measurement equipment and cognitive testing, which is not available for everybody. That is the best sign that you’re not getting enough sleep.

There is one caveat, though, and this is also, basically, one of the major findings of studies that my colleague who is five offices down, Dr. David Dinges, did a number of years ago. Basically, a lot of the knowledge that we have on sleep deprivation is based on what we call acute total sleep deprivation, basically not allowing somebody to sleep for a full night. However, that’s not what society is doing. We’re talking chronic sleep restriction. People are not getting enough sleep on a chronic basis. These studies are much harder to do, and this is why not many people have done them in the past. This was the first and largest one. Basically, putting people in the sleep lab and only giving them six hours or four hour sleep opportunity, and then having a controlled group of people who are allowed to get eight, and then see what’s happening to them.

The interesting thing there was that – basically, the cognitive performance, especially that attention component I talked about earlier, that that was affected very early on, and it just got worse and worse and worse. Actually, in the four hour group, after one week, you were as bad on this cognitive performance test as people who didn’t sleep for a full night, and after two weeks, you were as bad as somebody who hasn’t been sleeping for two full nights.

Tanya: Wow!

Dr. Mathias Basner: Now, the interesting thing is, in that study, they also had people fill out questionnaires. They were asking them how sleepy do you feel? After the first two nights of sleep restriction, there was an increase in sleepiness, but then it basically leveled off and stayed constant for the rest of the time. That basically suggests that we as humans are getting used to feeling sleepy.

Tanya: Yes, that’s the scary part, actually.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Right, and we don’t know how good we could feel and how well we could perform and how creative we could be and what great decisions we could make if we only would get enough sleep because we’re just used to feeling shitty. That is one of the major insights of that study. This is probably why, actually, 35 to 40% of the population are not getting that seven hours of night that we typically need to perform optimally.

Tanya: Yeah, it’s interesting. As you’re speaking, one other thing that’s coming up for me and I’m sure other people can relate to this whether or not they have kids, if they work a lot, is I’m in my mid-30s, and I have noticed a decrease in health. I have a few aches here and there. My back hurts, and my wrist does some funny stuff. I can’t put pressure on it. I’m wondering what part did my lack of sleep and me getting used to it and not even know about it play in my body’s ability to stay healthy and recover from small things that I didn’t have to deal with before.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, many people, including us, we’re concentrating on the brain because that is, of course, the most important organ. A lot of things are, obviously, generated and controlled from the brain, but sleep is recuperative for the whole body. I mean, if you have a small ache or if you injure yourself, you will recuperate much faster if you’re getting enough sleep. This is why noise in the hospital is so detrimental.

Tanya: Oh, my God, I know.

Dr. Mathias Basner: This is the place where people need to recuperate and get enough sleep. If you have a flu, what do you do? You lie down and sleep. The body is basically trying to get the sleep to be able to fight the infection, and so this is why it’s so bad that our hospitals are so loud and that there are so many alarms and everything.

Actually, I can’t see it outside my window, but the University of Pennsylvania is just building a brand new hospital. They want it to be the hospital of the future. They consulted with many people including ourselves here just trying to make that the best experience for the patient and try to generate an environment where the patients heal optimally. This hospital will only have single-patient bedrooms. There will be actually a window that, with a switch, you can make that see-through or not see-through, so the nurses can actually check from the outside on the patient without having to enter the room, making noise, waking the subject up. You can refill the cabinets from the outside, so you don’t have to go inside the room. The whole idea is – the light system is changing its intensity and the spectral composition.

I actually was going as far as saying we actually have to have separate floors, floors for larks and for owls. You may know that we all have a different circadian preference. Many people like to go to bed early and like to get up early, and other people can only go to bed late. They would like to get up late, but then society’s often preventing them from doing that, which is what we call social jet-lag I thought it was a pretty cool idea to actually have a lark floor where the nurses start with preparations for the night on that floor, and then they switch the light off at 10:30 or 11. These patients are woken up at 5 AM. They don’t care. They’re up anyway because this is what their circadian system is dictating. Then, once you’re done with them, you go over to the other side of the floor where all the owls are, and you get them ready. Then you wake them up much later.

I think this is what personalized medicine is all about. You want to basically tailor your therapy to the patient. I think this could be part of it.

Tanya: You know what? I so love that idea. My identical twin girls were born at 28 weeks. I had a pregnancy complication that was called twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, and we had to take them out. One of my twins was in the NICU at Mount Sinai on 95th and 5th Avenue in Manhattan for 180 days and the other one for 129 days.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Oh, wow!

Tanya: What you’re talking about – some of the doctors were telling me that 90% of their healing is going to happen when they’re sleeping and especially true for fetuses that really shouldn’t even be out of the womb, and so with metal garbage cans and beeping alarms and this 24-hour hustle and bustle factory of people coming in and out, I mean, it was – it is so incredible to see that there are hospitals taking into account some of the incredible research that you’re doing to really leapfrog the recovery process for patients and, ultimately, decrease the cost of care.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Absolutely, yeah.

Tanya: Yeah, so there’s a financial motivation.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, it’s a win-win.

Tanya: Absolutely, yeah. No, that’s great. Okay, so shifting to daytime noise because, my God, we have a lot of that. It’s interesting because you have a very specific definition of what noise is. What is that?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, so noise is defined as unwanted sound, and that makes it a very strange animal. Actually, the sound itself, there’s a physical component, which is the sound, and decibels play a role. How loud is that sound, and what kind of sound is it? Then there’s also the psychological component that is, basically, the circumstance that makes the sound unwanted. My boilerplate example is always the rock concert. Obviously, the people attending the rock concert, it can be 90 decibels or even – actually, I was at a concert with my 12-year-old daughter, and I measured 104 decibels. I mean, obviously, me being in this profession, I brought sound protection.

I guess that 95% of the people didn’t have that, and they must’ve had a very bad ringing on their ears the next day. Still, for them, it wasn’t noise. I mean, that’s the point I’m trying to make. I mean, they paid $200 for the ticket to see the band. They like the band. They like the music. They enjoyed themselves greatly. Even though the physical sound was very loud, it’s not noise to them because they just enjoy themselves in that situation.

Then there could be somebody who’s living three blocks away from the concert hall just sitting there trying to sleep or trying to read a book, and that is impossible because they’re still hearing the music from the concert hall or arena. Although the noise levels or the sound levels are much lower, it’s still noise in that situation. It’s annoying. It’s interfering with an intended activity, and that person thinks of that music as noise at that point and actually can trigger reactions that in the long run may have health consequences.

Tanya: What are the consequences or health consequences of what I guess you refer to as noise pollution, that undesired noise?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, basically, I mean, it is – what’s happening in the body, it’s a stress reaction. This is why the notion of something being unwanted plays a role. It’s more stress if it’s unwanted, and basically, what happens in the body, the body excretes stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol. These stress hormones lead to changes in our physiology. Actually, there have been studies showing that the walls of our arteries are stiffer after a single night of noise exposure, but it’s also changing the composition of our blood, like cholesterol levels and also the blood clotting properties of the blood. All in a way that are consistent with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease in the long run.

Lo and behold, there are a number of epidemiologic studies out there showing that, if people are exposed to relevant noise levels over a prolonged period of time, that they have a higher risk of high blood pressure, myocardial infarction, also, potentially a higher stroke risk, and there’s the first few studies coming out now looking at other non-cardiovascular disease outcomes, for example, the risk for diabetes, obesity but also cancer. There’s all good biologic plausibility for these health outcomes. I mean, for these latter end points, we don’t have enough good studies yet, but I think most people would say that for cardiovascular disease there is – we have good enough evidence to suggest that if you’re exposed to relevant levels for prolonged periods of time that you’re cardiovascular disease risk increases. These risk increases are not crazy high. It’s not like your lung cancer risk in smoking, which is twice as high or something. It’s only a risk increase of a couple of percent per ten decibels.

The thing is, though, that so many people are exposed to, for example, traffic noise that because of that it’s a major public health problem. There was one study a number of years ago showing that if we could lower environmental noise exposure by 5 decibels that that would save $3.9 billion just in treatment for cardiovascular disease alone.

Tanya: Wow! The same way that we talked about there’s an unconsciousness about the quality of your sleep, like you could think you had a great night sleep and you actually didn’t if you were to be hooked up on monitors, can that be true for also your awareness of how your environment, for example, being in New York City and hearing the traffic, for that to cause on your body? Frankly, there is so much noise around me all the time that I think I’ve gotten used to it, and in fact, it actually doesn’t bother me. So many times I could see people visiting me, or we’ll be out on the street. I can focus, and I can have a perfect conversation and tune everything out. Other people are just wrecked by what’s happening around. While it doesn’t bother me in the moment, can it still have a negative impact on the health?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, I mean, we talked already about the concept of habituation or even adaptation in terms of sleep or chronic sleep restriction, and certainly, there is habituation also relative to noise in the sense that, at some point, you don’t realize the constant noise exposure any longer. I think it’s biologically a very plausible mechanism that’s going on in humans. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to function at all in that environment. However, it doesn’t mean that the noise is not affecting us anymore.

I think the best example is – it’s an anecdote, but I was at a conference in Japan, and oh, my God, I mean, it was so quiet there. I mean, first of all, Tokyo is a huge city, but it’s incredibly quiet. The conference was in Nara, which is a World Heritage Site. It’s beautiful. It’s so quiet, and actually, I didn’t realize that it was. I mean, I realized it first when I got to Tokyo. I said, oh, this is pretty quiet. Then, when I was in Nara, I didn’t realize anymore how quiet it was. Then I got back to Los Angeles airport. It was really this wall of sound was hitting me, and only then do you realize. Oh, my God, I’m exposed to this all the time?

Yeah, it is not good for your health. We really should seek out those quiet environments more, and again, this is why it’s so important trying to, A, find an environment where you live in that is quiet. If you don’t have that, seek out these environments as often as you can. This is why something like Central Park is so important.

Tanya: Yes. If you seemingly have adapted to the noise around you, does your body still perceive that as stress and, therefore, produce cortisone or other hormones?

Dr. Mathias Basner: It is still doing that, yes. It’s probably even worse if you’re also having the conscious component attached to it. I will get a lot of calls from people who are like fighting something. Somebody’s building something new in their vicinity, or something has built something like, I don’t know, a wind turbine, or there’s a new highway, or whatever, and they have been fighting that with the companies and regulatory bodies. At that point, it’s real stress. Obviously, you’re also somebody who is, well, at least somewhat sensitive to the noise. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be fighting it, and at that point, it is a major problem. The body is still reacting to it. We already had that example from sleep, noise exposure during sleep. We’re also not aware of it, but it’s still affecting us.

I mean, we did field studies in people’s homes, people who have been living in that environment for many, many years. Obviously, they are reacting at the same sound level with a lower probability relative to our laboratory studies, but they’re still reacting. I mean, it’s not what – they’re habituating, but they’re not adapting. Adapting would mean that there’s no reaction anymore. Our auditory system is special and unique in the sense that it has that monitoring function. It is constantly monitoring our environment. Anything happens, somebody slamming the door next to you, you will startle, and your attention will be directed to that door. Even more important during the night, this is our channel that tells us something about our environment. If there is a tiger approaching, or an elephant roaring next to us, or whatever – I mean, I’m not talking evolutionary perspective. This is the organ that tells us, hey, it’s time to wake up. This is a dangerous situation.

Quite honestly, sleeping is super dangerous, right? We’re unconscious of our surroundings, and we are easy prey for whoever wants to eat us or take advantage of us. Having the auditory system is super helpful and it has been super helpful in terms of survival in the past, but now it’s not that important for us anymore. We live in our safe buildings and everything, and there are not that many tigers around here.

Tanya: Luckily.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, luckily. It’s affecting us in different ways now. It’s still doing the job it has done so phenomenally over the past thousands of years. Its’ still waking us up. It’s still arousing us. It’s still alerting us. It’s still getting us ready to run away. It’s still secreting stress hormones to secure our survival, although it may not be that necessary nowadays.

Tanya: Okay, so that is very interesting. Now, what about desired noises? This is something that, gosh, everybody can probably relate to. You’re working, and you have music going. You’re in your home, and you have the TV in the background. You’re in your car. You have the radio or whatever, music. You go into the subway or a bus, and you put your earphones on. There’s always constant noise around, but it’s wanted. Does that have any impact on the health?

Dr. Mathias Basner: I think so. I mean, I haven’t done research in that area myself. I think we have – in general, we have a problem, and I’m not excluding myself. There is no down time anymore whatsoever. We’re not only talking the auditory system. We’re talking the central nervous system, basically. I mean, people are stepping into an elevator, and they’re looking at their cellphone.

I still remember when I was growing up, and I’m a little older than you are. There was just taking a train to the next bigger city, and we would just sit there and stare out the window and talk to each other. Nowadays, as you say, everybody is listening to music; they’re looking at their phone. There’s really no downtime whatsoever. Obviously, a subway is still very loud, so you’re trying to drown that out with the music. The only way you can do that is making the music even louder, so it is dominating the background noise. I’m disclosing that I’m not making money from any of these companies. Noise-canceling headphones are such a brilliant idea to use them. Basically what we do, we adjust the noise level always relative to the background level. The best example – and this is also where they work best – is like a plane. You have a 60-decibel background noise level, so if you want to listen to the music, you have to crank it up to 80 decibels or whatever, and that’s where it’s starting to get unhealthy for your hearing.

However, if you’re able to lower the background noise by 20 decibels and you only have to listen at 60 decibels, that makes it much more healthy for your hearing. If you want to do something good with a Christmas present or a birthday present, that’s a great present to give somebody, noise-canceling headphones, and especially the adolescents and kids who are constantly exposing themselves to the music.

The problem is we, as humans, are really bad at assessing what we’re doing right now, how that is related to our long-term health. Obviously the kids say, “I don’t care. I don’t notice anything,” but they don’t realize that 10, 15 years down the road, they will start to get tinnitus or they will start to hear worse. It’s just something that is –

Tanya: It’s incremental over time.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Right, it’s accumulative stress on the auditory system, and at some point it will show. That’s 10, 15 years down the road and they just don’t realize. This is educational campaigns, giving them the noise-canceling headphones, all of that is very important, a very good idea, because otherwise we will – we’re already a nation of people with hearing disabilities, and it will only get worse if we are not paying attention.

Tanya: Yes, and actually I’m thinking about open floor plans at work. That was in tremendous fashion probably the last five years, ten years, something like that. That’s tough. Now it’s starting to not be as in fashion as it was, but that’s really an issue. One of my friends sent me an AI noise-canceling subscription that I can join that is hooked up to my computer that cancels out everything. I was like, oh, my God, that’s brilliant.

One existential, fundamental question: Why are we, as a society, so uncomfortable with silence or just empty space or empty time and have this amazing need to always fill int eh void with looking at the phone, or having music, or something?

Dr. Mathias Basner: I’m no expert in this. In terms of the silence and noise, it’s like there are these chambers that totally absorb all the noise, and people report feeling uncomfortable in these rooms because it’s really dead silence. I believe that is because – I mean, certain sound environment, that’s something we grow up in, and it’s typical. Even if you’re on a farm far away from any civilization, there’s a wind blowing, and there’s the leaves rustling in the wind, and there’s animals. That is all part of our natural environment, so completely getting rid of that feels very unnatural. That makes many people just feel uncomfortable because of that. That’s so true for everything in life. There’s something like a gold middle. If you have too much of something, it’s not good; if you have too little of something, it’s probably not good, either.

This is, again, just an anecdote. I had some of my best ideas just jogging through the woods, not listening to music, because that’s when your mind starts wandering. You’re starting to explore areas that you never thought about. If you’re constantly feeding input into your brain, there’s no time for doing that anymore. Your brain is constantly addressing the new information that’s coming in. I don’t know what it’s going to do.

I just introduced a cellphone and iPad-free Sunday in my family because I just couldn’t stand my kids constantly looking at the screen and doing nothing else.

Tanya: Mm-hmm, I like that.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, and I mean, it has only been one Sunday so far, but they actually went out and played tennis with each other. I felt rewarded right away that they did something together and something that didn’t involve technology.

Tanya: Yeah, there’s absolutely something in the world of parenting that we talk about, actually we’re starting to talk about a little bit more, and that is over-scheduling your kids. This Type-A personality, got to put them in tennis, and ballet, and this, and that, and gym, and karate, and school, and after-school activities, and early drop-off, and play-dates, and it’s all this structured activities that, like you said, doesn’t allow for sitting and wandering or creative thinking. That’s where some of the most connecting the dots happen and out of the box thinking occurs. That’s something that I’m really mindful as a parent and actually should apply that to myself.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes. Another big problem is talking about over-booking the children. I mean, my older son is in high school now, and they have crazy schedules. I mean, there’s a big movement now trying to postpone high school start times, and I think that makes very good sense. Neighboring school district has just done it, and we’re fighting that our school district is doing the same thing. There are some kids that like being picked up by the bus before 6 AM. Then we actually wrote an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer and parents contacted us saying oh, my daughter is on the track team, and she has to get up at 4 AM in the morning to do practice before school. Do you think that this is healthy? Hell, no.

Tanya: Zero.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Adolescents need so much more sleep than adults do. Then the crazy amount of homework that they have, there’s literally no time for what we just talked about, winding down, just doing nothing. Every little bit of the day is filled. The other crazy thing is we went to a information hour just informing us what colleges are looking for. Basically these children have to build a portfolio that is very similar to what I have to build to being promoted to full professor. Basically you have to document everything; you have to show this and that area and that and that area. These are children! It’s really crazy.

Tanya: Yeah, it’s twisted. I know, it’s twisted. We’re thinking about public school and private school and what’s the process of doing that. We’re talking about kindergarten or pre-kindergarten.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah, it starts earlier and earlier.

Tanya: Yeah, and my neighbor just went through that. She put in herself a solid 60 hours of essay-writing and all this stuff to get her two twins into – I mean, it’s twisted, and they’re 5.

