Angela Duckworth: The Gritty Road to Growth

26:58Welcome back to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki. We are so freaking deep. I'm sure this is not at all what you want to talk about because I haven't really told people about what I'm thinking about. Actually, this is beyond my wildest expectations. We got to lighten up for a while because my head is going to explode. I have to say that I love your new show about no stupid questions. So can we veer off into that? Totally. Okay. A little levity. First of all, just fundamentally, how do you come up with the questions that you decide to answer on the show? So No Stupid Questions is a show on the Freakonomics radio platform.

27:44And I started it with Stephen Dubner, oh gosh, maybe three and a half years ago. And we had the idea that there are no stupid questions. I mean, there probably are a few stupid questions, but questions are just things that you don't know. And there's this definition of curiosity that I love. So scientists who study curiosity often say it's simply wanting to know. That's what a question is anyway. It's the formulation of something that you want to know. So Stephen and I would come up with questions and then we would ask the people who listened to No Stupid Questions what questions were on their mind, what they were curious about.

28:19And so now I have a new co-host. His name is Mike Maughan. He's like you. He's from tech. So he's interested in human nature like you, but he comes from a tech background. And every week we have a question that is either from a listener. I think that's about half of the questions. We just get these emails and we read through them. And if there's a question that we think there's, there actually are no stupid questions, but the question has to be one where there's like something to say from a behavioral science perspective. Otherwise, I'm not especially helpful. So we pick half the questions from that.

28:53And then I would say the other half of questions just come from things that I'm thinking about or Mike's thinking about. Okay, so that's how you get the questions. Now, what's the process to answer the question? There is a little of a conceit, if you will. It's not that I have a spontaneous conversation. Nothing's rehearsed and nothing is scripted. But I think about the question for a week or so in advance. We decide, oh, let's take these questions. And then I'm on my side anyway. I think Mike probably does the same, but he does it without science. He looks at stuff and I don't know, he reads things in the newspaper.

29:29He thinks about stories. For me, if anybody asks me any question, I look at scientific research, really almost any question anybody asks me. My first instinct is to ask what research has been done. So I make sure that I've put in my working memory things that I think are important to say. And then we really do just have a conversation. And then we cover the things that I think are important, the things that he thinks are important. I think to me, the model in a way was, did you ever listen to Click and Clack, the two guys? Yeah, right. They had those great Boston accents. The Tappet Brothers, I think they were called.

30:06Anyway, they would have that show where they would like talk about a car problem every time was car talk, right? And they would just answer the question about somebody's carburetor, but also they would digress and they would. So that was a little bit the model. Okay, but getting even more tactical. So when you say you want to seek the answer to this question and you look at all the research, exactly how do you do that? Do you use Google Scholar or do you go to the Journal of Applied Psychology? What do you use? That is a good journal guy, by the way, the Journal of Applied Psychology. Okay, this is the way I would go about research.

30:43So this is, I think, the advice I would give to my graduate students, but humans can do this. if they want to know the answer to a question and they want to know what scientists think. So I do go to Google Scholar. By the way, ChatGPT is quite good, and I use that as well. I think everybody should use ChatGPT every day, and I try to discipline myself because otherwise it's like physical therapy. I just feel like I should do it every day and make sure I'm keeping my ChatGPT muscles toned. But I first go to Google Scholar because when you enter anything into Google Scholar, So say you say income and happiness, right, like perennial question, if I get richer, will I be happier?

31:21And you just put income and happiness into the search bar for Google Scholar. What you'll get is a rank ordered list of scientific publications with some algorithm on the back end. That's pretty damn good because they give you the most highly cited, but it's not exactly an order of citations, like the most prominent, well-regarded journals like the Journal of Applied Psychology. And whatever they're doing on the back end to give you that, I will tell you because I can search for things that I really know well, and I would give like roughly the same rank ordering. So if you look at the first 10 or 20 references, when you do a Google Scholar search for anything, you have a medical problem, you have a problem you need to solve at work, oh, you don't have a behavioral scientist or another scientist on lookup, just put into Google Scholar.

