Greg McKeown (00:02):
Welcome. I’m your host, Greg McKeown. This is the new Greg McKeown Podcast. I am here for this journey to learn how to understand each other better. Where did you learn how to handle conflict? What did you learn about how to handle conflict from your parents? What did you learn about how to handle conflict from classmates at school? What did you learn about how to handle conflict from the books you’ve read or from the shows you’ve watched? And what happens if what you have learned didn’t include how to handle conflict in a healthy way? What has the effect of that been on your relationships over your lifetime? Today, my wife and partner in crime, Anna, is joining me, and we will share a story or two, some of the things that we are learning, and some actionable advice. So that by the end of this episode, you’ll be better equipped to not only to handle conflict but also help other people, including the people you lead at work and your children and family members, to do it too. So let’s get to it. I once read about an Orthodox professor who on the first day of class, walked into the classroom, picked up a piece of chalk and walked to a student, handed it to him, and said, teach. That’s really my invitation to you to teach the ideas in this episode to someone else within the next 24 to 48 hours of listening. Anna, welcome to the podcast again.
Anna McKeown (02:10):
Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Greg McKeown (02:13):
Where did you learn to handle conflict?
Anna McKeown (02:17):
That’s a good question. I’m not really sure. I think maybe in my home with, from my parents and my siblings. I learned a bit at school with peers. I think it’s something you learned through experience. And it reminds me of some research I read years ago when the children were small. It was by Po Bronson in a book called Nurture Shock. And he talked about how children learned aggressive, like socially and emotionally aggressive behavior, according to these studies from educational television. And I found that really surprising. And then, as I thought about it, it made a lot of sense because so, so much of those programs focus on a conflict for the majority of it and then resolve it really quickly in the end. And in the research, one of the researchers hypothesizes that especially preschool-aged children can’t really break it into pieces. So they’re just learning as they watch as they go through every piece. And so they’re not able to put it all together and go, okay, this conflict led to this resolution. It was, oh, this is behavior that I’m learning and watching and observing, and then they model it.
Greg McKeown (03:45):
Okay. I’ve got to back up here. So you are saying the research found that not just watching television but educational television specifically actually taught children not how to resolve conflict? They didn’t educate them on that side of the equation. It actually taught them how to have more conflict.
Anna McKeown (04:07):
Yeah. Um, let me read a little bit of it here. I’ve got it in front of me. Dr. Jamie Ostra, who was an expert on preschool children’s aggression, and Dr. Douglas Gentile, a leading expert on the effects of media exposure. They teamed up and spent two years monitoring the kids at two Minnesota preschools, cross-referencing the children’s behavior against parent reports of what television shows and DVDs the kids watched. And they ranged from about two and a half to five years old. And Ostra and Gentile fully expected that the kids who watched violent shows like Power Rangers, so we’re dating this research, but the kids who watched violent shows like Power Rangers and Star Wars would be more physically aggressive during playtime at school. And they also expected kids who watched educational television like Arthur and Clifford, The Big Red Dog would be not just less aggressive but the kids would be more pro-social sharing, helpful and inclusive.
Greg McKeown (05:09):
I mean, that hypothesis makes sense. That’s, that’s what I would assume.
Anna McKeown (05:13):
Well, I think that’s certainly the intent of the educational television is that hopefully, children watching this will become more pro-social. It goes on to say that these weren’t original hypotheses, but the study’s importance was its long-term methodology. Ostra and Gentile would be able to track the precise, incremental increase in aggression over the course of the preschool years. They clarified that physical aggression included grabbing toys from other children’s hands, pushing, pulling, and hitting of any sort. Relational aggression at the preschool age involves saying things like, “You can’t play with us”, or just ignoring a child who wanted to play and withdrawing from friendship or telling lies about a child, all of which attack a relationship at its core. Verbal aggression included calling someone a mean name and saying things like “Shut up” or “You’re stupid”. It often accompanied physical aggression. At first glance, the scholar’s hypotheses were confirmed, but something unexpected was also revealed in the data. The more educational media the children watched, the more relationally aggressive they were.
Greg McKeown (06:23):
Okay. That’s interesting. What does that mean?
Anna McKeown (06:25):
Well, it says they were increasingly bossy, controlling, and manipulative, and it wasn’t a small effect. It was stronger than the connection between violent media and physical aggression.