Dr. Mathias Basner: It’s really nothing you should laugh about. It’s sick.

Tanya: It’s bad. Okay, so just to – if you were to look at all of the stuff that you’ve done in your life, what is the one thing that stands out, like a discovery or some type of research that you’ve found that just blew your mind?

Dr. Mathias Basner: That blew my mind?

Tanya: Blew your mind, like my God, I cannot believe that this is what we found.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Well, we had one finding, but we are still checking whether that is true. We talked a little bit about that, and that is the question whether we can recycle after a period of sleep restriction. What’s even more important is that actually the degree your cognitive performance is affected if you engage into a period of acute sleep deprivation, that that depends on how much chronic sleep loss you have on board. Whenever I lecture to students, I’m making sure I’m showing this one slide because basically, we did a study where we did this chronic sleep restriction for five nights, only four hours’ sleep opportunity, and we had a control group In the sixth night, we gave them different amounts of sleep opportunity, 12 hours, 10 hours, 8 hours, 6, hours, 4, hours, 2 hours, and then there was one group that was not allowed to sleep at all during that sixth night. You can nicely see how their performance changes. It’s a nice dose response function. The people who got 12 hours’ sleep opportunity of course recovered greatly and almost were back at the level of the control group. Then the less sleep they got, the worst they did on the cognitive test. Then looking at the group that didn’t get any sleep that night, they were off the chart. This slide is very powerful in the sense that at first, it only showed the groups that got two hours or more, and then you add the group that didn’t get any sleep and it’s off the charts bad.

Tanya: The cognitive function is off.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Cognitive function is off the chart. They’re basically disintegrated. This is what you know.

Tanya: What does that mean, disintegrated? Problems writing emails or problems formulating sentences?

Dr. Mathias Basner: This is a specific test where there are symbols on the screen, and they have a number code, and then you get a symbol shown and you have to find the number. It’s about complex scanning but also working memory and of course, the motor control. I don’t know if people typically in 90 seconds get 60 right. After that full night of sleep, they only would get 40 right. It was a major decrement in their performance.

In the last lecture before Spring Break, I tell students, “Don’t do that. You had all your exams. You all didn’t get enough sleep, which is a bad idea anyway,” which we talked about, “but if you then drive down to Florida during the night, that is a recipe for failure, chaos, death, whatever you want to call it.” They have the chronic sleep restriction on board. Then they’re engaging into acute total sleep deprivation and then driving during the night, which is when the circadian system is actually maximally promoting sleep and not wakefulness. These three components together – and especially then alcohol gets in the mix.

Tanya: That ends up as a statistic.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes, absolutely.

Tanya: Twenty-five percent, yeah, wow. Okay, so that’s amazing. I look forward to seeing if you’re going to pursue the studies and figure out if actually after all these terrible years of being at a loss of sleep or a lack of sleep if we can actually recoup. Hopefully the answer is yes at some point.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yes, that would be nice. Again, there’s still a lot to be done. I think we need to step out of the laboratory and get more –

Tanya: Longevity studies, actual real-life studies.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Absolutely, yeah. What we haven’t talked about and is something that is just emerging but is emerging at a crazy pace is that neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s – it’s more and more clear that sleep deprivation is a major driver of that.

Tanya: Is it?!

Dr. Mathias Basner: Yeah.

Tanya: Is Alzheimer’s, for example, on the upswing? I keep hearing – I don’t know if it’s because the people that are around me are getting older and they’re are getting more – diagnosed with Alzheimer’s but is it just me or there’s been more cases as of lately?

Dr. Mathias Basner: I guess people are getting older in general. Obviously that disease is strongly associated with age. Also there is more awareness and maybe diagnosed more. It’s really hard to say whether it’s really on the upswing. I also have to admit I don’t know the literature as well as I could say whether it – there are truly science that it is increasing or not. One of the functions of sleep seems to be actually we have something like lymphatic space in the brain as well, and basically they open up while we’re sleeping and all the toxic, metabolic products that have accumulated during the wake period are flushed out of the system. It’s like a garbage disposal function. Those little proteins that are responsible for Alzheimer’s are also being transported away. If you’re not getting, again, enough sleep on a chronic basis, that may be the reason why these proteins are accumulating in your brain and then you may have a higher probability of acquiring Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. This is why getting enough sleep is so important.

The one thing I also want to stress, though, is we’re walking a fine line. On the other hand, we want to educate the population basically telling them hey, sleep is important Try to get enough sleep. Then you could also basically tell the story as a horror story. If you’re not getting enough sleep, you’re going to become fat, and get diabetes, and a heart attack, and Alzheimer’s, and everything. We don’t want to do it to a point where people are actually afraid of not getting enough sleep because that is one of the key symptoms of insomnia. People are worried that they’re not getting enough sleep and then all of a sudden, actually you’re lying in bed and you’re worried, and it basically triggers an arousal reaction and then you can’t fall asleep. We don’t want that, either.

It’s just making a few lifestyle adjustments. Exercise, we haven’t talked about exercise at all. Sleep and exercise go very well together. Exercise is promoting healthy, high-quality sleep. Getting enough sleep on a chronic basis is lowering injury risk. If you’re doing sports, that’s a very good thing to do. We also didn’t talk about sleep hygiene. There are so many ways you can promote a healthy sleep: a dark, quiet, adequately temperate bedroom; no TV in the bedroom, very important; don’t expose yourself to bright light during the night but seek out the outdoor environment during the day because no matter how bright your indoor light, it’s at best 600 to 800 lux. If you go outside on a cloudy day, it’s a 10,000 lux. If you go outside on a sunny day, it’s 30,000 lux. This is why we need the natural environment to really boost our circadian system and train is to the 24-hour days so we can fall asleep at the right time and get up at the right time in the morning.

Tanya: You bring up a really great marriage here between working out or exercise and then quietly sleep. Why do they go so well together as opposed to just exerting, let’s say, an as long of a day, let’s say an intense day, but not having that same effect as if you were to go work out?

Dr. Mathias Basner: I don’t really know. It’s just that the studies are showing this. Actually for the longest time, the sleep hygiene recommendations were do not exercise before you go to bed. There’s more and more studies showing that that actually doesn’t seem to be that detrimental for sleep or that it may actually be beneficial for sleep. I myself published a paper very recently, Analyzing Data of the American Time Use Survey basically where people were asked how they spend the 24 hours of a day. What we were interested in, what those people who were short sleepers, what waking activities are they trading their time for? Someone who sleeps six hours has two hours more spent awake than somebody sleeping eight hours, so what are they doing?

If I ask that question to students, most of them will say ah, watching TV, and that’s true, but work is actually the number one sleep killer, work time. We were asking what about exercise? I had the idea when a friend of mine told me she was getting up at 4 in the morning to go to the gym before she goes to work. I said, “Hey, that can’t be healthy in terms of sleep.” We looked whether exercise was stealing sleep time, and yes, actually that is true, but if you’re not exercising immediately before work and if you’re not overdoing it, then it’s actually compatible with each other. For that paper, I just read a lot of the literature and there’s a lot of the literature out there showing people who are exercising, that they have a better, longer sleep relative to those who do not exercise.

Tanya: I am inspired. I have to get back on the exercise train, which I haven’t been on for ten years, admittedly. I think that’s really going to help. I’m sure a lot of people with what you shared today, which I am so grateful and appreciative because I know for me, it made a difference. I know that if it made a difference for me, it’s going to make a difference to a lot of people. Thank you so very much for your time.

If people want to get in touch with you, how do they reach out?

Dr. Mathias Basner: Just by email. It’s Basner, my last name, and then @Upenn.edu. Thanks for having me. I’m always happy to spread the word and try to not educate people in a teacher kind of way but just getting the word out there how these different things can affect our health and whether there are things we can do to make sure these things don’t affect us and that we live a happier, longer, and healthy life.

Tanya: Absolutely, that’s so amazing. Thank you so very much for being on.

Dr. Mathias Basner: Thanks for having me.

 

 

Climate Crisis: What’s Likely To Happen If We Don’t Rise To The Challenge

September 26th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “Climate Crisis: What’s Likely To Happen If We Don’t Rise To The Challenge”

The state of our climate and the advancement of global warming is top of mind these days. It’s in the news. Just this week, crowds in the millions, around the world united (#strikeforclimate) to show our political leaders the urgency and importance of the issue. Teenage activist, Greta Thunberg addressed the United Nations in an impassioned speech some days ago demanding that our leaders rise to the occasion and wake up.

On this episode, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd — former NASA research meteorologist and deputy project scientist — who is currently the Distinguished Professor and Director of the Atmospheric Sciences program at the University of Georgia, echoes the severity of the climate crisis. He explains what science is predicting and brings clarity to what most of us don’t understand.  

Tune in to get the full conversation and learn about:

      • Leadership lessons from NASA
      • State of the climate crisis
      • Global warming
      • What science predicts
      • Sea levels rising
      • Weather modeling
      • Changes we can expect as a result of climate change
      • What you can do to help

Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd’s biography:

Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is a leading international expert in weather and climate and is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Georgia.  Dr. Shepherd was the 2013 President of American Meteorological Society (AMS), the nation’s largest and oldest professional/science society in the atmospheric and related sciences. Dr. Shepherd serves as Director of the University of Georgia’s (UGA) Atmospheric Sciences Program and Full Professor in the Department of Geography where he is Associate Department Head. Dr. Shepherd is also the host of The Weather Channel’s Award-Winning Sunday talk show Weather Geeks, a pioneering Sunday talk show on national television dedicated to science and a contributor to Forbes Magazine. In 2018, he was honored with the AMS Helmut Landsberg Award for his research on the urban weather-climate system and the UGA First Year Odyssey Seminary Faculty Teaching Award. In 2017, he received the AMS Brooks Award, a high honor within the field of meteorology. Ted Turner and his Captain Planet Foundation honored Dr. Shepherd in 2014 with its Protector of the Earth Award. Prior recipients include Erin Brockovich and former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He is also the 2015 Recipient of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) Media Achievement award, the Florida State University Grads Made Good Award and the UGA Franklin College of Arts and Sciences Sandy Beaver Award for Excellence in Teaching. In 2015, Dr. Shepherd was invited to moderate the White House Champions for Change event. Prior to UGA, Dr. Shepherd spent 12 years as a Research Meteorologist at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center and was Deputy Project Scientist for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, a multi-national space mission that launched in 2014. President Bush honored him on May 4th 2004 at the White House with the Presidential Early Career Award for pioneering scientific research in weather and climate science.  Dr. Shepherd is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Two national magazines, the AMS, and Florida State University have also recognized Dr. Shepherd for his significant contributions. In 2016, Dr. Shepherd was the Spring Commencement speaker at his 3-time Alma Mater, Florida State University and was recently selected for the prestigious SEC Academic Leadership Fellows program.

Dr. Shepherd is frequently sought as an expert on weather, climate, and remote sensing. He routinely appears on CBS Face The Nation, NOVA, The Today Show, CNN, Fox News, The Weather Channel and several others. His TedX Atlanta Talk on “Slaying Climate Zombies” is one of the most viewed climate lectures on YouTube. Dr. Shepherd is also frequently asked to advise key leaders at NASA, the White House, Congress, Department of Defense, and officials from foreign countries. In February 2013, Dr. Shepherd briefed the U.S. Senate on climate change and extreme weather. He has also written several editorials for CNN, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and numerous other outlets and has been featured in Time Magazine, Popular Mechanics, and NPR Science Friday. He has over 90 peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Dr. Shepherd has attracted $3 million dollars in extramural research support from NASA, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and U.S. Forest Service. Dr. Shepherd was also instrumental in leading the effort for UGA to become the 78th member of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a significant milestone for UGA and establishing UGA’s Major in Atmospheric Sciences.

Dr. Shepherd currently chairs the NASA Earth Sciences Advisory Committee and was a past member of its Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council. He was a member of the Board of Trustees for the Nature Conservancy (Georgia Chapter), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Science Advisory Board, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed’s Hazard Preparedness Advisory Group United Nations World Meteorological Organization steering committee on aerosols and precipitation, 2007 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 contributing author team, National Academies of Sciences (NAS) Panels on climate and national security, extreme weather attribution, and urban meteorology. Dr. Shepherd is a past editor for both the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology and Geography Compass, respectively.

Dr. Shepherd received his B.S., M.S. and PhD in physical meteorology from Florida State University.  He was the first African American to receive a PhD from the Florida State University Department of Meteorology, one of the nation’s oldest and respected. He is also the 2nd African American to preside over the American Meteorological Society. He is a member of the AMS, American Geophysical Union, Association of American Geographers (AAG), Sigma Xi Research Honorary, Chi Epsilon Pi Meteorology Honorary, and Omicron Delta Kappa National Honorary.  He is also a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. and serves on various National Boards associated with his alma mater.  Dr. Shepherd co-authored a children’s book on weather and weather instruments called Dr. Fred’s Weather Watch. He is also the co-founder of the Alcova Elementary Weather Science Chat series that exposes K-5 students to world-class scientists. Dr. Shepherd is originally from Canton, Georgia.

Connect with Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Current state of that is it’s a crisis and in fact, many of us that study this call it a climate crisis now more so than climate change.

Tanya: That’s Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, who got his PhD in physical meteorology and served as research meteorologist and deputy project scientist at NASA for 13 years. Currently, Dr. Shepherd is a distinguished professor and director of the Atmospheric Sciences program at the University of Georgia and contributed over a hundred peer-reviewed scholarly publications. He’s a regular guest on major media outlets like CNN, Fox, and CBS, and is relied upon as a strategic advisor by key leaders at NASA, the White House, Congress, Department of Defense, and officials from foreign countries. In addition to his widely viewed TED Talk titled “Three Kinds of Biases that Shape Your World View,” he served as a member of the board for many prestigious organizations like the Nature Conservancy, the Georgia chapter, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, just to name a few. Dr. Shepherd was honored with a Presidential Early Career Award in 2004 from George W. Bush for his cutting-edge work.

Tanya: Dr. Shepherd, what initially attracted you to meteorology?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: It’s really an interesting story: a honeybee. Let me explain that. As a young kid, I used to catch insects in the yard. I thought I wanted to be an entomologist. I was catching honeybees in the yard. I got stung by one and found out at that young age that I was highly allergic to bee stings.

Sixth grade was coming around and I needed to do a science project. I said, “Well, I can’t do honeybees anymore. I needed a plan B literally.” I did my science project on weather. The title of that sixth-grade science project was, “Can a Sixth Grader Predict the Weather?”

I made weather instruments from things around the house. We didn’t have a lot of fancy equipment at that time and predicted weather and developed little weather models for my community in northern Georgia. The rest is history. I knew I wanted to be a meteorologist at that point, but interestingly enough, I didn’t want to be the forecaster type standing in front of a green chroma key at a news station. I was more interested in the how and why of weather.

Tanya: That’s probably partly what motivated you to go into getting your PhD in meteorology and then working for NASA for 13 years. What was that journey like?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: It was really interesting because again, after sixth grade, I knew that was it. I started even as a sixth, seventh-grader, started saying, “Okay, where can I go to college to learn more about weather?” Being from the Atlanta metropolitan area in northern Georgia, I knew I wanted to stay in the south. At that time, there weren’t really many relatively speaking meteorology programs, but Florida State University had one. It turns out it was a very good one. It was one of the top programs in the nation.

I started doing things even in school, high school, to taking ecology classes and learning about measurements. Then went on to Florida State to do my undergraduate or Bachler’s Degree in Meteorology. Then I stuck around for a master’s degree. At that point, I was sick of school. I know we’ve all been there. Some people say I’ve got to go out and make some money and live a real life.

I got out; I worked for a private contractor for NASA for a while. Then actually got hired by NASA as a civil servant and realized that wow, they have these really cool programs that will pay for NASA employees to go back to school. No one ever applied for them. I did. I said, “I can’t pass that up. Go back and do your PhD on your full salary? That’s a no-brainer.”

Tanya: Wow.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Exactly, so I took two years, went back to Florida State. Did the courses, took all my exams that you need to take, the qualifying exams, and then came back to NASA, finished up my dissertation. In 1999, I was awarded my doctoral degree from Florida State.

Tanya: Wow, and while you were getting your PhD, were you still working where they gave you the freedom to just be a student 100% of the time and then you committed to going back after?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: No, for this particular program that I did, you applied for it at NASA. Any employee can apply for these. If you got accepted, you could go away to school for the two years and your job would be a student for two years to get your PhD. Then I came back for the final two years after that and did my dissertation while I was doing my “day job” as well. That was a [05:02] about a four- or five-year program, but the good news is my PhD research was very much related to some of the scientific research that I was already doing at NASA.

Tanya: What was it? What kind of research were you doing?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: The work that I did at that time, in my master’s degree work, I had looked at developing algorithms using Doppler radar data to track hurricanes. We developed some of the first-generation algorithms that actually tracked hurricanes using radar as they got close to landfall. For my dissertation doctoral work, I was looking at something called precipitation efficiency in convergence zone thunderstorms. What that simply means is some thunderstorms in Florida firer up along the sea breeze front or along outflow boundaries from other thunderstorms, these cold pools of outflow that move away from storms. We wanted to know how efficient they were at producing rainfall so that we could model them in our weather and forecasting models.

That was some of my – it’s not really the kind of work I do now or have done in my more recent career. I know this is a podcast about leadership and sometimes you are training and developing yourself for future activities. One of the things I tell my own students here at the University of Georgia, some of my doctoral students, is that a doctoral degree is a unique piece of research. It teaches you how to carry forth and manage a research program at a smaller scale so that perhaps one day, you will be a leading researcher running your own lab or research group.

Tanya: Yes, absolutely. At the peak of your career at NASA, what were you accountable for?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: It’s interesting; I did a lot of things while I was at NASA. That’s where I really grasped this idea that cities can affect weather. One of my main research agendas was related to how cities can actually initiate or enhance thunderstorm activity, and rainfall, and flooding. I developed a very robust research program using NASA satellite data sets and models.