32:09So I go to Google Scholar and I do ask ChatGPT, which sometimes actually I think what this new generative AI is so very good at is and the reason why it's a good adjunct to doing Google searches. But, you know, you know more about this than I do, I'm sure, is that it is really able to synthesize. So instead of just getting the top 10 or 20, I mean, it's looking at all the hits and then it's putting it all together for you. So I triangulate between those things. And I think for any topic, and I don't know what you think because you've done a lot more interviewing and a lot more thinking about how to get smart about a topic, I think, fast.

32:43But for me in science, there's always between three and five key people. And I say this to my doctoral students. If you can find the three to five key people and then just follow the breadcrumb trail of the things that they've done, and I would read their work in reverse chronological order. So once you do the Google Scholar search and you're like, oh, I see this name a lot and like this article is really good, then find that person, go to their profile and read in reverse chronological order. In other words, read their most recent stuff first and give it the most weight. Because if they change their mind in 1985, you don't really need to know what came before 1985, right?

33:21And you can get pretty smart on a topic very fast. I just want you to know that you, Katie Milkman, Bob Cialdini, and Brene Brown are probably my three to five key people that I follow. You're a Mount Rushmore. I don't want to put myself on that much. That is. I think you've named, and I include Brene Brown on this, right? Because I think she's not exactly in my social network because she's not primarily dedicated to publishing academic research. But I would count her actually as a world-class psychologist. I think her training is more like sociology or whatever. But sometimes I read things and sometimes they're like poets or novelists or CEOs.

34:04Sometimes I hear or read something and I think that person is a world-class psychologist. I often am talking to a high school track coach. I'm thinking of one in particular. His name is Kirk. And when I talk to that person or I'm thinking of an eighth grade teacher named Al-Hasan, Like they are world-class psychologists. So I have my own little Mount Rushmore also. But I think these insights into human nature, I think Peter Drucker said at the end, not at the very end, maybe toward the end of his career as a management guru, Peter Drucker said something like the challenge of our time is not a technological challenge.

34:39And it's certainly not an industrial or manufacturing challenge. The challenge that faces humanity is to understand itself, right? Like human nature is the next frontier. And if you just look at our physical health and the climate and how we're getting along these days and war and voting and politics and education, I just can't see how Peter Drucker could have been more right. We have to understand human behavior and emotion and thinking now more than ever. I think that is exactly the challenge of the 21st century. I love that you love Peter Drucker because Drucker said something like the task of a company is to create customers.

35:25And I have held that in my brain since I read that. What does that mean, by the way? All about creating customers. What does that mean to create customers? As opposed to what? As opposed to make money, as opposed to create jobs, as opposed to foster innovation. The way you create customers could involve any of those. But the goal is to create a customer where there was no customer before. I would say that I love Peter Drucker, but maybe I can't say I'm a Peter Drucker aficionado because I didn't know that. Then again, I never had to read Peter Drucker to run anything. I was actually reading him for his insight.

36:02You should read The Effective Executive. It's really, I think his. Is that his best work? He best. Yeah. Best work. Yeah. So now let me ask you. That's very good. When you first come up with this question, how often does your intuition prove to be right versus wrong? It's such an excellent question. I think I only have half an answer. And the answer that I'll give you is I'm not often surprised by what I find when I look at something and go. But the reason why I think that's half an answer is that I am most certainly committing confirmation bias, right? When somebody asks us anything, we have an idea, we have an intuition.

36:44The problem about human cognition is that we then search for all the reasons why we're right. And that's called confirmation bias. And I think I'm guilty of that. I do think, though, that all of these biases, so many people are familiar with Danny Kahneman's work. If you're going to have a Mount Rushmore, by the way, You have to have Danny Kahneman. Do you not have Danny Kahneman on your map? University of Chicago. No. Princeton. You know who's at University of Chicago? I think you're thinking of Richard Thaler and they're very good friends. And they're both credited with birthing behavioral economics.