Greg McKeown (06:36):
Oh my goodness. That’s crazy.
Anna McKeown (06:38):
Yeah. So they were curious about that and sat the team sat down and watched several programs on PBS Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel, and Ostra saw that in some shows, relational aggression is modeled at a fairly high rate.
Greg McKeown (06:51):
So it’s not explicitly violent shows, right? That has a, you know, violent shows lead you to act out violence, right? You know, children who are watching Batman, Robin, you know, suddenly afterward are going crazy, sort of fighting each other. But that in this relational interaction, the these, this poor interpersonal behavior, they were actually learning more of that in these educational shows than in the violent shows.
Anna McKeown (07:28):
Yes. I thought this was really crazy. And I know that this is dated. So I know that there I’ve seen really great children’s programming, but there is some not-so-great children’s programming that I feel like we need to be aware of and the impact that it has on children. Po Bronson goes on to say that under the supervision of professor Dr. Cynthia Shibe, I’m not sure if I’m saying that right. Ithaca undergrads patiently studied 470 half-hour television programs commonly watched by children, recording every time a character insulted someone, called someone a mean name, or put someone down. Shibe’s analysis subsequently revealed that 96% of all children’s programming includes verbal insults and put-downs, averaging 7.7 put-downs per half-hour episode. It said that even the ones that were considered prosocial still have 66%, containing insults. And they’re like really breathtakingly, cruel insults. One of them is from SpongeBob Squarepants, and it says, how do you sleep at night knowing you’re a complete failure?
Greg McKeown (08:44):
Huh? Yeah. That’s so interesting because, I mean, I am familiar with the idea that conflict gets our attention. So, it’s the conflict in really any media. Any theatrical performance, any book that you are reading? I mean, the conflict is what gets your, gets your attention in the first place.
Anna McKeown (09:12):
Yeah. I found this really interesting to me in particular because my experience in elementary school included some of like being on the receiving end of some of these. And I know I’m not alone. That’s part of the experience of going to school, but this was helpful to me, this research, because one, it, it gave me actually a more compassionate view of the children who do this, who do, you know, model this behavior. And it also changed how I viewed children’s learning. I became much more conscious of the impact of modeling in a child’s own behavior and that if I wanted to impact my children’s kindness and behavior, one of the very best things I could do is to try and model good behavior and limit the amount of unkind, antisocial, cruel behavior that is weaved into some children’s programming. I mean, I think maybe the reason they have it in there is because it feels more real or more interesting.
Anna McKeown (10:38):
But I think we do ourselves a disservice when we lower the standard to even the status quo. Let’s raise the standard, especially in children’s programming so that they have an aspirational example before them. So that they have something good that is being modeled because they, of course, in real life, there’s plenty of ups and downs, and there’s plenty of unkind behavior, but I think we assume that we don’t have any control over it or that we don’t have much influence over that. And what this study showed to me was there is a lot of potential for a parent’s impact on modeling, good behavior, and conflict resolution for their children and the impact that that has on their children.
Greg McKeown (11:23):
Well, and this also makes me think of every show you are talking about, or every show we can ever watch, of course, has to be written by somebody, by a team of people. And, and those people are influenced by many different factors, but among them is their own actual training and personal experience with conflict. And so it’s not obvious to me that just because somebody, a writer for a series of shows, even if it’s targeted for children, are necessarily well versed in conflict resolution skills and mindsets and words to use. And you have to be able to find those words if you want to write about them, just to state the obvious. And so it gives me pause because what my, my own exposure to this subject leads me to believe is that most people have received no formal education in negotiation, conflict resolution, listening, understanding, expressing your own needs in a way that other people can better meet them for you and getting other people to do the same.
Greg McKeown (12:40):
I mean, this is quite a new subject. So how can you write outside of your own experience and education? So this at least gives me pause. It also gets me to go back to the questions from the beginning. Where did you learn to handle conflict? Now, you mentioned it very briefly, but your answer at first to that question was well from my parents, which is exactly what I also thought when I reflected on that question. And that just opened a Pandora’s box for me because it makes me think, well, if that’s how we learn, then what’s my responsibility for modeling myself, how to handle conflict. What have you learned about that? What have you, what did you read about that? You know, what is your understanding of how to better model conflict and conflict resolution?