I was fortunate enough to win the Presidential Early Career Award for scientists and engineers. I was given that award by President Bush at the White House in 2004 for research in that area because it was considered innovative and groundbreaking research at that time. I then took on more of a leadership position there. I became the Deputy Project Scientist for a new mission that NASA was developing called the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission or GPM, which is now in orbit. It’s a complex satellite mission and constellation that’s measuring rainfall all over the globe for use in our weather and climate models and to help us predict flooding. I was one of the leadership team of that mission for many years helping coordinate between the scientists and engineers to bring that from a scientific idea to an actual satellite that’s now in orbit.

Tanya: Wow, that’s pretty outstanding. Is that one of your most proud projects that you’ve ever worked on at NASA or is there something else?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Yeah, but I think just being in NASA is one of the more points of pride.

Tanya: It’s a pretty good point, yes.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: There are only so many people on the planet that can say they actually worked at NASA. When I decided to leave it to come to the University of Georgia, I had all these people like, are you crazy? Are you going to leave NASA? That’s a dream job. It was; I loved my time at NASA because you are literally working with some of the smartest people in the world, movers in science and technology doing really cool things. Yeah, to say that I had my hands in cutting edge research that was improving our understanding of our weather and climate, and to actually have a satellite system in orbit that’s helping in those areas, yeah, I’m pretty proud of that. I would also say that Presidential Early Career Award from the White House is a pretty big moment as well.

Tanya: Yes, that is a huge moment of recognition for the work that you’re doing or that you did. By the way, that was not the only award that you got; you got so many I can’t even go through them right now because we would run out of time. What were some of the – now that you’ve had a little distance, you’ve been some time out of NASA, what were some of the key lessons of that experience that you were able to process?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Yeah, that’s a great question. I think one of the things that I learned is that we have to be very willing to get out of our comfort zones. Because now, I was trained as a scientist. When you’re doing scientific research or getting a master’s or a doctoral degree, you’re learning how to do research, and ask scientific questions, and follow the scientific method, and those types of things.

In a NASA environment, in the environment that I was in at NASA, I was asked to do a lot of things that technically I didn’t necessarily have training to do or hadn’t taken a class to do. For example, there was no class in being the Deputy Project Scientist for a major [10:05]. You just figure it out.

Also, because someone along the way figured out that I was halfway credible in front of a camera and could convey complex scientific information to non-science audiences, I was often called to go on major network television whether it be the Today Show, or NBC, or CNN, talking about mostly weather and climate, but from time to time, I’d get asked about other things: tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. I’m not a volcanologist. I’m not an oceanographer, but you have to be able to be willing to adapt and be flexible. I think a couple of the lessons for me at NASA were staying free of your comfort zones, being willing to adapt and be flexible when called upon to do something, and to always just keep learning. I always felt like no matter what level of leadership or what level of a position that I was in, I was always learning something.

Tanya: Those are really great lessons to learn. Actually, not too long ago, I interviewed Erika Hamden who is in charge of the FIREBALL project which NASA in large part funded. That’s what she was talking about as well is when you’re at the edge of what is known. It’s really there’s no forged path.

You have to get comfortable with uncertainty. In that murky uncertainty comes the possibility for breakthroughs. In absence of being out of your comfort zone like you say, you can’t get to the unknown. That’s an awesome lesson to learn. What precipitated, and no punt intended there, the decision –

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I like that. [11:39] got you in the rainstorm world.

Tanya: I know, I had to do that. What precipitated the departure from NASA and move into academia?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: That’s a great question. It really was just again one of these lessons for the listener. I often talk about that, and I gave a lecture on it, a guest lecture on this recently to a group of young, emerging leaders at the American Meteorological Society’s Young Leaders Conference this summer in Atlanta. Meteorology itself is a very complex science. It’s very physics and calculus-based.

In fact, it’s based on a lot of what we call nonlinearities; in other words, things aren’t linear. A doesn’t necessarily lead to B or C and D. There are a lot of nonlinearities in the atmospheric system. It can, in fact, be chaotic. I was telling these young leaders that careers can be nonlinear as well. In fact, you can count on them being nonlinear.

I was quite happy and content at NASA. My career was going well. I was in a very strong leadership position with a mission. My science career was prospering, but an opportunity presented itself.

A colleague of mine that I knew met at a conference. We started talking. It turns out that they possibly had an opportunity or an opening at the University of Georgia. I grew up in Georgia. I came down and talked to the folks.

They even invited me to give a guest lecture, a seminar. I did that and I still wasn’t necessarily sure if I was leaving NASA. The more I thought about it and I was like, I preach to myself about staying out of comfort zones. I had never taught. I didn’t see myself as a professor or a teacher. Quiet is kept at a major university like the University of Georgia; it’s not just about the teaching.

We certainly teach. I’ve been fortunate enough to win some of the top teaching awards here. It is about research, and about developing graduate students, and acquiring grants to do more research in the cutting edge of science and technology. I took the plunge literally and left the very safe civil servant environment to go to the University of Georgia.

Initially coming in the door not with tenor. Of course, I have tenor now and I’m a full professor. In fact, my full title is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished Professor. I had to jump through some of the academic hoops that you do getting tenor, and publishing, and getting grants, and all those things. It just was an opportunity that presented itself and it felt right.

Tanya: I know that you’ve published – is 90 the correct number?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: A little bit more than that by now.

Tanya: I assume.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: There’s something out there that on my bio that probably says 90, but I think with my graduate students, I’m pretty much well over 100 publications by now I would suspect. Honestly, I haven’t counted.

Tanya: That contribution is enormous. Have you done that mostly in your time at Georgia University?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: No, University of Georgia. It is a combination of publications during my time at NASA and at the University of Georgia. That’s what professors do. Our metrics for success at a major research university like this is our publication record, or how many grants and grant money you’re bringing in, our leadership positions within the community. It’s honestly par for the core. I probably am one of the more productive and prolific scholars in my particular field I suppose, but it’s not certainly unusual.

Tanya: You’ve raised how much grant money so far for your research?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh, good question. I don’t know; three or four million dollars over my career in various grants that I’m directly or indirectly responsible for.

Tanya: Which is amazing. That’s really outstanding. Actually, you mentioned part of what you’re interested in is really cultivating the leadership and students. Is there one person in particular throughout the last 13, 14 years that really stand out to you that you were just blown away with?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: In terms of my students?

Tanya: Uh-huh.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Honestly, I think I’ve had several students over the years and they’ve all brought something different to the table. I think as a leader in terms of educational mentorship and leadership, I think it’s my job, and I think this goes for frankly any good leader or any good administrator, it’s my job to recognize the potential talents in every individual because every individual brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Yeah, several of my students are now out prospering in their own careers as professors or working federal agencies, or private sector, or wherever they are. As I look back on each of them, the skillset and leadership qualities that I see – for example, there was one young man that I knew that he had just very good people and communication, as well as good academic chops as well. I knew that he would have strengths in certain areas.

All my students have solidly been academically solid. I think of another student now who he’s now a scientist with his own career in the US Forrest Service. He’s leading research now. He actually is doing some really good things. I’ve talked to him and he and I have shared that oftentimes, people may have underestimated or miscalculated his ability to go on and be a successful doctoral-level scholar and scientist. I saw some things in him very immediately from the time that I first met him.

What I’m saying is each of my students – there’s another young woman who’s at the National Weather Service. She was just so persistent. She did not let anything stop her. She was very determined. I just always tried to understand the individual strengths of a given student and then use that to help bring out their potential.

Tanya: You know what? That’s very diplomatic of you to say that. I love that you see as it as your job to really find that thing within people, that really – that potential that you can harness because that’s amazing.

I recently read a really good book called Grit by Angela something worth, really good. What it boils down to is even people that are off the charts genius, what it comes down to is their level of persistence. You were talking about a student that just didn’t stop; nothing would stop her. That element is what really gets people far beyond what anybody would experience or expect. That’s really amazing.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Yeah, and I think it’s important because I think oftentimes, we try to – some people will try to fit everyone into the same box. They don’t look at the unique talents, personalities, and tendencies of people as individuals.

Tanya: Yeah, no, absolutely. What’s your favorite class to teach?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh, I don’t know. I probably enjoy teaching – I don’t know that I have a favorite because again, I teach one or two courses a semester. It just depends on the semester. Again, at a major research university, professors don’t teach all day like you do at high school or those types of things. Thicker courses come around, but I teach mostly upper-level courses in our major.

I still do like the energy and vibrancy that you get from teaching younger students like freshman, for example. I do a course, a freshman odyssey seminar. It’s just a one-hour course that exposes kids to different things. My course is observing the Earth from space.

It’s a really neat course. It’s an opportunity to really plant the seeds of knowledge in terms of why we study the planet Earth from space. I enjoy that course for a lot of different reasons because those young minds that are coming into those freshman seminars, they in most cases haven’t quite figured everything out yet. They’re still trying to make their way on a big university campus. They’re sponges for knowledge.

Tanya: Yes, no, absolutely. I know for sure that your students are very lucky to have you as a professor. Your background is just off the charts. I’m sure anybody would die to have a seat in your class.

I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about climate for a second. In climate, how would you – I know everybody’s heard the word climate change, but I’m not so sure that everybody knows what it is. Can you just give us a quick what is climate change and what is the current state of that?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: The current state of that is it’s a crisis. In fact, many of us that study this call it a climate crisis now more so than climate change. The climate changes naturally.

Let me put that right upfront because you do have the skeptic community that will always remind a PhD scientist like me that, you know climate changes naturally. We’ve always had hurricanes. Of course I know that, but we have – with the increases in greenhouse gases, changes in land cover, and some other things that are happening, our naturally varying and changing climate now has a human steroid on top of it in the same way that in sports whether it’s Major League Baseball or biking in the French Alps during the Tour de France. You had some athletes that were taking performance-enhancing drugs to boost their natural ability.

The climate, unfortunately, has this performance-enhancing steroid called greenhouse gases in the system now, so the naturally varying climate is actually amplified. That’s leading to changes in our weather patterns and extreme weather events. It’s leading to changes in sea level. It’s changes in ice on the polar ice sheets in Greenland, changes in where disease-carrying mosquitos can live, changes in agricultural productivity, in energy transportation. It’s a fundamental crisis of our time. That’s why many of us are concerned about it.

Tanya: Yes, and what are the Top Three or Five things that are really bad that are a direct result of this climate crisis?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh, yeah, I don’t know if we could give a Top Three or Top Number One. I’m a contributor to Forbes magazine. I wrote an article several months ago back during all the discussion about whether we should declare the border situation a national emergency. I wrote an article saying we need to declare climate change a national emergency because it’s not the polar bear or the warming temperatures that’s the problem. It’s not something that’s 70 or 80 years out. We have impacts now that are affecting national security, affecting food production, affecting our water supply, affecting weather patterns, and public health.

If you as someone listening to this sit down at your kitchen table tonight and say, well, climate change doesn’t affect me, it’s something about some polar bear somewhere, you’re not paying attention because essentially every aspect of our lives, our economy, our security, our health, touches on how weather and climate patterns evolve and change. This is an issue that – for example, last year, 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall in Florida and then into Georgia. Devasted much of Florida’s tourism business, much of its oil and energy activity out in the coast from those oil rigs that lead to increased gas prices. As the storm moved inland, destroyed much of the cotton, peanut, pecan, perhaps even other agricultural activity in southwest Georgia. When you go to buy a t-shirt that’s made from cotton or you go buy some peanut butter, probably had a greater price on it because supply was reduced. Basic supply and demand from macroeconomics class. What I try to spend a lot of my time helping people to understand is that this isn’t about some esoteric scientific issue far off in the future; this is about our life right now.

Tanya: Why do you think that given the state of things right now which is a crisis, how can somebody like our President think that climate change is a hoax and actively work to dismantle very important initiatives like the Paris Accord or more recently which was reported a few days ago, the Climate Change Taskforce in the Navy was shut down, which you were talking about national security. How can that happen?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: As a scientist, as an academic, I don’t like to really call out any particular person, or anything, or politician. I stay out of the politics, but the notion that climate change is a hoax or the notion that climate change is not real, or it’s just some natural cycle, or it’s made up by scientists is flat out ridiculous. All of the major scientific organizations, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, every major organization, every major report, the vast majority of the scientific literature that’s published by scientists all say the same thing. This notion, or this denial, or contrary imposition is very much rooted in special interests or those that stand to lose because of the changes their solutions face that need to be made. It’s a very well concerted misinformation campaign that many of us understand as well.

Up until several years ago, it was fairly effective, but I’m starting to see it erode. This whole machine of skepticism and denial is starting to come off the rails if you will. There was an article I just saw recently I believe in Vice Magazine or Vice about how the machine of climate denial is slowly falling apart.

You’re seeing that in public opinions as well. People get it. People aren’t stupid. There are some people that because of their vested interests in certain economies, they’ll say you’re not going to bite the hand that feeds you. There’s some people that have certain industries that they may live or work in that certainly aren’t going to bite that hand, but if you’re reasonable and objective about this, you understand that this is certainly something real. It’s happening right before your very eyes. There are very obtainable examples.

Tanya: Yeah, and I know you have outlined misinformation as a huge problem in your brilliant TED Talk, which anybody listening, I highly recommend that they check out. It’s been published in the media that we are past the point of no return considering the damage that we’ve already done to the planet. Is that actually real or is that misinformation?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: In climate science, we talk about these things called tipping points, these no return. If you think about a rubber band, if you snap it too much, it doesn’t have the elasticity. It has reached its point of elasticity. It’s a tipping point. I’m not convinced we’re at any tipping point yet, but I think we’re getting there.

We see substantial losses of the Greenland ice sheet. That has real implications for sea-level rise. We start seeing shifts in our Jetstream patterns. That causes more extreme events: droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. These things are definitely happening. I’m not convinced we’re at any tipping points yet, but I think we’re in a crisis state.

Tanya: From what you can see, although, the rhetoric is starting to slow down around climate change is not real, and people are really starting to get it, do you see that people are much more conscious in taking action to stop that, governments and businesses?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I think what I’m encouraged about to get back to your question you asked me earlier about our government pulling out of the Paris Accord or Paris Agreement, the good news in all this is that it’s almost irrelevant in some sense because the Fortune 500 companies get it. The pit line gets it. Faith-based organizations get it. Local communities, and cities, and regional states, they’re getting it. There is so much action on climate change right now that it’s sadly almost irrelevant what the rhetoric is coming from the federal level because there’s – I think there’s been this resurgence or galvanizing of the problem because people recognize how ludicrous some of the higher-level denial is.

Tanya: That’s amazing that you’re echoing this because a few days ago I interviewed Dr. David Titley.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh, David’s a good friend of mine.

Tanya: Oh, is he? He was saying that he echoed the same thing that in a very politically correct way, although the President is actively speaking out against climate change and taking a lot of initiatives to dismantle amazing efforts, Congress is actually going in the opposite direction and really taking action to support stabilizing climate and really getting in front of it which was encouraging.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Yeah, you see it at Congress. There’s something happening not only in Congress but at local and regional levels, too. This idea that climate change is a partisan issue that you have to be a Democrat to support climate – well, actually, you have to be a Republican to deny it is completely being shattered.

There’s a congressional climate caucus that’s equal membership Republican and Democrat. You can’t even join that caucus unless you bring someone from the opposite party. I’ve seen numerous articles from conservatives opposing things like carbon gases. If you go back and look at I think President Bush’s Treasury Secretary, his name is escaping me right now, he’s one of the leading voices out there, talking about carbon tax. Congressman Bob Inglis from South Carolina was a staunch conservative in almost every other issue, is very proactive on climate. This idea that the Republicans or Conservatives are against climate change and liberals and democrats are for it, it’s never – and David Tetley is actually very famous for saying this, “The ice doesn’t care whether you’re republican or democrat, it just melts.” I think one of the most positive things I’m seeing is that narrative is shattering.

Another thing is that the Yale Climate Communication studies America every year and they come out with this thing called the [Six] American Study. They show that America really breaks down under six different categories in terms of their perspective and worry about climate change. The last group is what they called the Nine Percent Dismissive. It’s about 9% of the population. It’s a small amount of the really dismissive types that you see arguing with people on Twitter or at the Thanksgiving dinner table. They’re really loud but there are really not that many of them, so they make you think there’s more climate denialism than there actually is.

Tanya: Well that actually makes a lot of sense. I can get that. I want to dive in a little bit to your TED Talk, which was so good, entitled Three Kinds of Bias That Shape Your Worldview. Basically, you were asking a very important question, which is how can we be so misaligned on something like climate change because it’s backed by science? Your answer was, the biases. Can you talk about that?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Yeah that was a fun TED Talk. It’s out there on TED somewhere if you Google my name Marshall Shepherd and TED. I’ve been amazed at how well received it is. The last time I checked, it was nearly 2 million views, which is pretty surprising given that it was just a little TEDX talk that I gave here at the University of Georgia that TED picked up on in public.

What I was talking about there is that people generally, and not just in science, are informed by their biases. They’re informed by their upbringing. They’re informed by what I call their personal marinades. What kind of marinades have they been sitting in their entire lives, politically, religiously, or from an academic standpoint because that informs their perspectives on things? I talked about in the TED Talk, Dunning–Kruger effect for example. There are these people who just think they know something about everything, even though they’re not experts and they’re talking and they miscalculate their knowledge base on certain topics.

I talked about confirmation bias. How people consume information from places that already support their own beliefs. Somebody that’s watching a certain news channel is probably watching that because there’s confirmation bias there. They’re hearing things they already believe, not necessarily more objective perspectives on things, or the magazines they read or the radio personality they listen to. That’s an example of confirmation bias, and in other kinds of cognitive [dismissiveness] out there as well. As an example, I made a little joke about the fact that somebody will come up and ask me whether I believe the Groundhog Day forecast and what the Groundhog Day says about spring [33:27] the farmer’s almanac. Two things that we know that do not have a lot of scientific accuracy. Then in the next breath, they’ll doubt experts’ opinions and data on climate science, which illustrate the insanity of the biases that we carry.