37:15But Danny Kahneman spent the last decades of his career at Princeton and he's still alive, by the way. So he's like a living legend. And he pioneered this field where like, oh, there's this bias and there's that bias and here's another one and yet another. But one of the things that I think Danny would like readily and loudly not only admit to but want to shout out to everyone is that all these biases that exist, anchoring bias, et cetera, they're there for a reason. You think about them as mistakes, but they're these rules of thumb that mostly work and sometimes don't. So confirmation bias probably has a sort of – and I'm not saying there's not a problem with always looking for reasons why you're right.

37:58It's a problem in hiring. It's a problem in decision making. You don't want to run a business and be prone to confirmation bias all the time. But it's also helpful, I think, to, for me, I do have this very simple framework that I've learned in psychology that I'm probably confirming all the time. But without that framework, and I can tell you what it is, but without that framework, I think I would be like flotsam and jetsam on a very tumultuous ocean. I'd be like, I don't know. Somebody would ask me a question about what they should do with their kid who feels anxious because she said something that she hopes her friend doesn't hear.

38:30And if I didn't have a framework where I was like, let me go and confirm this with my framework, I would be like, I don't know. I have no idea. So I'm probably engaging in confirmation bias, but that's maybe not entirely a bad thing. Wait, wait. What's the framework? So the framework is – so I'll use the term that Stephen Dubner used to use. He was like, oh, the three-box frame. I was like, oh, yes, the three boxes. So he causes like the three boxes model. It's that when you try to understand anything, so say your daughter is anxious or you're anxious, right? You're ruminating about some negative feedback that you got from your – for me, oh, I got some negative reviews on this course that I just taught at Wharton.

39:08I got positive reviews too, but of course I'm only thinking about the negative reviews. So I'm ruminating, right? And I'm trying to understand the rumination. I'm trying to also maybe change the fact that I'm ruminating. So that's box number three. That's one of three boxes. And that is like how I'm responding right now. I'm feeling anxious, a little bit embarrassed, maybe preoccupied. OK, if I want to understand box number three and even change box number three, all I have to do is reverse engineer the boxes that came before. And there's only two others. Right. So what's box number two? Box number two are these what clinical psychologists often call the automatic thoughts.

39:44Right. So before I have the feeling of embarrassment or anxiety or shame or regret or happiness, joy, you know, fill in the blank. And even before I do anything, there's always this box that comes before. And that is this very quick thought of what's going on. And sometimes we're conscious of these thoughts, but very often you're not conscious. And that is why a lot of therapy is the assistance of another individual to help you realize what those fleeting, automatic, but very powerful thoughts are that lead you to then feel anxious, to lead you to then feel pride or to make a decision in one way or the other.

40:21So those are your thoughts, automatic thoughts. Again, not always conscious, very often not conscious. And then box number one is the objective situation that gave rise to the thoughts that gives rise to the response. So it's situation, thought, response. It's a three box model for all the things that human beings do for good or for ill. And the reason why I find this to be very helpful is that, first of all, three is a very good number because it's small and people can remember it. But it gives you three points of entry for changing things. So what most people try to do is they just try to change box number three directly.

40:57Like, oh, I'm feeling anxious. I should stop feeling anxious. Oh, I'm ruminating. I should stop ruminating. Oh, I keep eating too much. I should stop eating too much. They attack box number three directly using willpower. And then what they fail to think about is like how to, you know, attack earlier, right? I read parts of The Art of War by Sun Tzu. And one of the major things that this great strategist said is you're trying to like defeat the enemy, right? The worst thing to do is to just fight them in hand-to-hand combat, right? You have to think about things more strategically. So more strategically, you could work on box number two.

41:28You could change how you think about things. That's a lot of therapy. Reframing things, putting things into perspective, taking some distance from things that might seem catastrophic because you're losing perspective. I think that's very important. And I'm a big fan of therapy. And I'm a big fan of my therapist, whose name is Dee, and I love her. But what I'm increasingly thinking about these days and I'm trying to write a book about, partly because of the things that my mother had to go through and how she changed her situation, but box number one solutions. Like when you are unhappy or your weight isn't what your weight should be or you're not as productive as you want to be and you're procrastinating.