Anna McKeown (13:43):
This is discussed again in Nurture Shock by Po Bronson. And I had a total paradigm shift learning about the impact of parents actually on their children’s emotional wellbeing. I’m actually gonna quote this because he, it takes a little fine-tuning to express it correctly. And I think he does a really good job. Po Bronson says that children appear to be highly attuned to the quality of their parents’ relationship. And I certainly feel like that was my experience. Greg, is that your experience? Were you highly attuned to the quality of your parents’ relationship?
Greg McKeown (14:23):
It’s a bit of a leading question there. Of course, that’s true. And I, it was certainly true to me, all sorts of nonverbal learning. I’ve learned in my adulthood that the importance that often your learning as a very young child, what is not being said. I mean, you are picking up all sorts of vibes and lessons, of how, what to say and what not to say and how to handle disagreements and all of this is very much in the air. And as a child, of course, you have nothing to contrast it to. So it’s just the way it’s done.
Anna McKeown (15:07):
Exactly, Greg. Po Bronson quotes Dr. E. Mark Cummings as having described children as emotional Geiger counters. I didn’t know what a Geiger counter was. I had to look that up, but it’s a device that measures radioactivity. It’s a perfect metaphor.
Greg McKeown (15:26):
That’s what you’re doing as a child. You are sensing that. I mean, you don’t have the words for it. And that’s part of the problem. You’re absorbing it without language, without context, but you’re definitely feeling the toxicity in the room, the level of happiness, and it’s very hard to do anything about it. Whatever it happens to be, you’re just there to absorb it.
Anna McKeown (15:54):
Bronson goes on to say that in one study, Cummings found that children’s emotional wellbeing and security are more affected by the relationship between the parents than by the direct relationship between the parent and child. But then he goes on to say, so are parents distressing their children with every bicker? Not necessarily because you read that, and you go, oh my goodness, am I damaging my child every time I have an argument with, with my spouse?
Greg McKeown (16:22):
I want you to explain it again, though, because there’s a lot, there’s a lot in what you just said, that the wellbeing…
Anna McKeown (16:31):
The well-being and security are more affected by the relationship between the parents.
Greg McKeown (16:37):
So, our children right now are more affected by our relationship than by our relationship with each of them. That’s what you’re saying the research showed.
Anna McKeown (16:52):
Yeah, that is, that’s what the research showed.
Greg McKeown (16:54):
So that is very profound, though, for a second. Of course, directly for family dynamics. And I think that that is, that is true. And that’s what I’ve observed in my own family and in others. But I think it’s also true in a team dynamic as well. That the relationship between the not only your manager, but the other managers above you, and if there’s toxicity there, or if there’s problems there, or there’s unresolved conflict going on there that can affect and seep into your experience in a business, I think sometimes as much or more then the relationship you happen to have with your manager. I’m not sure if the research would show the same thing, but I know that there are many times that team members are significantly impacted by the conflict between the next level up. And I think it’s because you can’t do anything about it, or you feel that you can’t. You can’t do anything about the way that your parents handle conflict, or you think you can’t. You can’t do anything about the way that the managers above you communicate or are working together. So you just end up being directly impacted by it anyway. Your thoughts.
Anna McKeown (18:15):
Yeah. I completely agree. I think whoever is in that position of leadership, we’re looking to them for guidance and also to understand the culture of the environment that we’re in and how things are handled, what the communication is like. What communication seems effective or non-effective. Or if it just breaks down completely that all affects your, you know, your position as someone who’s being led.
Greg McKeown (18:49):
I’ve often heard leaders talk about we need to be one team. We need to be unified. We need to work together. But what is it worth if the leader who’s saying it to you is at complete odds with another leader in their peer group or with their boss? And you can feel all of that unresolved tension, all of that conflict under the surface, you know, the words do not matter if what you’re observing and what you’re feeling is like employees are emotional guidance counselors. And it really is non-trivial because, as far as I’m concerned, work trauma is trauma. And so when people come to work, I mean, is it not plausible that a portion of the reflex against going back to work physically, this desire to work from home, that a portion of that is to avoid some of the toxicity that exists often in these hierarchical structures with all of this unresolved conflicts and contentions and what you don’t feel safe to be able to talk about the things that you’re concerned about? I just received an email this week from a listener to this podcast who wrote, “I’ve hit on something that I need help with. I enjoyed two years of a forced time-out. And now that I’ve gone back to the office environment, I find it so incredibly toxic.” They concluded what they wrote to me by saying, “It seems whenever I’m around these people, with all of their drama, they drain the energy out of me. I love my work but hate my job.” Anyway, back to you, your thoughts.