Tanya: The scariest one is confirmation – well, I mean they’re all a little bit scary because in effect what your biases are doing are distorting reality. One of my favorite quotes by Anaïs, I’m forgetting her second name, “…we don’t see things how they are; we see things how we are” and that’s what you’re pointing to. The question is how do we overcome these biases?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: As I said, by making people aware that they carry them. I think we live in our tribes so often and we never come out of our [hurtful] comfort circles, we might not even see them as biases. I challenged people in the audience during that Talk that just reflect on what your biases are. How has your upbringing, how has your marinade of perspective and background shaped your bias? Why is it that you look at a degree climate scientist and don’t think that what she is saying about climate change is real, when that person is trained, they don’t have anything to personally gain, if anything they have more to lose because they get harassed and trolled and all of these types of things. It’s actually silly but yet you see people do it.

I saw something on Twitter the other day where one of the top climate scientists in the world, my colleague, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, sat down for an interview with some random guy that was a climate skeptic. Now why in the world does his opinion about climate change carry the same amount of weight as hers? It’s like me sitting on CNN with a plumber and debating with the plumber saying that I know about putting that garbage disposal in my sink than you do. I don’t know anything about that. I have an opinion about it, but the plumber’s an [35:31].

Tanya: Just to help people out there because I think that this idea of discovering or even acknowledging your biases, which can be very hard to uncover because it’s almost like we’re blind to them. We just see them; we don’t see that we see through them. What are some questions that people could ask themselves to single out biases?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I don’t know that there are questions I would ask. I would ask people to think about where they consumed them. Regarding their information, if we’re talking about science, where do they consume their information from. Are they consuming it from scientifically credible sources or are they consuming it from some confirmation bias blog or news station or website? Where do you get information from? Take a critical look at whether you are consuming bias information or are you really seeking objective information.

It’s important to understand, science doesn’t operate like journalism. People say, well I’ll need to hear both sides of the story. Well there is no both sides of the story to the fact that the sun’s coming up tomorrow or that if I jump off a building, I’m going to fall. Those are just basic science things that are truths. Those things are going to happen. There is no other side of the story to that, so climate change stuff and climate science and meteorology fall into that category as well. Yes, there are certainly scientific questions and we should be asking questions and testing and retesting and those things, that’s what science is, but to – listen, you never hear someone say, well I think that that gravity thing is a hoax, so I’m going to jump off this building and see what happens. Yeah, we’ll say climate change is a hoax, as if we have some different level of merit in terms of its science legitimacy.

Tanya: Where do you think we are going wrong as a society with climate change? Is it that we don’t understand the potential repercussions of it and that’s why there’s such a large disagreement about it that turned into whether it’s valid or not? How do we end up questioning something that is based on science?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I think that’s my point. I don’t think it’s as large as people think it is. I think there are loud voices but I think the majority of people, based on recent polling that I see and even movements that I see, I don’t think it’s as large – I just think the 9% crowd is very loud and they, in some cases, have some very influential voices. I think the majority of people get it. Now, at the end of the day it still boils down to the fact that some of the doubt and some of the skepticism is not so much related to the science as it is the fear of what has to be done.

Climate change, there’s mitigation, which is you’ve got to reduce, somehow, the amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere and that takes on different forms. It can be capping trade, it can be carbon tax, it can be everyone buying an electric car. It can be eating less beef. Those are all mitigation strategies. There are adaptation strategies. You just retrofit buildings with air conditioning or build seawalls around places that flood. Those are adaptation strategies. I think a lot of the angst and denialism comes from the fact that if you, for example, go from a fossil fuel-based economy to a renewable-based economy, there are winners and losers. They don’t have to be because some of the companies that are invested in fossil fuel energy is now starting to be big players in solar and [39:11] and other alternative fuel supplies. I think one of the big mistakes is that for so long, certain people saw threat or challenge in the solution space for climate change but in fact, there is opportunity as well.

Tanya: What do you think from a leadership standpoint is going to be needed to really stabilize the climate?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: This question I’ll answer from multiple perspectives. We need scientific leadership. We need scientists like me to step out and lead and be able to get out there and speak. If we’re not speaking to the media or policymakers, then people with misinformation messages are happy to fill the void. We’ve got to lead on that because part of it is a messaging. We know what the science says but we’ve got to lead on engaging. We’ve got to lead on sharing information in a way that people can understand it, instead of showing our fancy graphs and equations. We’ve got to have the message fine-tuned. That’s one layer of the leadership.

Two, we have to have leadership not just at the federal level but at state, local and regional levels. We do have that because I think that’s where a lot of the action and progress is going to take place. Ultimately, we do have to lead as a nation too. With the United States not being in the Paris agreement, for the United States to not be leading anymore on renewables, China and others are starting to really come up and, in some cases, pass us on new technology, those have direct impact on things that have nothing to do with climate. Just about our ability to maintain our leaderships in technology, sustainability, resilient systems, resilient environments and infrastructure.

There are opportunities for leaders, irrespective of your political leanings, conservative, liberal, libertarian, independent, whatever you are, we only have one planet, so it’s going to take not only leadership, it’s going to take bold leadership. It’s going to take, in some cases, going against the grain, if you will, and [technique].

Tanya: What is predictable to happen if what you just outlined doesn’t happen?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Well, I think we will start to – I think from a science standpoint, we’re trying to keep warming below 1.5 degrees, 2 degrees Celsius. Again, for those of us that live in the States, it’s an even larger number if we convert Celsius to Fahrenheit. We think we reach that 2 degree Celsius tipping point, if you will, which is what the Paris agreement was trying to prevent, then we are going to start to see some of these tipping point things start. Things are bad enough as it is, but the problem that many people don’t understand is that the increases that we’re going to see in the next zero to 50 years or going to happen in an exponential or very rapid pace. They’re not going to be incremental or linear increases. The more time we wait on action, the further along the exponentially increasing curve of crisis we go.

Tanya: When you say things are going to increase exponentially, what –

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I’m talking about things like sea level rise, melting of the ice caps, the intensity of drought and rainstorms that are causing flooding. The rapid shifts in agricultural belts where we can grow certain things. The movement of a mosquito that can carry dengue that used to only live in Panama or wherever, can now live in South Georgia. These types of things. Things that we’re seeing slowing happen before our eyes are going to accelerate.

Tanya: I know that the increase, and some even call it an epidemic, of Lyme disease in some cases has been connected to climate change. What’s your view on that?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Yeah that makes sense to me. I think the vector, the tick that carries Lyme, I don’t think it could even live in parts of Canada several decades ago, but now it can. Canadian doctors, in the last several years ago, have had to learn how to treat Lyme disease. We’ve got many examples like that, it’s not just Lyme disease. That’s one that’s often cited but so many examples of changes in – even here in the State of Georgia for example, most people have allergies. Because of change in climate, pollen and trees bloom at different times of the year now, earlier, so people are suffering from allergies sooner. That has an impact on your comfort level. It has an impact on your healthcare costs.

In some cases, going back to something you asked me earlier, the mistake that we’ve probably made as a science and messaging community, is we just haven’t connected the dots for people. We’ve spent to much time talking about polar bears and 208 and 2100, when there’s plenty to talk about in 2019 and are right there in our own backyard.

Tanya: Yes, absolutely. I love that you said that because if people actually get that some of the things that are happening today are happening because of climate change, it makes it real for them. It makes it tangible and it gives them an incentive to act, so I love that. I love that you’re doing that.

Misinformation, this is something that you’ve been quite outspoken about. What is the number one or two misinformation out there about climate change?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh my gosh! Again, I [don’t know] if I can give it. Of course, you hear all the time the climate changes naturally. Well, I always respond to that by saying, grass grow naturally too but if you put fertilizer on the soil, it grows differently. That’s irrelevant. It’s not either or, it’s “and”. You have natural climate change and you have an anthropogenic or human [signal] on top of it.

The other thing we always hear and scientists want, there’s a financial interest. Science isn’t saying this. That’s ridiculous. I don’t know any climate scientist that got into this business to get rich, but I know certainly plenty of people in some of the industries that are promoting this information, certainly live in gated communities and those types of thing. That’s a false narrative that gets out there as well.

You hear these things that I call zombie theories because they’ve long been refuted by the scientists but they live on, on blogs, social media, and on radio stations. Things like it’s caused by the sun or there’s a lot of good things can happen from climate change or it hasn’t warmed since 1998. You just hear all of these zombie theories.

By the way, if you want to see scientific debunking of them, there’s a really awesome website called skepticalscience.com that is run by scientists that debunks all these climate myths.

Tanya: Okay, skepticalscience.com?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Skepticalscience.com, yes. There’s another one called realclimate.org, too. They’re both very good.

Tanya: On a lighter note, do you have any funny or interesting stories that you can share about a time that you met somebody highly influential or famous?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I’ve met my share of famous people because – just in the world that I orbit in. I hosted a show on the Weather channel called Weather Geeks, which is still [out as] a podcast by the way. Check out the Weather Geek’s podcast put out by the Weather channel. We talk all things weather and climate. I’m just trying to think back. Last year, I met a member of one of probably the hottest, if not the hottest, rap group out there right now. A group called Migos was in my studio. I was really surprised to find out that I know not only – not only that met him but I’m actually pretty good friends with his parents. I thought it was just funny to see the reaction of my students when they find out I know a member of Migos.

Tanya: Yes, such a different industry but that’s amazing.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: One of the things that I try to pride myself on, I’m a scientist and I do all the things that scientists do but I’m a pretty – if you meet me outside of my science hat, I’m a pretty regular, ordinary guy that just does regular ordinary things. I think it catches people off guard sometimes when they see me and interact with me. In a way, the personality didn’t necessarily fit what I expected when I heard that you were this renowned, whatever, scientist.

Tanya: Yeah, absolutely, I would echo that. What are you mostly focused on now? Where does most of your time go to?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I’m the Director of the Atmospheric Sciences program here at the University of Georgia, which is growing rapidly, so I spend a great deal of time between that, teaching my classes. I have research projects and grants from NASA from the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, US [48:03] and various others. Those research projects and mentoring my graduate students certainly keep me busy.

I do a lot of external things. I currently chair NASA’s Earth Sciences Advisory Committee. I’ve been the President of the American Meteorological Society in the past. I divide my time between those things. Then at home, I’ve got two kids, a teenager and a preteen that are very active in sports, so family life keeps me busy too.

Tanya: Well it seems like you have a full plate, a really full plate! For the folks that want to get in touch with you, how do they do that?

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: I’m pretty easy to find on Twitter @drshepherd2013. I’m pretty active on social media. I also have a public Facebook page too, if you just Google my name as well. I’m pretty easy to find. I have a website, drmarshallshepherd.com also.

Tanya: Well Dr. Shepherd, thank you so much for taking the time and sharing all of your amazing incredible knowledge.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh absolutely, I enjoyed it.

Tanya: It was a pleasure to have you.

Dr. Marshall Shepherd: Oh happy to be here and thank you for inviting me.

 

Dr. Paula Williams is Transgender and Shares Key Differences On How She Was Treated as a Man Versus a Woman

September 19th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “Dr. Paula Williams is Transgender and Shares Key Differences On How She Was Treated as a Man Versus a Woman”

Dr. Paula Williams spent 13 years as the host of a national television show (viewed by millions) and served as the Chairman and CEO of The Orchard Group — a non-profit organization that starts new churches in the US– for 34 years. Then her name was Paul. From a very young age, Paula knew she was transgender, but given her upbringing in a conservative religious household, she learned to keep this secret to herself. She eventually married, had children of her own, and was successful by many measures. But something was missing.

One night, Paula (then Paul) had a life-altering realization. She knew that if she transitioned to being a woman it would inflict pain onto the people she loved most and she would put everything she worked for at risk, but it was bigger than her. It was a calling towards authenticity. When Paula finally mustered up enough courage to face her biggest fear and come out, she lost everything: all her jobs, her pension, her friends, and the news sent her family into disarray. Few people in her religious community understood or supported her. She says that was a brutal time for everyone in her family, especially for her ex-wife and kids.

With some years behind the pivotal transition, Paula’s experience of being initially a man, then a woman gave her a front-row seat to how women and men are treated differently at work and in life. Her unique journey has compelled her to advocate for gender equity, LGBTQ inclusion, executive leadership and American religion.

In this episode, she shares about how different it feels leading in the business world as a woman, versus when she was a man and opens up about her inspiring journey towards authenticity.

Tune in to get the full conversation and learn about:

      • Leadership challenges
      • Societal expectations and limitations
      • The courage to be authentic
      • The powerful journey of a transgender woman
      • How men and women are treated differently in life and at work
      • Cultural biases men and women live
      • Challenges of women and LGBTQ in executive positions

Rev. Dr. Paula Williams’ biography:

Dr. Paula Stone Williams is a national public speaker specializing in Gender Equity, LGBTQ Inclusion, Executive Leadership and American Religion. As a transgender woman, Paula has been featured in the New York Times, the Denver Post, Colorado Public Radio, The Huffington Post, TEDxMileHigh, NPR’s Radiolab, Radio New Zealand, New Scientist Magazine, and a host of other media outlets. Her TEDxMileHigh talk on Gender Discrimination, which was Tweeted by Amy Schumer, has been viewed over 2.4 million times on YouTube.

Over the past two years Paula has spoken in over 100 venues, including Fortune 500 Corporations, Public and Private Universities, State and Federal Government Agencies, Religious Institutions, and Non-Profit Organizations. Paula holds two Masters Degrees and a Doctor of Ministry Degree in Pastor Care.

To see a full list of Paula’s clients, visit her website at paulastonewilliams.com.

Connect with Dr. Paula Williams:

* * *

Full Transcription:

Dr. Paula Williams: We were brief and they were not pleasant. I expected to lose them not in the way in which I did. I lost all of my jobs, and at the time, I actually was doing about four. I’ve always been a renaissance person.

Tanya: That’s Dr. Paula Stone Williams. TED speaker, activist, and thought leader for gender equity and LGBTQ inclusion. She’s the chair and CEO of Road Less Traveled Pathways, a non-profit organization that provides psychotherapy, pastoral counseling, and coaching to couples, families and groups. As an outspoken transgender woman, Paula has been featured on TED, The New York Times, Jada Pinkett Smith’s talk show Red Table Talk, and the The Huffington Post just to name a few. As a transgender woman, she gave a brilliant TED Talk on how men and women are treated differently which has been viewed by millions and is now a global sensation. Paula, what were you like as a kid?

Dr. Paula Williams: I was definitely an outgoing child. I liked to be the life of the party. I remember actually deciding at about five that maybe if I could do an Elvis Presley impression, I really could be the talk of the town. It actually [01:48] at least with my grandmother and all of her friends.

Tanya: Oh, that’s amazing, so quite the entertainer then.

Dr. Paula Williams: Oh, yeah. I was always pretty outgoing, have always been an extrovert, yeah.

Tanya: You have an amazing story. Some time ago, I think in 2012, you decided to do the transition from being a man to a woman, and we’ll get into that in a little bit. At what point when you were a boy did you realize that although you had a boy body, that really you felt much more like a girl inside?

Dr. Paula Williams: I knew from the time I was three or four years of age I was transgender. Then in my naivete, and I believe also my male privilege, my white male privilege, I thought I had to choose. Basically, white little boys from our particular part of town got pretty much anything they wanted. I assumed that if in fact I wanted to be a girl instead of a boy, that it was just a matter of [02:49] and somehow that would take place. My idea in my mind it was a gender fairy and that she arrives sometime before kindergarten, and it would be a rather simple process that she would meet with me privately, and she would ask what I wanted to be and I would say, well, of course it’s what I am which is a girl.

The fact that she didn’t come before kindergarten was mildly disconcerting. The fact that she hadn’t come by the start of first grade was quite troubling. I think by then it’s like hey, you know what, I don’t think I get to choose. I mean, somewhere along after that I’d expect from the time somewhere between probably four and six years of age, it occurred to me that this was the way it was going to be, and there was nothing I could do about it. Unlike some transgender people, I did not hate being a boy. I did not hate my body. I did not think my body was awful. I didn’t hate being a boy, I just know I wasn’t one. It just didn’t seem to be consistent with who I knew myself to be.

Tanya: That’s interesting that you thought that there would be a transition at some point. That’s amazing. How was it to live with this? I mean, did you ever communicate it to your family? Were you ever vocal about your expectation that there would eventually be a change or was this more of a dialogue that you had with yourself?

Dr. Paula Williams: No. I was pretty observant of the world around me, and my father was a fundamentalist pastor. My mother was even more conservative than my father, so I knew that was a conversation that would not go well. I knew by the time I had realized that it was not something you got to choose, I knew that there wasn’t much I could do about it. That I needed to make peace with it, and again because I did not hate being a boy, I thought, well, it will get easier with the passing of time. There were periods in which that was in fact true, and of course, there were periods when it was not at all true.

Tanya: What would precipitate a period where it would be more comfortable to be a boy versus not for example?

Dr. Paula Williams: Probably the worst was seventh grade. You start seeing all your friends were girls, and I always had about half of my friends were boys, half girls. I enjoyed boy’s games as much as girl’s games, but was comfortable with either gender. If I was playing house, I always wanted to be the sister or the mother. I never wanted to be the boy. Outside of that, I don’t think anyone really ever would have known. Role play, I would definitely choose the female role whenever I could, but of course rarely was that possible. It was only at the seventh grade then, sixth, seventh grade, I began to see all my friends who were girls having their bodies change in ways I wanted mine to change, and I mine was not changing that way. That was a very difficult time period.