42:05Instead of trying to attack box number three directly, which generally doesn't work, I will tell you as a behavioral scientist, willpower eventually fails. And instead of just working on box number two, oh, maybe reframe things. Maybe I think about things differently. I won't procrastinate. What about changing box number one? So one very specific example. I have not yet met a young person who has a healthy relationship with their phone. And what would you do? I'm not going to advocate using willpower to resist Instagram or being on TikTok at all hours of the night. I'm also thinking that just box number two isn't the only thing you could, oh, reframe this, think about your phone as something which is not only good but also bad.

42:42But just put your phone in a different room. If you literally put your phone in a different room, I do this in my classes. I'm like, put it somewhere you literally can't see it. And it's not directly in arm's reach. You have to hand over and unzip something. I think those box number one solutions are sometimes the least obvious and the most effective. This is the purview of tiny habits, right? Oh, is that BJ Fogg? Yeah, BJ Fogg, Stanford University, now Maui. Yeah. Okay. Oh, he moved to Hawaii. I don't know BJ Fogg. Yeah, I think honestly, like Ariana Huffington, I think a lot of people have had this intuition that if you want to change your habits, you should make changes to your like the cues in your situation.

43:26So I'm not taking any claim of originality. I think Balanchine, the great choreographer, said there are no new dances. They're only dancers that we forget and then remember. So I don't think anything I've said is genius or original. But when someone asks me a question in psychology, I think I always go back to these three boxes and I'm like, OK, they're trying to usually they're trying to understand box number three. And then I'm like, what was box number two and what's box number one? So I think that's probably converging with probably what a lot of other people you've talked to say. Now, on your podcast, what happens if the research that you do is conflicting?

44:03There's no clear right answer, but one respective scientist says one thing and the other one says the opposite and the two are in direct opposition. And you can't say one is a kook and one isn't. What do you do when there's a tie? And you literally can't say, right? Like you don't – it's not just I can't say because it would be impolitic. When things are in conflict in the scientific literature, who am I to judge? So I'll give you an example of this. There is an author and a scientist who studies generations like the millennials versus the Gen Zers, et cetera, et cetera. And her name is Jean Twenge.

44:38And she's a very prolific writer and oft-quoted thinker. And she really does believe that there are generational differences. And she has a really provocative thesis, by the way, which is that if there's one singular force that has changed culture and therefore changed the way we think and act and feel as individuals, it's technology. So anyway, that's Gene Twenge in one corner. And in the other corner are people who are critics and they have methodological concerns and they have their own studies and they will sometimes come to different conclusions. On our podcast, On No Stupid Questions, I try to represent both sides.

45:17I think it's almost always the case that both sides have something that is true that they are strenuously advocating for. You know, and when I believe that one side has a lot more evidence, I am not shy about offering my personal opinion, but that's just an opinion of one person. But one of the things I think that's misunderstood about science is that it's kind of like, oh, well, when scientists say, they say it in a chorus and it's fact etched in granite. But the whole endeavor of science is to keep discovering more, which means that almost certainly the things that we say today are wrong. The whole beauty of the scientific engine is that it's continually updating and revising.

46:00So things that we thought were true about DNA aren't quite the same as we know. We all thought Darwin was right and his rival, Lamarck, who said that giraffes have longer necks because they stretch their necks and then they have a baby giraffe and the next giraffe has a slightly longer neck. And we thought, oh, Lamarck was wrong. Like, how stupid. And Darwin was right, right? That, no, that's not true. It's just through genes, and the genes just get selected through natural selection. And the taller giraffes survive, and they have more babies. And so we're like, oh, Darwin. But you know what is true now with epigenetics?

46:32It's like, ah, you know, Lamarck wasn't totally wrong. It turns out that if you experience famine, there are changes in your, in sometimes the DNA, but certainly the things that go with the DNA that make it expressed. So like, you know, Lamarck wasn't entirely wrong. So we're continually revising. I think that the world is ready for a more complicated version of science. I think if I think back to the last 20 years, it's the New York Times changed. Now they actually have scientists saying things and research. But the next 20 years will be like people are going to be sophisticated enough to understand when things are not settled and that there are two sides or more to a question.