Anna McKeown (20:48):
So what do you do? Is there any hope? And I really loved what Po Bronson’s research showed is that there absolutely is. And in one of the studies that they conducted, a third of the children who’d seen conflict had reacted aggressively. They shouted, they got angry, or punched a pillow, but in that same study, something else happened, which eliminated the aggressive reaction in all but 4% of the children. What was this magical thing? Letting the child witness not just the argument but the resolution of the argument. And that gave me hope and broke a paradigm of mine because it’s, I think, a natural impulse to want to leave, when things start to get emotional and heated, and the conversation becomes difficult and angry, you know, it’s heading that direction. Now, hopefully, we can keep it at a tame enough level that it’s not escalating out of control and insults are avoided. And the dispute is actually resolved with affection. That’s the goal. Of course, we’re not always going to hit that mark, but that felt like a good goal, not an impossible goal. And that is something that you and I have tried to implement.
Greg McKeown (22:22):
We just argue terribly in front of our children all the time.
Anna McKeown (22:25):
No, but when we argue, we try not to leave. And even if we have needed to take a time out, we try and come back to it and communicate that to the children, the resolution.
Greg McKeown (22:43):
I think that there is a parallel between that paradigm shift that you are describing, that you went through, that I always went through because of you, to dynamics I see in executive suites, in management teams all over the world. And it’s this, it’s that you’re in a meeting typically fairly boring, two or three people on their laptops, you know, fairly disengaged, someone’s doing a presentation. There’s some conversation, you know, it’s a surface-level thing. And then somebody says something that’s interesting because there’s conflict around it because there’s disagreement around what they’re saying. And suddenly, people peer over the laptop, and they, you know, they put their phones down, and they lean forward. Oh, this is going to be interesting. And then the real moment happens because somebody will say one of two things, they’ll either say, “Oh, I think we’re all saying about the same thing”. You know, because someone’s uncomfortable with the surfaced conflict.
Greg McKeown (24:07):
And so they want to, oh, it’s not professional to deal with that. Let’s put that aside or, or the other term for it. Let’s deal with that issue offline. And I know that people listening to this have heard that exact phrase used, and I for one person, want to go to the island offline because apparently there’s lots of really interesting disagreements and conflicts happening there. But of course, that’s not what happens. The people who are involved in that disagreement, the person who started having the conversation, they don’t pick that conversation up afterward. It took it being brought to the head for it to happen, even in this moment.
Anna McKeown (24:54):
Well, I can think of examples in the professional space where the leadership is skilled at addressing these kinds of things. Those really stick with you because they seem more rare.
Greg McKeown (25:12):
Are you thinking of a particular situation or a particular person that was good at this? Is that what you are saying?
Anna McKeown (25:19):
What I think of are, are good leaders. Leaders who are communicating all the time and who are addressing the issues in real-time and they’re aware of them, and they’re in touch and asking questions and observing things.
Greg McKeown (25:39):
Not letting it all build up.
Anna McKeown (25:41):
Yeah. And usually, these leaders seem actually empowered, empowered to do something. And I think that is really essential. I think a lot of leadership feels like it can’t take action at times, depending on the culture. But I think people want to take it offline as well because maybe we don’t have the skills to resolve it. It’s a real high-level skill to be able to address those issues in a meeting in front of a bunch of people, keeping your cool, and actually feeling empowered to do something about it that’s helpful and helps resolve the situation.
Greg McKeown (26:23):
Yes. Because there’s two typical responses to highly emotional, highly important issues where there is disagreement. The typical response is, as I’ve already said, I think in hierarchical situations, it’s, let’s just not really address it. Like it’s, it’s safer for my career to just, you know, look on the surface like I’m agreeing and just disagree privately. So that’s the idea, and people listening can ask themselves, have you ever been to a meeting where the real meeting happened after the meeting had passed? You know, the conversation takes place, but somewhere else where it’s not as useful. But then, on the other hand, you have these moments where it flares up, and then it’s not handled ajointly. It’s not handled with skill. It’s not actually resolved. So it just sort of something blows up. And then, you know, the other side doesn’t happen.