Then my body did not change much until the beginning of tenth grade. During junior high – that’s just an awful time no matter who you are. In my case, it’s not changing in the ways I wanted it to be changing. It really wasn’t changing at all, and so there was actually some comfort in that, but then on the tenth grade when it started changing rapidly, I’m growing very tall and everything is wrong. It just was all so wrong. That probably was the first period when I would have experienced anything I would define as depression though I didn’t recognize it at the time.

Tanya: Oh, wow. That was one of my – I was wondering how was it like to live with that secret? Was it just the manifestation of depression or like a deep despair of living life or what do think?

Dr. Paula Williams: You’re living firmly within any kind of fundamentalism, you’re accustomed to keeping secrets. The three desert religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, in their fundamentalist expressions, they all began as religions of scarcity. There’s not enough for anybody except me and mine, and so we’re in, you’re out. They always were the win-lose propositions. Their fundamentalist expressions continue to be so. When you live in a fundamentalist environment, you are living in a world where only certain people are going to be acceptable, and there are all kinds of rules and regulations which you actually see broken all the time right before your very own eyes, and no one dares talk about them. You’ll get pretty good at just keeping things private.

Tanya: You are now very involved in the religious space, and your family comes from a very religious background. Did you ever feel at odds with what you were feeling, and the feelings of not being in the right gender, and also at odd beliefs with your religious beliefs?

Dr. Paula Williams: I don’t think I’ve ever been asked that question or have I ever talked about this before. There was a definite parallel between my experience with my gender and my experience of religion. [08:04] my gender, I knew I was not in the body that was mine. When it came to my religion, I always knew I was not in the body that was mine. There was a sense to me that a lot of fundamentalism did not pass the common sense test. Would a parent send his child to hell just for behaving badly? More than likely not. It just never passed the common sense test to me. I was in that body. I really couldn’t get out of it. It was the world in which I inhabited. The world that I lived in, and I really wasn’t able to leave it. It was kind of the same as my body at that point. It’s like, well, someday, I’ll be able to step away from this. Of course, as I grew older, it was [08:50] my expectations that I would ever be able to transition and then I just assumed it was impossible.

Tanya: Because of your common sense test, you knew that even though perhaps the rhetoric in the religious circles did not necessarily ring true for you.

Dr. Paula Williams: All right. If I were to employ Fowler Stage of Faith, most everyone in my world was at stage three which is a rule regulation kind of. I found myself from probably my middle teen years on probably in stage four which is the questioning period of faith where you’re not sure if there is a God. You’re not sure if any religion actually is able to explain the way things are. Don’t even at that point want to acknowledge the reality that we are all spiritual beings. Then you fight through that fourth stage and get to the fifth stage where you come back often to the religion you were raised in with a more broader, much deeper understanding of it. Then occasionally, somebody actually reaches stage six like the Dalai Lama or Gandhi or Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN Secretary General from the 1950s. There are not many of us ever get to stage six, but stage five you can get to if you are persistent in acknowledging the reality of the spiritual journey. The church that I lead now is a church full of stage four, stage five people

Tanya: Did you just come up with these different stages?

Dr. Paula Williams: That’s all from Fowler’s book, Stages of Faith which is…

Tanya: Got it.

Dr. Paula Williams: My doctorate is in counseling. It’s a common text used to try to understand that as well as William James in trying to understand the religious experience of humans.

Tanya: Got it, okay. Thank you. What was your journey like to really begin to give yourself permission to be fully authentic, self-expressed with who you were inside?

Dr. Paula Williams: For me, that was not something I thought was ever going to be achievable, and then once I got married and had children, not something I thought desirable. I felt like I owed it to my spouse and my children. Families are gendered and I knew it would be devastating, difficult, awful for them if I in fact transition. I was naïve enough at the time that I married to think that marriage and sex would in fact cure me and because I came from that fundamentalist world, sex before marriage was not something that was going to be possible because you might go to hell if that were the case. Even though at that point I probably didn’t really believe in hell, still you just hedge in your bets.

Tanya: Yes, just in case.

Dr. Paula Williams: In thought, it would cure me to get married and it did not. Shortly after getting married, I told my wife what was going on, but at that point, nobody knew anything. There were no books. There were no TV shows. I remember running home from school when I was in high school to watch a Merv Griffin Show where he was interviewing Christine Jorgensen, the first rather famous transsexual, they called it back then. Nobody knew anything so we didn’t really know what it meant. It wasn’t until probably 15 years ago that I began to realize there was a distinct possibility that I might have to consider transitioning. In my case, actually deciding to transition came as a decided distinct call. I don’t know if you would say it’s a call of God, but I would say it was a very clear call, and the first one I had ever experienced.

I was watching my favorite television show of all time, Lost which I think was just brilliant in its trajectory. There comes a point in the final season where the protagonist of the show, Jack, realizes he’s been called by God to die, by the God figure, who if you’re a Lost fan was Jacob. The Lost fan, it was the scene in which Jack sees through the mirror in a lighthouse his childhood home and realizes that he has in fact been called to be that savior figure, and that he’s been called to die. That for me was a realization. Oh, my God. I had been called to this. I screamed and yelled at the God who may or may not be there all night long. Who the blank do you think you are to call me to this? I’m going to lose everything, but it was a very strong sense of call.

Tanya: Wow. You mentioned at some point you spoke with your wife shortly after getting married. What were those conversations like?

Dr. Paula Williams: She carried it with me. We carried it together for a very long time. Then when she began to realize that it’s something that might have to happen, it became really difficult. We ended up with the world’s best marriage therapist here in the [13:40] area where we lived. We were his last clients on his last day when he retired which was ironic. We were both therapists ourselves. At the end of our last session, as his last client on his last day, I said, “So Mike, how many couples are willing to work this hard?” Without hesitation, he said, “1%.” I said, “How many couples get this far?” He, without hesitation again said, “1%.” Then he said, “Which is what makes this so tragic because you’re a lesbian and your wife is not.” It’s the reality of it.

I think that was the point at which we both realized that our marriage would not stand the strain because in fact, I was a lesbian and in fact, she was not. We decided not too terribly long after that to separate and to split. We remain close. We’re actually still in practice together as psychotherapists, but it was in fact a really difficult time for us. It was devastating for her because while I was roundly rejected by the religious world, no one showed up to come alongside her. In the non-religious world, I received a lot of support and again, no one really came along to support her nor my children. It’s one of the reasons my son wrote the book, She’s My Dad, that was very well received. It’s a raw, real story of how difficult it was to come to grips with my transition. Resulted in the TED Talk that we did together last November, and we now speak a lot around the nation on that subject because there’s no [15:18] for families out there.

Tanya: Yeah. No, absolutely. Yeah, for anybody listening, your TED Talk with your son was brilliant. Actually, you gave another really, really genius TED Talk on the differences that you personally experience being a man and also being a woman, which I want to get into in just a sec. Coming back to the loss that you had to experience, I never even thought about what your wife might be going through and the lack of support for her which is so amazing that you even bring this up. When you came out as a transgender and began that process, you lost everything as you had assumed you would. You had two jobs at the time, I believe. What were the conversations like with your bosses? How did you deal with what was happening?

Dr. Paula Williams: We were brief and they were not pleasant. I expected to lose them not in the way in which I did. I lost all of my jobs and at the time I actually was doing about four. I’ve always been a renaissance person doing all kinds of different things. The experience with one of those bosses was actually very good. It was the only one that was not a religious corporation. They had to take some time to figure out whether or not they could let me go. It was with a magazine and they pulled that column from the weekly magazine immediately, but they kept me on for another – oh, actually I think it was a total of eight months in a very limited way. I saw that boss once a month, the publisher of the magazine [17:02] large. That was pleasant, and I actually have not talked about that much ever. He was really just marvelous, wonderful really.

The others not so much. The others took me off pretty quickly. I had handpicked one as my successor of a non-profit that I had led for decades. Had [17:24] from a budget of 160,000 to a budget of 4 million. I was gone from there within seven days, and I lost my pension from there as well which more than likely was worth somewhere between three quarters of a million and a million dollars.

Tanya: Yes, because you were there for 30…

Dr. Paula Williams: [17:41] 30 years. Yeah, I started when I was five. It was amazing. I was just this child starting and – Yeah. I don’t want you to start doing the math to figure out how old I am. I started there when I was five.

Tanya: The one thing that I don’t understand is why did that have to happen. 2012, it’s not like it’s in the ‘80s or the ‘90s. It’s so much more accepted.

Dr. Paula Williams: Really unfundamentalist. I mean, if you take 83% of the Jewish population are supportive of marriage equality, and we don’t have numbers on supportive of the trans population, but you can extrapolate them out from marriage equality. [18:24] of Catholics are supportive of marriage equality though of course not the hierarchy. 62% of the liberal Protestant denominations are supportive of marriage equality, but it’s only 31% of the – oh, I’m sorry, 36% of the evangelical population. That’s up 26%, from 26% just eight years ago, but it’s still just barely over a third of that population that are supportive. It’s a very right-wing population. 81% of them voted Republican in 2015. In that world, I think even though probably a fair number of my friends in that world, although they were shocked about it, did not feel that it was a moral issue. They knew that if they were kind to me, if they paid my pension, anything else, they were afraid they were going to lose their income, and so I was the sacrificial lamb.

Tanya: My God. Geez, we have so much growing to do as a society. It’s so enraging to see that.

Dr. Paula Williams: If we understand that from a macro perspective, I love the work of Edward O. Wilson, a sociobiologist who worked at Harvard and MIT. He identified nine species that are different from the rest in that they all have not just the selfish gene every species has, but they also have a tribal gene. He says we’re primarily a tribal species. He calls those nine species eusocial species which is spelled E-U-S-O-C-I-A-L. He said eight of those species evolved in a way you would expect. The enemy comes into the camp, the tribe unites, defeats the enemy, and life goes on. The ninth eusocial species unfortunately has evolved in a way that the tribe believes it needs an enemy for the tribe to survive. Where no natural enemy exists, we create one. He says, “If we don’t get a hold of that, we lose the species and probably lose the planet.” The creation of enemies that don’t exist.

If you look at it from that level, religion has been doing that for eons. You recognize that it’s just tribal behavior at its worst. It is just the creation of enemies that don’t exist. You see the shifts already. While only 36% of evangelicals are supportive of marriage equality, 51% of millennial evangelicals are supportive of it, so we’re already seeing a shift in that.

Tanya: Yes, and luckily. How did you deal with that level of pressure and rejection from everything that you knew for your entire life?

Dr. Paula Williams: That was the worst year of my life. I thought people had really two options. On one hand, they could say, oh my God, wow, I guess I was wrong about what it means to be a transgender, or they could say, oh my God, wow, I guess I was wrong about the kind of character that Paul has. I expected them knowing my character to say, wow, I really need to [21:25] this thing called transgender. It’s not what they did. They decided it was my character and that was devastating. I knew thousands of people. To date, I think I’ve heard from maybe 60, 70 in a nice way. [21:39] I actually thought about it, I think I’ve met 19 or 20 from that world, and six more than once. I’m pretty much totally rejected by that world.

Tanya: How do you rebuild from that point?

Dr. Paula Williams: You start over. You have no choice. In my case, I did not think I would ever be involved in the religious world again. I tiptoed into the world of mainline Protestantism, but mainline Protestantism has not ever been my style of worship. They would not agree with this, but my perspective is that they have a death wish, but they’re all rapidly declining as denominations. Most of their [22:24] are over 70 years of age, and there was just no future in there.
I was shocked when I discovered a church in Denver that was the kind of church I liked, very contemporary, wonderful music, amazing speaking people who were younger not older. Church of about 600 at the time, and I started attending there. Then within three months, I was on their preaching team. [22:50] church and two others. Another church like it in Denver, and a similar church in New York City. The three churches were Highlands Church of Denver, Denver Community Church and Forefront Church in Brooklyn, New York combined to start Left Hand Church in Longmont, Colorado which is the church I serve.

Tanya: What is your role because you now are a Pastor of Preaching and Worship at the Left Hand Church? What do you do?

Dr. Paula Williams: One of the things that I’ve discovered [23:19] I’ve discovered about gender equity and yes, you’re right, my TED Talk on that subject just had over two and a quarter million views at this point. Getting really close to 2.3 million views. I’ve heard from women at all seven continents including Antarctica that – just thank you for validating my experience that we live in a patriarchal, top-down, vertically-based hierarchical system, and it worked for most women. I think one of things that has to be done is we have to dismantle that system. We’ve got to create different kinds of models of leadership.

We’ve been quite committed both at Highlands Church and at our church, Left Hand Church, to commit to a triune model of leadership where we have three co-equal pastors. I’m Pastor of Preaching and Worship which means I take care of everything that happens for adults on a Sunday. Jen Jepsen, my co-pastor is Pastor of Reconciling Ministries which is exactly what it sounds like, as well of our social justice work, works with children and youth. Then Aaron Bailey is our Pastor of Executive Ministries. He runs the corporation of the church. He was an entrepreneur who sold his company and now is able to serve in a pastoral role. The three of us together work in a very flat leadership model.

Tanya: That makes me so happy to hear you say that because one of the things that is a turnoff for me about religion is just how it excludes so much of what I love and respect and validate. I just love what you’re saying about really being inclusive and running a flat organization and just really a new wave of – a new message. What are the core messages that you preach along with your co-pastors?

Dr. Paula Williams: I think it’s actually not just in the religious world, and in fact, I actually think the religious world is the first world with enough courage to say, let’s try tearing down patriarchal, vertically-based, hierarchal systems. I’d love to see the same thing happen in the corporate world. In fact, my speaker’s agency, outspoken agency in New York City is owned by three females who work together in a flat leadership model and that was important to me in my representation. I spoke to about 130 female founding CEOs at Forbes Magazine Headquarters in New York City last month. When I got talking about this model of leadership, I was really surprised because there were a lot of questions about it in the Q&A period after my keynote with a lot of interest in it because it’s got to be profitable, of course.

When you’re in the religious environment, profit is not the first thing. The first thing is quality of relationships. Need a little bit more freedom to experiment in this area in that world for as in the world of profitability and particularly quarter-to-quarter management, there’s a lot less likelihood of tiptoeing into those flat leadership models. In our church, we’re focused very much on trying to do social justice. We recognize our definition of God is that 14 billion years ago, God exploded on to the universe in the Big Bang, in all of God’s complexity and mystery and ever-greater expansion. We’ve discovered through quantum physics, the ultimate core of reality is not matter. The core of reality is a pattern of relationships between non-material entities. That in other words, the key quality in the universe is relationship.

That we would call God, at core of a relationship which would then mean that the most powerful source in the universe would be love. Teaching of Jesus in loving God which means loving that reality. The reality that we’re all here in relationship. Loving neighbor which is every human being with whom you come in contact, and loving self. Actually, we believe those are probably – that’s the only moral barometer we got. That’s the only guidance we get. It’s the only compass we get. Can we live in a way that causes us to love God, to love the reality that we live in a relational world, to love our neighbors, all of them, and to love ourselves? That’s the kind of focus we have as a church.

Tanya: That’s a beautiful message, a beautiful message of love, and actually, love is the highest frequency of energy that exists. It is a very powerful and authentic place to stand from so that’s incredible.

Dr. Paulo Williams: I’d love to take credit for a lot of that concept about relationship myself but a lot of it comes from John Polkinghorne who was actually on the team that named quantum physics and chaos theory. He also was a British Anglican cleric which is interesting. He was interviewed a number of years ago by [28:21] on being and talked a lot about that concept although in a slightly different language.

Tanya: Just going back to your TED Talk which got a tremendous amount of views and continues to really resonate throughout the world about the differences that you personally experience being a man and also being a woman, what are the biggest differences that you experienced in the workplace and socially?

Dr. Paulo Williams: I think, first of all, it’s important to note that when I’m just out in the world, I am not out in the world as a transgender woman. One of the most difficult things for people with gender dysphoria is when they are not accepted in their new gender. That’s why particularly for transgender women, passing in their new gender is extremely important. I’m extremely fortunate in the fact that though I am tall, I am virtually never seen as a transgender person. I’m just seen as a female and that’s good news. That’s also the bad news because you realize then what women are up against. Some of the things I’ve discovered are that you are not as a female judged on the aggregate body of your work. You’re judged on your most recent offering.

The fact that I have a doctorate very rarely am I called Dr. Williams. I’m just called Paula. That is not the case with males. Most of the time they’ll be called by their formal title. I find that all the body of knowledge I brought with me is irrelevant in most settings. Initially, I thought, well that’s just because all of that body of knowledge was from a male named Paul. Once I had an aggregate body of knowledge as a female, I’ll be respected for the cumulative knowledge. No, no. I find that I am only judged on my most recent offering in that particular setting as though I bring no expertise with me. That’s frustrating. I was in one setting where I was on the board of an organization. We had hired a new CEO and we’re maybe thinking about having them speak for a huge conference we run.

The person is not a public speaker and I said, “I’m not sure a keynote’s a great idea. I think it might be better if we just interview her and I’d be happy to do that.” At which point I said, “If you do want to have them do a keynote, I’m happy to coach them.” At which point a powerful white male on the board said, “If we’re going to do that, why don’t we get a real coach?” That’s what I’m talking about. Two full TED Talks, four other TED Talks within their organization. I used to teach speech in three different universities and one seminary. I have spoken to crowds of 20,000 throughout my adult life. What part of that is not a coached TED speakers? What part of that is not a coach? The second [31:11] I’ve discovered is, had I spoken up for myself there, I realized as a female you’re always on this knife edge. If you speak up, well now you’re much too strong. You’re really intimidating the men in the room. If you don’t speak up, you’re seen as too acquiescent. You’re always on this knife edge where you can’t be too strong and you can’t be too weak. You have to be absolutely perfect.

Another thing I recognize is men are encouraged to think out loud, women are not. Women are encouraged not to speak until they have all their ducks in a row. If a woman starts to think out loud, she’ll be interrupted. Even if she has her ducks in a row, and has her thoughts perfectly put together, the statistics show that men will interrupt women twice as often as they will interrupt other men. Women are also not inclined to speak up because women are not taught to be confident. They’re taught to be competent. That’s why they do well throughout their education period because their competence is important.