47:30You know, one of the great examples of this is when Tony Fauci at the start of the pandemic says not to wear a mask. I don't know, because there's a shortage of masks. And then two years later, he says everybody should wear a mask. And then people point out, Tony, you said we shouldn't wear a mask two years ago. you don't know what the hell you're talking about, right? Yeah, and this term flip-flopper, right? I think that's the highest compliment you could give to a scientist is that they're a flip-flopper, right? Like the highest compliment you could give is somebody who would say, hey, I said this before, and by the way, we were just talking about confirmation bias.

48:06You know how rare the person is who can say, oh, you know what? I was wrong. And you know who says that more than anyone? He's on my Mount Rushmore, Danny Kahneman. Danny Kahneman says, I was wrong out loud and in writing more often than any person I have met. And there is no greater thinker than Danny Kahneman, hands down. And that's like an excellent example, right? And you could say, oh, we can't trust Tony Fauci because one day he said this, the next day. No, there's humility in that person. And also there's curiosity and he's getting a better answer. It seems to me that when people say they don't know something, it gives them greater credibility when they say they do know something, right?

48:48I think, and I'm not sure, so I should say I think, I think there's research affirming exactly what you said, that when people are like, you know, I don't know. Like, here's what I think or here's what I do know, but I mostly don't know. I have to look that up. But I think people have the opposite intuition that you don't want to show any weakness. You don't want to show any hesitation. You don't want to show any uncertainty. But I think you're right. Well, if Angela Duckworth thinks I'm right, I can take that to the bank. So now can we have a little speed round? And the reason why I want to have this speed round is not only because I want to hear the answer.

49:29But I want to illustrate to all of you listeners why you should listen to Angela's podcast. It should be near the top of your list of podcasts, maybe tied with, wait, wait, don't tell me. We did some research about the most recent questions you've asked or answered on your podcast and to give the readers a taste for the kind of questions you ask and the kind of questions you answer and you don't need to spend 15 minutes on all of these just give us the quick gist okay the one-liner yes the one-liner okay why is it so hard to make decisions i can't do this guy this is too hard i was like wait no i can't do this you know why it's unsatisfying but there are too many thoughts in my head they don't fit in the line and like one-liners don't have semicolons.

50:26So I'll feel like I'm giving you shitty answers. That's the problem. How about this? I'll pass. And then let's see if there's any that I feel like I could give you a one-liner. Why is astrology so popular? Because it gives you answers for questions that you have. And it makes you feel like the answers are right. Okay. What is the point of IQ testing? I don't think there is much point to IQ testing. What is important in your choice of words? I think the answer is that words and language are actually changing. And so every time somebody says something and it really annoys you because you think they've said it incorrectly.

51:04Me and my friend went to the mall and I literally jumped out of my skin when I saw my friend from fourth grade. Right. Like for me. Oh, my gosh. That I know. We might not be alive. Is it harder to make friends as an adult? Yes, it is. But there are ways to do it. And the number one thing I would say that people mistake about friendship is that friendship is just like exercise or learning to play the violin. It's time on task. And the number one mistake I think people make is that they just don't invest enough time. They don't make it a ritual. Okay. Is marriage worth it? Yes. I think it is worth it.

51:42Okay. I think it is worth it. And if you'd allowed me a semicolon, yes. What marriage really is, is a lifelong commitment. And I do think there are different kinds of marriages. People sometimes are kind of married to a best friend. But I believe in lifelong commitments. Lifelong commitments will never go out of style. And marriage itself is a great version of a lifelong commitment. Are we getting lonelier? Everyone thinks that we are. But the unequivocal data is that we are spending more time alone. So we are getting a loner. But there's mixed results on whether we're truly getting lonelier. That's more to say about that.