Greg McKeown (27:29):
That happened to me recently when I was working with a team the day before I’d worked with them. They had had a sort of relatively explosive, you know, not damaging, but kind of fight between two of the CEO and one of the other senior leaders about a disagreement about what the company was going to try and do going forward. So in a sense, that’s progress because at least you’re talking about it, but it was totally unresolved. And so it left a strange feeling in the team. And so we went from there to actually facilitating a conversation between those two leaders in front of everyone. Which, you know, Bravo to the leaders involved for being willing to do it that way. And it’s not what you always have to be able to have an external facilitator try to navigate that conversation. But I still think that’s what we really need. The team became much more unified, watching that they could have the disagreement the day before but then also resolve it fully in a way that was educational to everybody else. That seems a sort of metaphor for what it is we’re trying to do in an absolutely ideal way in a family setting as well.
Anna McKeown (28:51):
Yeah. That is the goal. We want to be able to talk about the things we need to talk about at home, at work, in a way that actually comes to a resolution.
Greg McKeown (29:06):
What can I do better in the conflict that we have in our home?
Anna McKeown (29:12):
I think that the thing that is most helpful when we are struggling to communicate, when communication seems to kind of break down, usually, you know, we get pretty emotional, both of us. And when you are able to begin restating emotionally for me, like emotionally restating what you think I’m saying that takes so much self-control to shelve your agenda at that point. And, when you do that, it really helps me to feel safe and to try and go ahead and try again, to open up. I think that is the most effective tool when when we are in conflict when we’re having a hard time seeing, communicating, understanding each other,
Greg McKeown (30:24):
When we are having an argument it’s among the more painful things of my life.
Anna McKeown (30:30):
Yeah, me too, for sure.
Greg McKeown (30:32):
And I think what makes it so painful is that this is quite a conceptual way to respond to it, but it really is because there’s this sort of nuclear reaction around multiple needs not being met at exactly the same time.
Anna McKeown (30:53):
Well, I think we’re both trying so hard that when it isn’t going well, we feel emotional and hurt, and how can what I’m giving not be enough?
Greg McKeown (31:06):
Yeah. I think that’s right when you’re trying really hard and then it’s not working. The nuclear material is that I feel misunderstood and therefore that’s so painful, I want to be understood. And that’s exactly what’s happening on your side too, is that you feel misunderstood, which is such an awful feeling.
Anna McKeown (31:28):
Yes. That you then
Greg McKeown (31:29):
Want to be understood,
Anna McKeown (31:30):
Whatever emotional and physical state we are in. I mean, how many times do you find me in some sort of harried situation where there’s five different things going on maybe, and I, and I’m tired and hungry and,
Greg McKeown (31:51):
Well, you’re talking about a very specific moment today.
Anna McKeown (31:53):
Well, that did come to mind.
Greg McKeown (31:56):
Well, and it wasn’t actually, that moment was, was an interesting example because I was in the office, I think. And, and you were out, you were handling one of our children who was headed off to work and was running late for that. And so there was that tension, plus you were, you know, running.
Anna McKeown (32:20):
And she hadn’t eaten. So I’m trying to help her because she hasn’t eaten and she also needs to take something to eat.
Greg McKeown (32:28):
And so you were doing, I could hear the tone of your voice changing that’s how I came…
Anna McKeown (32:35):
I know I could hear it too, and it’s very frustrating because I can hear it, but I don’t know how to escape it. You know, it’s, it feels like all these things are acting at once. Well, cause it wasn’t just, it wasn’t just her. I was in the middle of doing something and was interrupted from that thing to try and help this child. And actually, I think I was in the middle of about three things. Yeah.
Greg McKeown (33:02):
You were already maxed out before that additional urgent thing being put on you. And I think that’s what you said once I arrived, it’s like, oh my goodness, I’m doing a million things, you know? And, and here,
Anna McKeown (33:13):
Yes, because I was a bit curt with you and words of affirmation are important to you. And I certainly was not doing that. I was in the opposite of that. I was short and curt and not speaking lovingly.