Once you get into the corporate world however, now confidence is more important. The person who’s elevated in position is the person who speaks up. The person who is quick to think out loud and present an idea, and women are not quick to speak up, not quick to present their ideas. Though 47% of first year law associates are female, only 15% make partner. That’s because we’ve taught women to not be confident. We’ve taught them that they cannot speak, cannot have an idea, and cannot present it until they are absolutely perfect in their presentation. All of those things are things I experience on a regular basis.

Tanya: Now just because you brought up that unbelievable example of somebody on your board, a white male saying that you were not qualified, how did you handle that? How do you handle that knowing that that’s happening and knowing what you’re up against?

Dr. Paula Williams: Yeah. I said nothing in that setting. I just waited to see if any of the women in the room would rescue me which by the way women don’t.

Tanya: Yes. Yes, that’s one of the things that actually stuck with me the most from your TED Talk is that not only do men do this to women but women do this to women. It got me thinking about how I do that to other women, and I’ve had bosses, women bosses that were just horrendous. Maybe it was something because they thought that they had to be so tough and had gone through so much to get where they were that they didn’t want to help anybody else. Whatever was going on, I thought that was so interesting. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Dr. Paula Williams: I think if you look at males, for the most part will function pretty effectively within alpha-based systems. The first thing they do when they walk in a room is determine who the alpha is, then they will rank themselves according to that alpha. Then they’ll work together to accomplish the purposes of the alpha, or to put it on a simple language, they’ll be out in a circle, slap each other on the butt, and advance the quarterback in the wall down the field. Men will empower one another once they know who the alpha is. Most women don’t want to work in alpha-based systems. They’ll work in them, but they don’t want to. Some thrive in them. All they need is access to the system and they just can’t get it.

Once women do reach top levels of leadership and alpha-based systems, they had to work extra hard to get there. They are not as inclined to empower those behind them. If they’re saying no actually, power is pretty scarce for females, and so you’re going to have to work as hard as I did. If on the other hand, you put them in more flat leadership structures, a woman’s ability to work collaboratively together of course has – what’s kept species alive for eons. It’s not that the men who were the hunters were successful. There was one study recently that showed that it’s quite possible the hunters were successful 3% of the time. It was those who stayed and gathered and grew. The women working collaboratively that kept the tribes alive.

Tanya: That makes sense. Collaboration always wins. How do we address the systematic inequality that is so ingrained in not just men but women, and ingrained in the way that – in our culture, in our toys, in our institutions? How do we start to create that shift, that opening?

Dr. Paula Williams: Just a couple of weeks ago, my son and I presented what they called a discovery session at the TEDSummit in Edinburgh, Scotland. These were all people who are either TED speakers or TED employees, who are TED fellows. Insiders in the TED system. We talked on this issue and we asked just four questions over about an hour and a half. The first question, we said – asked women to express their experience of working with men. We ask the men to be quiet, and the men were quiet. It was marvelous. The second question then was to say to men, now you can speak but all you can do is ask the women to elucidate what they just said. Expand on it. Tell us more about what you said about this. It was fascinating because my son and I had to go around and monitor the tables. To say to the men, yeah, no, you’re not supposed to be giving us opinions, no. You were just asking the women.

The third question that we asked was to say to the men, okay now that you’ve heard from these women, what’s the power you’re willing to give up to bring about gender equity? The men were very eager to do this although there were some who are quite resistant, and at least one who just got up and left. The majority of them – guys don’t want to be jerks. The majority of them were eager to talk about this, but as I was going from table to table – I’ve not talked to my son about this afterwards to see if his experience was the same. On the tables I was at, I noticed that the men were actually not talking about giving up power. They were talking about sharing power. About bringing women to a level of equality with them.

The final question then was to ask women, what would you like to see men give up? The women talked about what they’d actually like to see men give up. Give up your position as the CEO to go with the flat leadership model. You could just see the guy’s jaws drop. It was like, oh wow, okay. Trying to bring you to equality with us. That’s maybe not awful, but wait, you want me to what. To actually [37:33] power that I think actually that’s what’s going to be necessary.

Tanya: You think an honest discussion and really have what?

Dr. Paula Williams: I’m in a situation right now that I have zero interest in going into it publicly, but in a position where I am being asked to give up some of my power. It’s like oh, all right, now Paula you get to maybe put your money where your mouth is. Are you actually willing to do this when you’ve already had so much power taken from you just because you transitioned? That’s a mighty fine question. I don’t think if I’ll have the integrity that I actually have much choice in the process. I think I actually do need to give up power.

Tanya: Really, it’s an internal dialogue that everybody needs to begin to have with themselves. That’s usually where it starts.

Dr. Paula Williams: It’s not just gender-based of course.

Tanya: Absolutely.

Dr. Paula Williams: At least [38:33] even. The difference between extroverts and introverts. We have a world that’s just focused on extroverts. Corporate systems that don’t reward introverts. Yeah, up and down through the system, we have our preferences

Tanya: Yes. We have a lot of work to do, and mostly it involves giving up what we really hold on to.

Dr. Paula Williams: Yeah.

Tanya: As one of your endeavors you lead the NGO called Road Less Traveled Pathways where you and your co-founder provide counseling and psychotherapy and pastoral counseling, coaching. It could be the individuals, families, groups, couples. What segment you mainly help? What are some of the reoccurring issues that you see most often the people are dealing with?

Dr. Paula Williams: My co-workers, my former spouse, she has a specialty in complex trauma, so she’s dealing most often with people who are adult survivors of sexual abuse. Then she also works a lot with the LGBTQ community particularly with families of those who are transitioning, which is quite understandable. In my case, my doctorate is in pastoral counseling. Many pastoral counselors have a very heavy spiritual focus. I don’t. I tend to be more a typical psychotherapist in that regard, person-centered psychotherapist. What we used to call Rogerian back in the day. I work a lot with people who are coming out of and who have been abused by fundamentalist systems and so that I don’t – now, with the church and with my national and international speaking, growing, I’m keeping my practice pretty small and just focusing on those who are in that transition moving out of the fundamentalist evangelical world.

Tanya: Got it. That’s amazing that you’re focusing on that segment especially having such the background that you have, and can relate on so many levels.

Dr. Paula Williams: I won’t treat people with gender dysphoria because there’s just too much counter transference there?

Tanya: Oh, that makes sense.

Dr. Paula Williams: No, that’s not the case nearly so much. Occasionally it comes up and not really all that often. I’m talking about moving away from those fundamentalist structured systems because I’ve been moving away from those for a very long time.

Tanya: Yes, and what do you do most of the time now? Where is most of your energy focused on?

Dr. Paula Williams: I’ve always been a renaissance person and so I continue to be. Probably more than anything else, I am speaking. Speaking all over the United States and Europe, North America on issues of gender equity. That is what I’m doing the vast majority of the time. I’m getting ready to do another TED Talk more than likelihood in the next year on that subject, expanding what I’ve done so far. Then I spend probably after that is my time with the church where I’m one of two preachers for the church. I’m speaking every other week there. Then my third at this point would be my counseling practice. Then I’m also in the process of writing a book about my life story. How that also talks a lot about a lot of these spiritual-based issues as well as the gender equity issues. Right now, my agent has that proposal out to the major publishing houses. Yeah, all of those things keep me plenty busy.

Tanya: A lot of stuff that you’re working on, that’s great. Paula, thank you so much for coming on Unmessable and really sharing so openly your story. It resonated with me as a woman. Just the message that you share is so powerful and anybody listening, I highly recommend going and checking out any work that you’ve done. It’s really incredible, so thank you.

Dr. Paula Williams: Yeah. Anybody can find me at paulastonewilliams.com and you can find links to everything else I do from there. That’s paulastonewilliams.com.

Tanya: Great. Thank you so much.

Dr. Paula Williams: Thank you.

Former Naval Meteorologist and Oceanographer, Dr. David Titley, Gets Real About What To Expect From Global Warming

September 12th, 2019 Posted by Podcasts 0 thoughts on “Former Naval Meteorologist and Oceanographer, Dr. David Titley, Gets Real About What To Expect From Global Warming”

If you are like most people and know something bad is happening with global warming but are not sure how it will impact you, and more importantly, how to help slow it down, this podcast episode is for you.

Retired Rear Admiral David Titley, and former Naval Meteorologist and Oceanographer was tasked with assessing and planning for security risks our country faced with regards to global warming. Having spent 32 years in the Navy, David remains especially concerned about sea levels rising. He expects sea levels to rise up to 6 feet by the year 2100. Then, he predicts that by the time the sea levels stabilize, we could be looking at a 30 feet increase in sea levels globally. 

What does this mean for you or perhaps your offsprings? This means Orlando becomes the southernmost point of Florida. Baton Rouge is the southernmost point of Louisiana. Everybody in Harlem, New York are elated because they now have beachfront properties. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Tune in to get the full conversation and learn about:

      • Climate change
      • Global warming
      • Sea levels rising
      • Potential related security risks to come
      • Changes we can expect as a result of climate change
      • What you can do to help

Dr. David Titley’s biography:

Before retiring, David Titley was the Professor of Practice in the Department of Meteorology at the Pennsylvania State University, and founding Director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk.  The Center helps organizations and citizens prosper and succeed in today’s and tomorrow’s weather and climate environment by taking advantage of all the skill in weather and climate forecasts.

Mr. Titley served as a naval officer for 32 years and rose to the rank of Rear Admiral.  Dr. Titley’s career included duties as commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command; oceanographer and navigator of the Navy; and deputy assistant chief of naval operations for information dominance.  He also served as senior military assistant for the director, Office of Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

In 2009, Dr. Titley initiated and led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change.  After retiring from the Navy, Dr. Titley served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Operations, the chief operating officer position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Dr. Titley serves on numerous advisory boards and National Academies of Science committees, including the CNA Military Advisory Board, the Advisory Board of the Center for Climate and Security, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the National Academy of Science Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.

Dr. Titley is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.   He was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.  In 2017, Dr. Titley was the recipient of the College of Earth and Mineral Science Wilson Award for excellence in service.

Connect with Dr. David Titley:

* * *

Full Transcription:

David W. Titley: Ladies and gents, that could be child’s play compared to what we will see if we don’t get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions pretty much now.

Tanya: That’s Dr. David William Titley, former US Navy and Rear Admiral who spent ten years at sea and served his country for over 32 years. With a PhD in Meteorology and a deep expertise as the Navy’s oceanographer. David has been asked to testify before congress on numerous occasions to discuss the state of climate change. Once neutral on the subject, David is now an avid believer that climate change is real, and immediate action should be taken to address the imminent threat to our planet.

You really had an amazing career in meteorology and oceanography, and you spent 32 years in the Navy, and then did a lot of other stuff afterwards which we’ll get into, but originally, what attracted you to meteorology?

David W. Titley: That’s a really, really good question, and as best I can tell, I have been interested in weather since four or five. My parents told me that a tornado, a small tornado, but a tornado went through our backyard when I was two or three. I have no recollection of that at all, but I’m told it took the doghouse.

Tanya: Oh, my gosh.

David W. Titley: I do remember, when we moved – we moved several times when I was young. When we moved to the house where finally us three kids could each have a bedroom each, I was the oldest, so of course I got to choose first. Seems right. The reason I chose the room I did was because it had an outside thermometer. I was finishing up kindergarten at that time. I would say at least at the end of kindergarten, first grade, I knew I was interested in weather, but to this day I’m not really sure why. It’s just been one of those things in which I’ve pretty much grown up with.

Tanya: Fast forward a little bit, and you went to get your Bachelors of Science in Meteorology at Penn State, and then you joined the Navy which is a very interesting move. What led that choice?

David W. Titley: Pretty simply, I needed a way to pay for college. Penn State like a lot of land-grant institutions if you’re an out-of-state person is not – it doesn’t cost like private colleges, but it’s not cheap especially for out-of-state. My parents basically said, congratulations, you got yourself into Penn State. Now go figure out how to pay for it. They were a little nicer than that, but that’s pretty much what they said. I needed to look at a number of different ways and I found out about this program called, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, ROTC. I first applied to the Air Force and they said no. They very rightly said no because when I think back on that interview, it was probably one of the more cringe worthy things I’ve ever done. I had zero clue. I was some 16-year-old snot-nosed kid, and I had absolutely no idea how to answer questions or anything.

At least I thought about it a little bit, so when I had the interview for the Navy two weeks later, I guess I did at least marginally better, and they said yes. Really, the reason I joined the Navy, I mean, I would love to say that my great, great, great, great grandfather was John Paul Jones, but it’s just not true. I needed a way to pay for college. It seemed like a fair trade to me. I give them four years, they get me a bachelor’s degree, and we all shake hands at four years and a day, and we go our separate paths, but as you know that’s not quite what happened.

Tanya: Exactly. How did that work? You had the interview more or less when you were 16 with the Navy and they accepted you. How do you do that? Do you first go to college and then they agree to pay for it, but then you have to give four years after you graduate?

David W. Titley: Yes. You actually enroll it. It’s another commissioning source for all the military services in addition to the better-known academies like West Point and Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. When you show up to college, you are actually enlisted in the Navy as a midshipman which is what the Navy calls their officer cadets. You are, in addition to taking all your normal classes, you take some Naval Science classes. You do labs where you learn the very basics of what it means to be in the Navy and be an officer. Every summer, they send you out basically on training cruises. By the time you get to be a senior, the same day that you graduate from college, you also are commissioned. In my case, into the United States Navy as a [00:05:33], which is the lowest ranking commissioned officer.

Tanya: Wow. The Navy has – people each have their own association of what that is and the challenges that come with that environment, but what was your experience like in the training, of joining the Navy, and then being in it for 32 years?

David W. Titley: Yeah. Probably for the training part, for ROTC, it would not surprise me if I had been voted the midshipman least likely to succeed. I can’t say I really enjoyed marching around and – this is 35, 40 years ago. There is nothing severe, but there is hazing. You’re on your back acting like a dead bug and people are yelling at you at 4:00 in the morning and stuff. I’m thinking, why am I doing this? It’s like, oh yeah, I need the money, so I’ll do this. It’s not like nobody’s getting physically harmed or anything, but anyway. You do that.

What I found was, the first time I went to sea on a naval ship and again, I was probably 17 by this point as a midshipman. I found I liked it. I was on an old frigate, and we went from San Diego, stopped at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and went out to the Philippines. It’s a 17-year-old kid, this is fun. You sail across the Pacific. I found honestly, if you pay attention, this is true in the Navy, it’s true in a lot of places, there’s no one individual step of your job that’s really that hard, but you do have to do them all. You have to do them all right each time, but I could do that. I enjoyed being at sea. I thought the mission was pretty interesting in general.

I liked working with the sailors. When you’re 17, you realize that the enlisted sailors, they’re 17, 18, 19, 20 years old, and in many ways they’re not really that different from you. Maybe they just didn’t have that opportunity to go to college for whatever reason, a lot of reasons, and they enlisted. They’re really good guys, and now guys and gals. Back then, it was only guys on the ships back in the ‘70s, but of course, that’s changed now.

Tanya: What kind of culture would you say that the Navy has?

David W. Titley: What kind of culture? I mean, it’s a military culture, right? It’s hierarchical. What does that mean? That means if your boss is interested, you’re fascinated, but it really is – I mean, not to get sloppy emotional, but there is an underlying culture of service. There is an underlying – people take their oath, the officers. We take an oath and you swear to uphold and defend the constitution, right? Not a certain political party, not a president, not a member of congress. You uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Back when I started of course – this is in the middle of the Cold War. There was, I think, a general unity in the country that we were on the side of right, if you will. Again, not to be overly simplistic. There was a sense of purpose, a sense of doing maybe somewhat larger than yourself. People work very hard and of course, what you see is – there were many professions in which people work very, very hard, but the military is one of them. It’s also not for everybody. Some people, the idea of going away from home for four, five, six, seven, eight months at a time is just – that doesn’t work for them.

Tanya: How did your wife deal with that because – or maybe you didn’t meet her at that point because you spent ten years at sea?

David W. Titley: Yeah. I wasn’t married for the first ten years.

Tanya: Ah, that helps.

David W. Titley: That’s one way to deal with it is, don’t be married, but no, my wife is very independent and she does well by herself. Part of the deal we had though was that when we were married is she would come out when it was possible, when we knew the schedules reasonably well in advance and visit me. I think my wife’s first overseas trip was to Singapore.

Tanya: Oh, wow.

David W. Titley: Her second overseas trip was to Australia. That’s not bad, right?

Tanya: No, those are big ones.

David W. Titley: There’s the old slogan, join the Navy and see the world, and you do. Now of course, what the Navy doesn’t tell you is the world is in fact 70% ocean, so you see a lot of water. You also get to see a lot of things. Back in the late ‘90s, we got to live in Japan for two years. It was just fascinating. I would argue that that was probably one of our most enjoyable tours. Probably the one in which grew professionally a tremendous amount, but also personally. Just really living in a culture in a country that is so different than ours was just fascinating.

Tanya: I have a number of Japanese friends, but just one thing that always impresses me so much is how gentle and thoughtful and just really polite they are. It’s so different. I mean, I’m in New York City and it’s a little different.

David W. Titley: Yeah, I was going to say, those are three adjectives you always think of with New York City, right?

Tanya: Yes, exactly. Having spent ten years at sea and 32 years in the Navy, what was one of the most challenging moments that you had to deal with that really stands out? Minus the cringe interview that you [00:11:57]?

David W. Titley: [00:11:58].

Tanya: That was nothing as it compares, yeah.

David W. Titley: That’s a good question. I think there were – at sea, you just get tired. You get very little sleep, and actually the Navy, in the last few years is institutionally coming to grips with that. Certainly, back when I was doing this, it was almost a badge of – pardon the term, but almost a manhood thing. It’s like, oh, you got three hours of sleep last. I got 90 minutes.

Tanya: Oh, my god.