52:17But we are definitely spending more time alone. Okay. And the last one, would we be happier if we were more creative? Pretty much. Yes. Creativity and happiness are related positively, not negatively. A lot of people think that unhappy people are more creative, but there's no real research suggesting that's true. and in addition to happiness making you more creative, being creative looks like it might make you happier too. Okay. Julia Cameron will be happy about that answer too. Because she's a happy creator. And just FYI, Julia Cameron has been on my podcast four times, so you have a goal. Whoa.

53:01Yeah. We'll bring you back for your new book, so that'll be three. Can you tell me who she is? Because I'm ignorant and I don't know. Oh, Julia Cameron wrote The Artist's Way. Oh, I haven't read that. Oh, you should read that. Should I write that down with the effective executive? Oh, you can just listen to the podcast we released today. It's her fourth time. Okay. Yeah, I don't know what you call it after a three-peat. She would absolutely do backflips over the story of your mother, the one you told earlier. She would love that. I will buy her book. I think she will love it if I listen to your podcast with her and buy her book.

53:39I would love the former. She would love the latter. She would love the latter. This is a way to make both of you happy. Now, I'll buy a copy for me and I'll buy a copy for my mom. Okay. I was thinking about having like a family book club. You know what I mean? I think that would be fun. Okay. So now, I'm just going to rattle off some questions I hope you consider for your podcast and we'll call it the day. Okay. You don't even have to write them down. Maybe none of them passed the test. Okay. Good. I'll just listen then. I think in the year 2024, you should answer questions that are at least related to politics to help people make decisions.

54:18I would argue you may have a moral obligation to do that, but I digress. Now, I suppose you could start something simple like, what was the cause of the Civil War? Because at least one person needs that question answered, but I digress. Here's some questions. We won't name names, of course. No, no, no, no, no, no. It would be like Haley's Comet. Anyway, so here's some questions as an active political wonk. Like, I love politics. I would love to get the combined brainpower of the two of you to answer. Okay, you ready? One is... I'm ready. Does gerrymandering really work in the intended make my party win?

55:05Second question, is Zoom and all the other virtual conferencing, is it a net positive or a net negative? Because in my podcast, Tom Peters and Julia Cameron both said it's a net positive. It's not nearly as destructive and inefficient as people say. Third question, or whatever number, does plagiarism truly represent a threat to society? Next question. Does the electoral college system work as intended? Or, I mean, does it work at all, really? Next one. Does DEI programs improve a company? Next one. Is there a correlation between wealth and wisdom? I'm not seeing any evidence of that, just to tell you the truth.

55:57Yeah, I was going to say, I bet you have a hypothesis about that. You could have asked, are they inversely correlated? I think it tops out around 5 million. And after that, it degrades. But anyway, and then I have an agenda here, but I think you should answer the question. Do you think that anyone can become remarkable? And as you may guess, you know how I feel, but I would really like to hear. Do you think anybody can become remarkable? Can you just I know what you I know the one word answer, but can you give me the three sentence answer? Well, to go back to the start of our interview, there are at least three factors, which is talent, grit and luck.

56:47Luck. And I would say that based on 200 guests, some of the most remarkable people have been on our podcast are people who have been imprisoned for 22 years for a murder charge or they were homeless or they were smuggled across the border as a baby. And my inclination is anybody can become remarkable. remarkable it's not something that's genetics it's a real combination of luck and perseverance more than anything yeah you won't be surprised that i agree with you and i was like writing in my journal because it's the beginning of a new year and i'm thinking about what i want to do and when i think about the people who are most inspiring to me they're not even my peers they're not even people who are like doing what i do but just doing it better and they're not celebrities that they're like high school football coaches.

57:45And I'm not like glorifying having a job that you don't get a lot of attention for. It's just that these, when I read about certain people who are just doing what they do for reasons that are truly sincere and deep, and they're trying to do it really well and be decent people, you know, and care about character more than reputation and help as many people as they can help in their craft. Like they cultivate their garden and they try to do it very well. and they're not looking for fame and they're not looking for fortune. They're not choosing a path that's going to lead to the most prizes. I have to say, I'm genuinely inspired.