Greg McKeown (33:29):
Yes, but it wasn’t. I mean, it wasn’t really, it wasn’t really shocking in this instant, but the reason I’m even going there about this is because that’s precisely the kind of moment that I will misinterpret. So I will, I will hear the tone change. Like I’m highly attuned to that. I’m highly aware, and I’m highly motivated to try and help or respond in any way I can. But the misinterpretation, the perception is, oh, you know, Anna’s frustrated with me and, and I’m too self-centered about it. Oh, this must be, you know, this must be about, I’m not doing something right. And then, because I’m trying so much, I’m therefore already defensive. And so it’s that it’s learning that that’s not what that meant. It’s learning that isn’t what it means that makes it much easier to be able to respond to the situation. And I’ve learned that that particular tone, that means, you know, it’s like a little cry for help. It’s I’m feeling some pain right now. And so, as soon as I know, that’s what it means. Of course, it makes, it makes the whole interaction, you know, I, I can avoid escalating it and being very unhelpful in that moment because I know what that means. But that’s taken me a long time to understand what that means.
Anna McKeown (34:56):
So yeah, we’ve played that little scene out numerous times over the years. It’s lovely to hear that we are learning, that I’m more aware of how my state is affecting you. And hopefully, I’m getting better at saying I am not mad at you right now. I am overwhelmed, and I don’t know how to behave other than stressed right now.
Greg McKeown (35:28):
What is helpful to me that you’ve been doing more recently is after the fact, just, just talking about it. There’s been a few things you’ve done. One, you will say, “Oh, thank you for, you know, understanding that moment., just being patient through that moment.” You know, it makes me feel like I’m making progress and that it does matter because sometimes it’s not like instant, it’s not instantly helpful. You can’t see the evidence that it’s helpful immediately, but that’s, that’s a helpful thing to me. And I think even as you just did right here and publicly, which is even more, you know, kudos to you, is just acknowledging that you hear the tone change too. You know, that’s helpful too, because just knowing, oh, I, I’m not going crazy. I’m not just hearing this. I’m not making anything up. You know, so that, I think that’s been very helpful of fully resolving those moments of conflict.
Anna McKeown (36:35):
Thank you. That’s helpful feedback. I appreciate it. I need that.
Greg McKeown (36:39):
So let’s come back again to the questions from the beginning. Where did you learn how to handle conflict? What did you learn about how to handle conflict from your parents? Your classmates? The books that you read? Comics? Maybe the shows you watched? And what did you learn from those sources? If that’s where you learned it, what did you learn? And in the show notes for this episode, I’m going to provide a tool for just how you could start reflecting on this in an explicit way. So it’s a printable, so you can download it, print it up, and there’ll be, you know, three columns. Where did I learn about how to handle conflict? What did I learn? And what has the effect of this been in my relationships? To be able to understand better why it is that you handle conflict in the way that you have.
Greg McKeown (37:44):
There are people, brave people, listening to this right now who have already done so much better than their grandparents did than their parents did that they have said,” I can see I’m going to stand apart from my intergenerational conflict heritage.” And I’m going to choose something, different transition people, let’s say. But there’s another group of people who have done that but don’t have a clear model of what to do instead. And so that’s something that this podcast is all about is trying to understand what we do instead. But the first step is still to acknowledge where we are and have a better understanding of that. So that’s a self-assessment a little self-reflection to go a little further with what we’ve been talking about so far today. Anna, give us the last word.
Anna McKeown (38:47):
I think if I were to say a last word, it’s that there’s always hope in improving our communication, improving our ability to resolve conflict and that resolving conflict is what builds emotional security and trusted relationships.
Greg McKeown (39:10):
That’s beautiful. Thank you, Anna, for being on the new podcast.
Anna McKeown (39:16):
Thank you for having me,
Greg McKeown (39:17):
Everybody out there, thank you really for listening. If you have found value in this episode, please write a review on Apple Podcasts. The first five people to write a review of this episode will receive a copy of Effortless: Make it Easier to Do What Matters Most. Just send a photo of your review to info, Gregmckeown.com. That’s I N F O GRE GM C K E O w n.com. And if you would like to be a part of a live session where we can practice negotiation and conflict resolution skills together, then sign up at essentialism.com/negotiation. And I’m going to let you all know once I’m really ready to do something that I think will be special. Remember to subscribe to this podcast right now so that you can receive the next episode. They come out on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Slight changes coming. Tuesdays will be solo episodes, and Thursdays will be like this, an interview, a conversation. I’ll be back with you on Tuesday. See you then.