David W. Titley: Therefore, I’m clearly a better officer than you are. It’s this weird sort of thing which all the medical guys are saying, “You know actually, this is really stupid of you guys so stop it.” It’s a job that really is 24/7 and is very irregular out. I mean, no matter how you manage your sleep cycle, there are things going on 24/7 in which you need to be able to do that. I think one of the more challenging things I had was – as I mentioned earlier before we started recording is, I tend to say yes to opportunities. As I was about six months away from finishing up my master’s degree at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, basically our boss comes down into our common study room and says, “Hey, I need somebody to go on an aircraft carrier that’s about to deploy. Anybody want to do that?” Everybody’s looking at the guy like you must be crazy, and I raised my hand.

Tanya: Wow.

David W. Titley: Sometimes it’s like, why did you do that? Then the deal was, hey, go do the deployment and then when they’re done you can come back to postgraduate school, finish up your masters, and go on from there. I said, “Sure, why not?” I show up on an aircraft carrier which has its own subculture, and always 5,000 people, 5,000 of your closest friends. These guys had all spent basically a year the previous year working – what we call working up, getting ready, doing a lot of exercises. Everybody knows what they’re doing. I show up five days before deployment having never actually served on an aircraft carrier, so the learning curve was pretty much vertical for the first few months there.

You’re not only trying to figure out your job, you’re trying to figure out the personnel dynamics. All the different organizational facets that you need to be part of. Yeah, that was pretty challenging and there were – sometimes you just wonder, maybe the pool here is a little bit deeper than I thought it would, but it worked out. That was certainly challenging.

Tanya: Where were you deployed?

David W. Titley: This was a deployment we did immediately before Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and that was the time in which Saddam went into Kuwait. This was at the very, very end of the Cold War, so 1990, January of 1990 we got underway. Out of California and basically spent time in both the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. It was weird because all of us of course had grown up in the Cold War professionally. Then Soviets, now Russians, and at that point they were trying to figure out who they were, were not coming out. It was almost this Kabuki ritual in which the US, either Air Force or Navy, air craft carriers, whatever get within a certain distance of [00:15:54] Soviet Union and the Soviets fly up their aircraft. We escort them. Everybody knows how the game is played.

We’re out there, and they’re not playing. It’s just weird because this is what they do. This is what we do, and we were all really trying to figure out what’s going on. Is this a ruse? Are they trying to do something else? It’s like, no, they’re really not playing here. This is really different. We were doing that, got in the Indian Ocean, and ironically, it was amazingly quiet. This was like the spring of 1990. This is just before Hussein, Saddam Hussein goes into Kuwait. We come home, and I think it was the day we get back into our home port in California near San Francisco, is when Hussein goes into Kuwait.

Our ship was scheduled to go into this big expensive maintenance period, but we were for about three weeks it was – the rumors were, no you’re not going to do that. They’re going to turn you around and send you back out to the Persian Gulf. Then 30 minutes later, there’s a different rumor, and an hour later, there’s a different rumor. Long story short, we did not go. We were not one of the ultimately six carriers that ended up on that job. The powers that be decided no, we’re going to go and do the maintenance that we’ve already put hundreds of millions of dollars of expense into. That’s what happened.

Tanya: At the peak of your career, what were your accountabilities?

David W. Titley: The peak of my career. I guess, that would probably be when I was an admiral. I had a few different jobs, but probably the one in which I had the most was I was – it’s big long words, Commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, kind of a mouthful, but basically what that meant was I was responsible and accountable for all the US Navy’s weather and ocean observation and prediction programs.

Things like keeping aircraft carriers and typhoons apart from each other, so we do not ever again have the tragedy that Admiral Halsey had in December of ’44 where in fact ran his battle group in World War II right through a typhoon and sunk three ships, killed over 700 sailors, damaged and destroyed hundreds of aircraft. If somebody did that nowadays it would be a tremendous number of people being fired, but we were fighting World War II at the time and everybody loved Admiral Halsey and Nimitz basically grabbed him and said, don’t do that again, but he didn’t get fired.

Tanya: Wow.

David W. Titley: That’s an obvious one. There’s a less obvious part of the weather and ocean prediction job, and that is not only to keep ships and submarines and aircrafts safe which is a hugely important mission, but also how can you best exploit present and future weather conditions so that you can do your job better than a potential adversary. How can you use weather and ocean to let’s say hide or disguise your forces? How can you position your forces so they can take advantage of let’s say a weather hole or a weather window or something like that? All of those sorts of things I was responsible for. When I moved up to the Pentagon is when I became oceanographer and navigator of the Navy and that is – it’s an easier title to say, sounds cool. It’s more of a budget like you’re working the future budget. You’re working policies. You’re working international relations, but it’s not so much the operational job that I had that I just described. It was during that job as oceanographer and navigator at the Navy that they – head of the Navy, a gentleman we called the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, asked me to take a hard look at what was going on up in the Arctic with the ice melting out, and figuring out does the Navy need to pay attention to this.

Tanya: Yes. That’s actually a really good segue. It’s been publicized that you actually began as a climate change skeptic and as you started to really evaluate and examine the evidence, you changed your mind. I know that everybody knows what climate change is or knows the word, but I just want to – in a very simple way, what is climate change?

David W. Titley: Two words there, right, so climate and change. Really, what is climate? Climate is really just the average of some component of the weather that could be temperature, high temperatures, low temperatures. It could be amount of rainfall. It could be number of hurricanes, number of tornados. It could be some component of weather averaged over some period of time and space. We could talk about what’s the climate of the United States. We could talk about what is the climate of New York City. What is the average temperatures in July between 1950 and 2000 in New York City? What are the extremes? That would be climate.

Climate change is when those averages start to move. When we talk about climate change now, most people are implying man-made or a fancy word as anthropogenic, but basically man-made climate change or human caused climate change. That’s a shorthand for not only are those averages changing, but they are changing more than we would expect to see with small natural variations. For this purpose, the natural variations are basically plus or minus 1 degree Fahrenheit averaged over time. That accounts for El Niños and La Niñas and very small variations in the sun, plus or minus maybe a degree Fahrenheit.

We’ve already seen in the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century, we’re now up to about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit change, and we’re not seeing just an oscillation or an up and down, but we’re seeing a very, very pronounced uptrend. That’s a long, long explanation, but climate is just averages of weather over some period of space or time, and climate change as it’s usually used means that the climate is changing and it’s changing not due to natural variations. It’s changing because of human activities, and that’s what’s happening.

Tanya: Thank you for explaining that. That was really good. Now what evidence did you take a look at that tipped your thinking into believing that climate change is real and it’s a threat?

David W. Titley: Actually, that’s a great question. There’s a lot of stuff in there. Not to be pedantic, but when I do my talks, I go through a lot of the evidence. Then I ask my audience, “Okay, who believes in climate change?” I got this cheesy graphic of some evangelistic guy whipping up the crowd. He was like, no, who believes in climate change? 90% of the people or whatever raise their hand, and I say, “I don’t. I don’t believe in climate change.” People look at me like, is this is a bait-and-switch or what? I don’t believe in climate change because it’s not a belief system. Science is not a belief system. I’m convinced by the evidence.

That there’s overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing, but I tell people that beliefs are things you might do on a Friday evening or a Saturday evening or a Sunday morning. Perhaps at a house of worship or some other place. Those are beliefs. We all have a lot of beliefs, but I would argue that science is fact. Not based on belief, it’s based on evidence. That may sound a bit naughty, but I do get – all the time people are asking me, do I believe in climate change? It’s like, no. It’s not a religion. In fact, I think there are some people who would like us to not do anything on this who try quite hard to paint this as a religion. You see that in the discourse.

I would also say that I was probably more of a climate agnostic than a skeptic. One, my job was really day-to-day weather. It was not looking at climate change. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. During the ‘80s and ‘90s certainly there were indications that climate was changing, but there were also, I would say, we were still well within that 1 degree Fahrenheit, and you could make the argument that perhaps we were still seeing variations of natural forcings at that point. The other part that frankly really bothered me was that whenever somebody talked about climate change, it was always, always, always gloom and doom, right? This is bad. That is bad. Everything is bad. Let me get out my hair shirt and whip myself and have all this kind of stuff. It’s like, oh my god. I was like, how much depressing talk can I take in one day, so I ignored it.

Actually, I have to think about why was it all bad because you would say, well, if this is change, no it’s not too unreasonable to say, well, it’s change. Okay, so maybe there will be some bad things, but there will also be some positive things. It’s change, right? It’s not good or evil. It’s just change. What I realized maybe ten years ago was it’s probably much more heavily weighted to the not good side. Call it a threat, call it a challenge or risk, pick your term because we have – humanity has implicitly built human civilization on climate stability. We’ve had actually amazing climate stability in the last 8,000 to 10,000 years since we came out of last Ice Age. We’ve had really very – actually, relatively unusual climate stability.

We’ve gone from basically being hunter-gatherers to of course the dawn of agriculture which led to – I mean, everybody knows the story, right? Villages to towns to cities, and the next thing you know we’re all carrying around iPhones in our pocket, and oh, by the way, we have, what, nearly 8 billion, 8 plus billion, about 8 billion people give or take on the planet right now. We can’t go back to being hunter-gatherers and just roaming the planet as conditions change anymore. We can’t do that. Now when we have kicked ourselves out of that climate stability, now how do we deal with it. How do we deal with it in our food security, in our water security? How do we deal with migration when there are now places that might have been marginal for people to live that now are much, much tougher to live? How do we have appropriate safety nets to help people do all of that, and when we don’t put those in, usually the dirty, ugly end of human civilization ends up becoming a national security issue, and the military is then asked to go and do something.

I apologize for the length of that, but it’s really – there is a reason why when you read many of the headlines that there aren’t – there’s not a lot of good news. Climate is changing, yee-haw. It’s like Maine is going to have an extra month of vacation period. There will probably be some places up north that do see let’s say extended growing seasons, but they’re probably going to have different crops. As I’ve mentioned before we started recording, I’m actually on a five-month trip of the country and right now we’re up in Michigan on the – we’re still on the Lower Peninsula, but we’re on the northern part. For miles and miles here, you see apple orchards and blueberries and cherries. People think, well geez, it’s Northern Michigan, isn’t it really cold in the winter, and yeah, it is. It’s really cold here, and wouldn’t they want it to be warmer longer.

It’s like, well, maybe they would but they probably then would not be able to grow the crops that they’re so well known for. Even in places in which you think, oh geez, it’s going to warm up and they’ll like it, it’s going to be very different for them. This is the part of change, and when I give my talk, I talk about climate in three words. People and water and change, and I tell people that of those three words the one that really worries me the most is the change part because how are we going to manage this and how are we going to manage this globally with some degree of equity and justice and doing this in a world of 8 billion people. That is to me one of the huge challenges of the 21st century.

Tanya: If you had to summarize the major changes that you are expecting to happen, what would that be?

David W. Titley: As I mentioned, I talk about these changes or climate in three words, and why three words because I’m a simple sailor, and I can only do things in threes. I can’t really digest all 2,000 pages of an IPCC report and stuff like that, but I can remember threes. When I talk about water and I think water is arguably a linchpin of so many of the climate issues. I talk about water as being it’s either too much or too little. Now it’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. Salty where it used to be fresh. It’s wet where it used to be dry. It’s liquid where it used to be solid. Even the very chemistry of the oceans themselves are changing as the oceans take up almost half, about 40% or so of the excess carbon dioxide emissions.

Maybe we can live without internet, at least for a little while, but it’s really hard for people to live without water. That water is changing, it’s changing its distribution. It doesn’t mean we run out, but the distribution is changing, and we’ve seen. We’ve seen these devastating floods. I call them rain bomb sometimes [00:32:13] locally. We’ve seen on bigger scales, Mississippi flooded, the most it’s been arguably since at least 1993. Some would argue even back to the 1920s. Sea level rise, I was just reading that Miami right now is flooding pretty much every day in these so-called king tides. They call it nuisance flooding and there’s sunny day flooding, and they blame it on the moon. I was like, well actually, the reason you’re now flooding and you didn’t used to 10, 20 years ago is not the moon. The moon hasn’t changed, but fact is, is we’ve melted a whole bunch of ice that was on the land.

Many of the climate implications go back to water. Wild fires, why are we seeing more wild fires? We’re heating things up, but when you heat up plants, what do they do? They dry up, so we’re taking the water out of the system. We’re heating it up and we are then just setting the stage for these catastrophic wild fires that we’ve seen now in the last several years particularly out west.

Tanya: Yes, and what is predictable to happen if nothing changes? If we continue as is?

David W. Titley: Yeah. If we continue as is, and this has been in the news a lot here in what, the summer of 2019, a lot of pushback, if you will from the current administration, but I think the National Climate Assessment recent reports here for the last year or so really pretty well captured this. There is a scenario that scientists use. We call it either business as usual or it’s got a really technical name. It’s RCP8.5 which [00:34:02] – I’m going to mess up what the C is now – path. I’m sure you’ll get comments on what the C is. I can’t remember. Basically, how much forcing? How much extra heating or forcing we have? There is a scenario which basically if we keep burning fossil fuels more or less at the rate we have, this is where we’re going, and we’re going to a world in which we will be 3 to 4 degrees Celsius. What is that in terms people understand?

Tanya: I understand Celsius, but yeah.

David W. Titley: 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than average, and people will say, well, you know, it was 75 today, so if it’s 84 tomorrow, why is that a big deal? One, when you warm the planet that much, that’s almost as much warming as we saw between the depth of the Ice Age and our 20th century climate. The depth of the Ice Age, we had glaciers almost coming way down the Hudson River Valley, right? You wouldn’t be going to the Catskills for your summer vacation in New York City anymore. That’s for sure. Not unless you wanted to go climb kilometers high ice faces up in Peekskill or something like that.

That’s a massive, massive amount of heat to add. Basically, that type of heat, if we do business as usual for the rest of the century, will all but guarantee not 5 inches, not even 5 feet of sea level rise. It starts to guarantee order 30, 3-0 feet sea level rise, when we would eventually stabilize. If anything, I’m probably being conservative there. 30 feet of sea level rise, just so that your listeners understand, that means that Orlando becomes the Southernmost Point of Florida. Baton Rouge is the Southernmost Point of Louisiana. Everybody in Harlem is probably pretty happy because they now have the waterfront property, and they’re laughing at Lower Manhattan because they’re all underwater. I don’t know if – New York City has arguably some of the most valuable real estate in the world, but are we going to build a levee system or a wall big enough to keep 30 feet of sea level out? That would be quite a function.

From a security perspective, Norfolk, Virginia and what they call down there, the Tidewater area is arguably the largest naval base, but it’s not only Navy, the Air Force has a huge base, Langley Air Force Base down there. The Army and the Coast Guard have important facilities as well. All of that goes. I mean, right now the Navy is talking about, well geez, maybe I need to raise the piers at my base by a foot or something like that. I want to say, dudes, this is not going to be your problem, raising the piers by a foot because there is no Norfolk. There is no Virginia Beach. There is no Chesapeake. There is no Portsmouth. It’s gone. You got to go back up to Yorktown, Virginia to find the coast line with 30 foot of sea level.

That’s just the US. Arguably, you recreate the inland sea in the Central Valley in California. We haven’t even talked about Asia and Shanghai and Manila and Singapore and Tokyo and Yokohama, and [00:37:48]. That becomes with business as usual. I think the last time I looked, that’s about half a billion, with a B, people live where – within 30 feet, let’s say elevation 30 feet where it would be potentially flooded. That’s half a billion people that probably need to move. Not to mention every major city, and you need to do this all more or less at the same time. People say, well, we can do that and I said, well, maybe we can, but let’s also remember that in the Syrian migration, that was roughly 1 million people. That’s what, two-tenths of 1% of what I’m talking about, 1 million people. Those 1 million people moving to Europe in a relatively chaotic fashion, I would argue shook the European Union to its core. That was just 1 million, not 500 million.

It doesn’t mean that it’s a catastrophe, but it does I think mean as someone who’s kind of have to manage risks for many, many decades, this is a huge risk. You would like to say, what’s the best way to manage risk is like buy it down beforehand. Like for the pilots, for naval aviators, or anybody else, it’s like, I don’t want you doing that heroic pilot stuff. I want you to be smart so that you never put that aircraft in a position where you have to do all that heroic pilot stuff. That’s really what we should be doing. It’s like, let’s not say, hey, let’s see what happens when we move half a billion people more or less at the same time. Let’s buy down that risk so that we’re not trying to move Singapore and London and Amsterdam and New York City and San Francisco and Tokyo all at the same time because I’m not sure how that’s going to work out.

Tanya: Many things to think about here, but you said it would all happen at the same time within this century.

David W. Titley: Let me clarify that. When the seas come up, it is going to take probably centuries for them so stabilize. This is really one of the big unknowns in the science is exactly how fast do the ice sheets respond to this warming. I very recently retired from Penn State, but I’m still affiliated with there and I’m very pleased and proud to say that some of my colleagues in the College of Earth and Mineral Science, they’re really on the forefront. People like Richard Alley and some of his colleagues are really at the forefront of trying to better understand how fast these ice sheets would come in to balance with the new heat. There is just all kinds of science which I won’t bore people with but there is a lot of unknowns there.

Tanya: When you say come into balance, do you mean like finish melting and sort of incorporate in the rest of the water?

David W. Titley: Exactly. I mean, let me just do this in a very simple way. You take an ice cube out of your freezer and you put it into you into a glass of room-temperature water, and let’s say that water is 70 degrees. It doesn’t melt instantly, right? It takes some time to melt there. Even as we add this heat not only to the atmosphere but to the ocean and the ocean is actually taking up about 90, 9-0% of the excess heat. It takes a lot. Then to make it even more complicated, we’re trying to figure out, do these ice sheets just simply slide off the land? Do they get hung up? Do they collapse? Like God has this massive hammer and it’s like you’re hammering on the ice sheets and you just fracture them, and then, much, much more ice comes into the ocean much more quickly than if it is just melting, melting off.