58:20I wrote in my journal this morning for a long time. Instead of doing work, I was like, oh, I could work or I could write in my journal about what I want. And I was like, I'm just going to write in my journal. And I think those people really are remarkable, like the people that we probably already know. Yeah. I will tell you that in our book, we bend over backwards saying that you don't need to be Jane Goodall or Steve Jobs to be remarkable. You can change just one life and be remarkable. And one more plug for Julia Cameron. I'll give you the gist of her main concepts. So believe it or not, concept number one is every day you write in your morning journal.

58:59It has to be longhand. It's on paper. You cannot type it out. Every morning you write in your daily journal. The first thing you do. The second thing is she believes in walks. And this is a walk, not with your phone, not with your dog, not with your spouse. It is just you walking. The third concept is the concept of artist dates, where you take yourself on a date to go surfing. Or you take yourself on a date to go visit the zoo. or you have this like joyous thing that you do by yourself. Huh. Oh, so it's a date with yourself. Yeah, it's a date with yourself. And it could be going to your favorite bookstore or it could be going to listen to someone play the viola.

59:52Yeah. And. So these are three things and you do them all by yourself, right? You write in your journal in the morning. Basically. Yeah, go on a walk without. Yes. Even a podcast in your ear. and then you take these artist dates where you do something. So, Angela. I love it. I just love interviewing you. I'm definitely going to do the first two things. I'm definitely going to do the first thing. I'm going to do the daily, the morning journal. I have to think about the last one. I'm not sure about the second one. Her most recent book is, she adds a fourth thing, but I'm not going to tell you what it is because I want you to be curious and figure it out.

1:00:30Her book came out just now, and it's her fourth thing. It took 30 years for her to write this book, and I asked her, why did it take 30 years to write this? And she said, because I thought people would think I'm too woo-woo. Which that definitely brought a smile to my face. Oh, now I really want to know. You definitely whet my appetite. I love it. When I say that I'm ignorant because I don't know, I was certainly ignorant of her. It's not a name I know, but I know it now. Julia Cameron. I'm a Julia Cameron evangelist. Yes. You are a Julia Cameron evangelist. That could be your new title. I think the reason why people like you so much is that you really are an evangelist, but you're not an evangelist for yourself.

1:01:14I think that's the secret. It's like, oh, how to be an evangelist for Julia Cameron or Angela Duckworth. Exactly. And I'm not kidding. I was like, you know what? That is really profound. God, I am going to think about that. By the way, you sent me headphones, but then I was like, oh, I'm coming to Baker. So then I kept them in case you want me to send them back to you. No, no, no, no, no. Because I was like, you might need to give those to people who are recording from home. No, we give every speaker new ones. I have to admit that one of the reasons why we send free headset to every guest is not just that we want high audio quality, but in a sense, it's a signal, right?

1:02:03It's like we are probably the only podcast team that sends you a headset because we are so attentive to detail and we want such a high quality product. And this is proof. And then it's also, it's a gift, right? It's a gift. It's generous. There's no denying that Madison and I are generous people. But truthfully, the reasons why we give our guests a headset is because we want a very high quality recording for you, our listeners. And I also believe that by giving them that headset, we are signaling to them that we really care about quality. I dare say it's probably true that no other podcast that you listen to sends every guest a headset.

1:02:51Anyway, I digress. So that was Angela Duckworth for the second time. And I have to tell you that I was not at all prepared for that story about her mom and getting that second room to create an art studio and just blossoming at 89. And that is one of the best stories ever on the Remarkable People podcast. By the way, Madison and I have written a book called Think Remarkable, Nine Paths to Transform Your Life and Make a Difference. The book is divided into three sections, growth, grit, and grace. Growth, as you might suspect, features Carol Dweck. Grit, as you might suspect, features Angela Duckworth.

1:03:39Please check it out. Think Remarkable. And now my thanks to the Remarkable People podcast team. That would be Jeff C. and Shannon Hernandez on sound design. Tessa Nismer on research. Madison Nismer, producer and co-author. And Luis Magana, Alexis Nishimura and Fallon Yates. We are the Remarkable People team. We're in a mission to make you remarkable. Mahalo and aloha.

1:04:19This is Remarkable People.