All of these things are really at the cutting edge of science here to understand exactly how this is going to go. Let’s just say, just for a thought experiment that for whatever reason, we as humans don’t really do much to minimize our greenhouse gases for the rest of this century. We do find by the year 2100 that we’re 3 to 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. I’d say 5 to 7 degrees in Fahrenheit terms. At that point, my guess if somebody put a gun to my head and said how long is it going to take to stabilize, I’d say it’s about 100 years. Within 100 years, you could see the ice sheets coming – or the sea level rise coming up by tens of feet. No, I don’t want to leave your listeners with the impression that by the year 2100 we’re going to have 30 feet of sea level rise. We are not. We may have 3, 4, 5 even 6 which that’s a lot. If you’re in Miami, that’s a big deal.

Tanya: That’s Miami.

David W. Titley: If you’re in Norfolk, that’s a big, big deal, but what I’m concerned is, ladies and gents that could be child’s play compared to what we will see if we don’t get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions pretty much now.

Tanya: Now that you’ve retired from the Navy and Penn State, I recently read a document or news that the Navy quietly shut down their Climate Change Task Force and it is debatable when that actually happened, but sometime in 2019.

David W. Titley: It was kind of like the Baltimore Colts moving out of Baltimore. I think they did it in the snowstorm in the middle of the night.

Tanya: Yeah, exactly. Given what you’ve stated as the almost certain future, if nothing changes, and with this administration that is literally unraveling and shutting down important initiatives like the Paris support or the Climate Change Task Force in the Navy, first of all, first of all, what happened with the Navy? Do you have any idea why they would do that?

David W. Titley: I could only speculate. I can tell you that nobody in the Navy told me. I found out about this third or fourth hand, and then had my spies and moles dig around and find out that yes, they in fact did shut this down. From a bureaucratic perspective, task forces in fact should not last forever. I think the Navy, when reporter asked them said, well, we’ve incorporated all of this into the mainstream so we don’t need a task force. If they had incorporated all of this into the mainstream, I would absolutely agree with that. A task force really should live for a finite period of time. On the process side, on the mechanics side, I don’t – it’s not a here nor there to me that they shut down the task force. It was not meant to live forever.

What I’m much more concerned about is, from what I see, very frankly I don’t think the Navy is thinking about these long-term threats, not very seriously. I think there is a chill in the executive branch, no pun intended. That thoughts about man-made – the implications or impacts or let alone what to do about man-made climate change are neither encouraged or desired. Those who think about this put their careers at risk. We just saw the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats forced out of his job earlier – I think it was within the last few weeks. Mr. Coats, I think probably got on the wrong side of the president on several issues, but one of the issues he was I think forthright about and really what DNI Coats was reflecting was simply the judgment of his senior career intelligence analyst, is climate change is in fact a threat to national security.

Any of your listeners can Google, it’s called worldwide threats to intelligence. You can Google that, either 2018 or 2019, it is a unclassified document. You don’t need The New York Times to have it leaked to you or anything like that. It’s short and it is signed by Dan Coats himself. There is in each one of those, about a full page of a 20-page document devoted to the impacts of climate change. This is what our career intelligence are – most senior career intelligence analysts have come up with. This isn’t like, well, Titley, he’s a retired weather guy. He probably just likes this stuff or something like that. These are people who are paid by our country to assess future risks and warn our policymakers.

We see this but we see, as you’ve mentioned, that really much of the administration, it’s almost like they’ve gone into shell shock or they’ve dug into their fox hole and they’ve put their hand over their head. They’re hoping the artillery barrage from the White House stops at some point. I think many senior leaders in many organizations or parts of our government including, I would argue, the US Navy, has decided this is a fight they don’t’ want right now. We could argue whether that is a courageous stand or we could argue whether that is, well, you’re worried about your career more than important things or you’re just trying to save yourself for bigger fights. Reasonable people can debate which side it is. Is this the issue you take to the hill and you die on that hill on this issue. Maybe it is for some. Others are going to say, I’m going to die on another issue, but not this one.

Yeah, it’s pretty much I think undeniable that this administration has put a huge, huge chill on any discussion of man-made climate change let alone what to do. I will say that ironically, the congress even though the senate is still controlled by Republicans and even the previous congress, where both chambers were controlled by the Republicans is actually quietly doing more. If you look in the last few, what we call National Defense Authorization Act, fancy word for the Defense Bill, we are seeing more and more amendments being passed by both parties that basically direct the Department of Defense to increasingly get ready for a change in climate.

Just this morning I was reading that our National Highway Bill has a number of provisions in it that will direct various – both federal and state agencies to both use money to prepare for future climate change and also to take future climate change into account when building out our transportation system. It’s almost a mirror-image of what we saw in the second Obama administration where you had the administration led by the president talking very high profile frequently and actively about this. The congress was like, no how, no way, I’m not doing anything. Those roles have flipped. Of course, the president is very well-known for this position on this issue, but less so I think the change in the congress.

I think you’re seeing – of course, the Democrats are talking a lot about it, but you are seeing more and more Republicans I think are coming to the conclusion that straight out climate denial is really – one, it makes people look silly, and I don’t know if they care about that or not, but it’s no longer a winning political issue in more and more districts. We’re seeing changes here and I guess if I want to leave somebody with a hopeful note it’s that, if I could pick only one branch of government to be on my side, I would pick the congress.

Tanya: Right now.

David W. Titley: Congress has a [00:51:08] and they make the laws. Administrations come and go, and so, are we doing enough? No. Are we doing it fast enough? No, but the fact that we’ve seen this change in the congress, I would argue over the last two to three years to me is it’s like seeing that very first [00:51:28] after a long, hard winter. It gives me signs of hope.

Tanya: You would know this because you’ve been invited to testify many, many times in front of congress. What were you asked to testify about and what do you think the reception of that was?

David W. Titley: I’ve actually, in this session of congress, I’ve testified three times. Twice before the house before the – both the Armed Services Committee and their Budget Committee, and also before the senate. There was a special hearing by the Homeland Security Committee, that I was asked to testify at. If anybody really wants to find it, you can Google my name and congressional testimony, and all of that is in the public record. I was told by some of the staffers on the budget committee that my remarks were actually very well received. That plus $2 buys you a small cup of coffee at Starbucks or at least it used to. We’ll see what that means. I did talk about the need for almost an Apollo scale program to rapidly get ourselves on to non-carbon-based energy, and I use those words carefully because I think nuclear probably does have a role in this.

We definitely need to bring down and significantly bring down the cost of storage. We probably need better transmission. We do okay on generation with wind and solar, but they’re not a panacea, and we need to – but we don’t have time to wait for the perfect solution. There was an admiral, Admiral Gorshkov who rant the Soviet Navy for many, many years, and in fact, he was head of the Soviet Navy when I got commission. One of his sayings, it’s probably not unique to him, but it’s attributed is, better is the enemy of good enough. We need to realize that at this point in time, good enough is probably where we need to be aiming for to decarbonize. Understanding that most energy systems, when you build them, they have a 20 to 40, maybe 50-year life cycle.

Yes, you’re locking yourself in for decades, but you’re not locking yourself in for centuries. Simultaneous to doing things, I would also have a much, much more robust R&D program to really figure out how to we provide adequate non-carbon-based power not only for the US, not only for the western world, but for all the world’s people. I mean, you could set a audacious goal of how does every single human being on the planet let’s say have Western European capacity of electricity. Every single person, every person in India, every person in Africa, every person in Asia. Not just the US and Canada and Japan and Australia. How do we do that, and how do we do that let’s say within 20 or 30 or 40 years? Can we do that? Maybe it’s 50 years, but we set those big goals, and we figure out how to do this. The Apollo program was what, roughly $150 billion in today’s money. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, especially when you look at the damages that we have already seen from extreme weather just in 2018. I think we saw nearly $300 billion of damages both insured and uninsured.

Tanya: You have a personal experience of weather damage. You lost your home.

David W. Titley: Yeah. I tell people if you ever want to know what a 10-meter storm surge does coming up your street, I got some pictures of that. Back when I was a one-star admiral, we were living in Mississippi. Actually, I bought the house since Mississippi is our headquarters for the Navy’s weather and ocean operations. I was first assigned to Mississippi down in the middle of 1990s. We bought a house and it was about two houses off the Gulf of Mexico. When I bought it, I figured I was going to sell it really quickly and then of course somebody wants to rent it and their successors want to rent it. Then we’re coming back down. I’m violating my own risk management rules here as I’ve now owned this half a block longer than I thought I would.

Sure enough, along comes Hurricane Katrina back in 2005, and it makes landfall just to the west of our house. The worst of the storm is always on that, what we call the dirty side of the eastern side of the storm. Yeah, it pushed about a 30-foot wall of water up. When we say we lost our house, we actually quite literally lost our house. I hate using the term literally and awesome and epic because those seem to be the words [00:56:40], but in this case, we actually lost our house to the point where we never did find it. 13 years later, we don’t know where it went. It either went up into the railway tracks with just millions of tons of debris, or more likely, I think it got sucked out into the Gulf of Mexico, but all we found was the front door and that was about it. We didn’t have any clean up. That was good. Yeah, there was very little to clean up.

I also tell people that – I don’t tell people this out of sympathy and in many ways that I really don’t have time to go through, we were – my wife and I were actually arguably the luckiest couple in Mississippi on the coast. We did not have our personal effects in that house at that particular time for a variety of reasons. We did have insurance. This isn’t a story of woe is me, but it is a traumatic event to lose your house like that. More importantly, think of all the people who don’t have a safety net especially when you get beyond the US where insurance is nowhere near as widespread. They have nothing. If you have a whole bunch of desperate people who have nothing, in addition to being a tremendous moral and I would argue human justice issue, that can become a security issue too because they have nothing, and they have nothing to lose. How do we manage that?

Tanya: Yeah. No, absolutely. What would you recommend for people? What can I do for example or the people out there listening? What can they do to contribute or help make a difference in climate change?

David W. Titley: I get asked this all the time, and I think it’s an obvious question, and it’s a very important question. The way I answer it is, I have a picture of a llama in my public talks, although somebody came up to me afterwards and said, “It’s not a llama, it’s an alpaca.” It’s like, “I’m sorry. The internet told me it was a llama, so [00:58:54] llama.” The way I spell llama is L-L-M-A, and the first L is learn. It’s just learn the basics of climate science. There is an association called the American Association for Advancement for Science of AAAS, triple A, S. They published I think a wonderful, very short climate document called, What We Know. If anybody of any of your listeners type triple A, S, what we know into Google, it’s the first thing that comes up. It’s tremendously accessible.

I would argue any single one of your listeners would easily be able to read it. I don’t care what degree they have or they don’t have. You don’t need a degree of anything to understand this. It gives you the basics. As a citizen, that’s all you need. We’re not trying to make you into Michael Mann or Richard Alley or anybody like that. Just know the basics. Now if you have – if there are any science geeks who are listening to this podcast, and you want to know more, go to the National Academy of Science and there is a publication called Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, National Academy of Science. Again, Google that, it comes right up. Now you’re going to know more than about 98%, 99% of Americans. If you have maybe a college degree or even you just like science in high school, I think you can get through that pretty easily. That’s my first L.

My second L is local action. Do what you can within your means, and that’s going to be very different for different people. We have different lives. We have different jobs. If you’re a farmer or if you’re a contractor, you probably need a diesel truck, right? We’re not saying live in a cave in a hair shirt and turn off the power. We’re saying do what you can. I’ll give an example. About six year ago, my wife and I moved up to State College where Penn State is, and for our budget, we had a choice. We could either buy an older house that was very close to my office, and I could walk there. We could maybe save a little bit of money, and then put it into upgrading windows and insulation and things like that, or we could buy a newer, bigger house maybe five, six, seven, eight miles away and drive to work. We chose the former, and we liked the neighborhood. We like the fact that we could walk to campus and do evening things and stuff like that, but it was also frankly a lower carbon footprint. I don’t think it was a sacrifice. I think it was simply a choice.

We all have choices, big and small in our lives, and I would ask that people just think about carbon footprint as one of the considerations. This isn’t a guilt trip. I’m not trying to shame people or anything like that or harangue people. I hate it when the environmentalist harangue people. It’s a choice. Local action, learn local action. M is monitor. For my science friends, something that’s really, really important is continuous collection of data because once an event has passed, you can never go back and measure what used to happen. It’s very, very hard. Much better to measure in real time, but for my non-science friends, I say monitor can be monitor what your local leaders and politicians do. Not just what they say but what they do.

That then turns into the A, and my A is advocacy. I think this is may be the most important one. What I recommend is whenever you have a chance to talk to an elected leader or could be even a business leader, but somebody who will listen to you. You can very politely say, ma’am or sir, what are you doing to stabilize the climate? It’s an open-ended question, like dating 101. Don’t ask yes or no questions. You might get an okay answer. You might not, but at least you shouldn’t get a yes or no with that question. It registers into that politician’s brain that you as a voter, as a constituent, you could have asked about anything, but you asked about climate.

There’s this stereotype of politicians, they don’t listen. They’re this, they’re that. The vast majority of politicians I’ve worked with, they’re pretty smart people. They may or may not know a ton about science or about some types of technology, but they know a lot about people, and they know a lot about their district. I remind myself, every time you go talk to a politician, they got elected for a reason. They’re there for a reason, and they’re probably pretty cognizant about their voters, and they want to stay in touch. When their voters decide that climate is an issue, the congress will decide that too, and we’re already seeing that. I look at gay rights as it’s an imperfect analogy, but look at the change in our country, right? 10 years ago, 11 years ago, I mean, President Obama was frankly against gay marriage. Why, because that’s where back in 2008, that’s where the country was. The country changed and you watched the politicians of both parties not walking but running, running to catch up with their constituents.

Nowadays, by and large, it’s pretty much a normalized issue and you’re really pretty far out of the mainstream if you don’t understand why supporting gay rights is a basic human right, right? How do we get there with climate? We get there when you and me and everybody listening to this podcast, and really 60%, 70% of Americans say, hey, I want a stable climate. I want the climate that I grew up in. That I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in. I don’t want to think about moving every major American coastal city. I don’t want to think about what that life that we’ve never seen in human civilization is like. I expect climate stability. If that is made known to the congress, and people actually vote that way, I think you will see the congress change very, very rapidly. What can we do? We can make our concerns known because if we don’t then nothing is going to change.

Tanya: Yeah. No, absolutely. I think that there’s a lot more awareness that were really developing especially – I’m cautious about educating myself, educating my children. Leading efforts in schools about not using so much plastic and all these little micro efforts eventually. Of course, doing what you’re suggesting advocacy and learn about the issue and local action and really monitor the issue. It’s critical. David, this has been really eye-opening, and I know that there’s – actually, you have so much interesting past experiences. You also led Penn State Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk which in two minutes, what did you do because I don’t want to just not include that.

David W. Titley: Sure, I know we’re going long here. I realize that, yes.

Tanya: Yeah. No, but that’s great. Yeah, what did you do? What was the purpose of that initiative and what was accomplished?

David W. Titley: At the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, really what I was trying to do is, is in a very simple way, how could we better use tools that we already had or at least data that we already had and maybe turn it into tools that would help people make better decisions, on both weather and climate risk? As an example, I had a graduate student working for me, and we develop basically a storm surge index that’s very much like the well-known hurricane index that’s called the Saffir-Simpson index. People talk about, oh, it’s a category 2 or a category 3 or a category 4. We wanted to develop an index that was let’s say a little bit more like earthquakes in Richter scale. I could go to my mom and say, hey mom, there was a 7.3 earthquake in California last night, let’s say. She would know that’s bad. Now she didn’t really know much about P waves or S waves or the details of the geophysics, but she understood that.

We basically came up with almost a Richter-like scale of storm surge. Then that is published and it’s out in the peer-reviewed literature and things like that. I had some other projects in which we looked at, could we come up with a, what I call a Seems Like Index. I think most people are familiar with, in weather, we have a Feels Like Index. If it’s really hot and humid, maybe the thermometer says it’s 95, but it feels like it’s 105, right? My Seems Like Index is, let’s say when it’s 70 degrees in Pennsylvania in February, it seems like it’s the first of May, the 15th of May, whatever. Almost like we do feels like, could we say well, it seems like it’s two weeks – the warming is two weeks ahead or maybe it’s a week behind what we would expect. You could actually then also look at those data and aggregate them and you say, for the last decade, spring has been coming a week ahead of time from what it used to be or fall is being delayed by two weeks. We worked on a Seems Like Index.

I’ve actually worked for a major Fortune 100 company. Could we predict pollen? Could we predict allergies? Not just looking at sales of over-the-counter drugs in pharmacies, to figure out how bad people’s allergies are, but could we actually put a generation of pollen and then blow it around in the computer models and have it rain out and it falls to the ground at night and get stirred up in the day with the winds. That was pretty interesting as well. Those are just some examples, but really the overarching theme was, what could we do using today’s existing technologies to help people better understand both weather and climate risks.

Tanya: I mean, just even the examples of allergies or other risks like rising sea levels, when you think about climate change, you think it’s something – or many people might think that it’s something that’s not directly impacting them, but wrong actually. There’s a lot of things that are directly impacting them and something that we have to take action on immediately. All of us individually and collectively. David, thank you so much for taking the time and sharing your lifetime of knowledge and experience with us. Also, thank you for speaking in front of congress and being a real advocate for us to take action on stabilizing the climate. It means a lot to me and I’m so grateful that you’re doing that work also for my daughters and for everybody on the planet.

David W. Titley: Thanks so much, Tanya for having me on your podcast.

Tanya: Thank you so much.

 

Unmessable podcast explores what it takes to be a great leader via candid discussions with success business operators and renown thought leaders.

Read more

About

Tanya Privé leads the strategy and execution for Legacy Transformational Consulting as its Partner and… Read the bio

WANT TO TALK?