I'm going to read this one because holy cow, do you think? So I should say why we're here. Welcome to Explorations of Me for November 2019. So this month we are supposed to be talking about and are you ready? Do you think before you say what you're thinking, how do you work with it? Is it a negative? If it is a negative, can you keep it in? What can you say positively instead? Holy moly. This has not ever been something I excel with. I have a really hard time keeping things to myself. I am not the best person to tell a secret to. I can keep it if I try but yeah, that's a thing. If I don't approve of something, I usually say so. So it's not the best quality on the planet and I do try to be better at it. It's a constant thing for me. I do have some ideas on doing a journal page with this in mind. I need to look for a face. So I'm going to go look for a face to put on the page and we're going to go forward from there and I'll be right back. All right, I think this might be one of my favorite pages this year. Not because it was hard to make or it's some great painting or anything but the composition for me has a lot of meaning. Think before you speak. Really think about what you say before you say it. Words do hurt and words have power and so make sure that those words are putting power in the right place, I guess is my message. So what can you do with this subject matter this month? How can you change your train of thinking and your way of speaking to be a little gentler and a little kinder? What can you do with that this month? I'd love to see. Let's see what everybody else on the Explorations to Me team has come up with this month. I'm going to link all their videos in the description below. Check them out and show them some love. If you'd like to follow me on social media or support the free content here on YouTube, or over in the Facebook art groups, or any one of a number of other things, the links for all of those things are in my link tree list of links which is also in the description below along with my happy mail address. So check it out. Show everybody some love and like, share, and subscribe and don't forget the most important thing.  I'll see you later. Bye, guys.


So, we will try to now, if you look at, we discuss about price elasticity of demand, which talks about the relationship between the quantity demanded and price. What happens to change in the quantity demanded when there is a change in the price? Then we discuss about the income elasticity demand, which talks about the change in the quantity demanded due to change in the income. Then we discuss the cross price elasticity of demand, which reflects the change in the quantity demanded due to change in the price of the related goods. And finally, we discuss the advertisement and price promotion elasticity of demand, which talks about the change in the quantity demanded when due to the change in the promotional activity and the advertisement expenditure. Now, what we will do? We will solve some numerical staking each kind of the elasticity of demand. So, if you remember in case of price elasticity of demand, we discussed two types of price elasticity of demand. One is point elasticity and second one is the arc elasticity. So, in the first case, we will see how we will calculate the point elasticity of demand. So, the demand schedule is given here, when price is 3, quantity demanded is 20, when price is 4, quantity demanded is 15, when price is 6, quantity demanded is 9, when price is 7, quantity demanded is 7. We need to compute the point price elasticity of demand for decrease in price from 6 to 5 and we have to compute the point price elasticity of demand for increase in price from 5 to 6. So, we will see how we can do the point elasticity in both the cases. So, in the first case, when the movement is from 5 to 6, the original price is 5, the original quantity demanded is 11. The movement is from price 5 to 6 and the quantity demanded 11 to 9. Now, what is the change in the queue, when the price moves from 6 to 5, what is the change in the quantity demanded? Quantity demanded is from 9 to 11. So, quantity demanded is 2. What is the change in the price? The change in the price that is decreased from 6 rupees to 5 rupees. So, this is minus 1. So, and what is our original price? Our original price is 6, original quantity demanded is 9. Now, how we will find out the price elasticity of demand? Price elasticity of demand, if you remember the formula, this is del Q by del P multiplied by P by Q. So, in this case, what is del Q? del Q is 2, what is del P? del P is minus 1, P is 6 and Q is 9. So, if you solve for this, you get a value which is 1.33. So, the price elasticity of demand is minus 1.33, if there is a decrease in the price from rupees 6 to 5. Now, let us see the other one like where there is a increase in the price from rupees 5 to 6, whether it is the same elasticity of demand or the different elasticity of demand. So, in this case price is 5, quantity demanded is, price is 5, quantity demanded is 11, price is 6, quantity demanded is 9. Increase in the price from 5 to 6, quantity demanded decreases from 11 to 9. What is the change in the Q? Change in the Q is minus 2, change in the P is 1, P is equal to 5 and Q is equal to 11. If you find the price elasticity of demand now, it comes to del Q by del P multiplied by P by Q. So, in this case, del Q is minus 2, del P is 1, P is 5, Q is 11. So, the final value comes as 0.9. So, if you look at, even if in the same demand schedule, when we move from one point to another point, whether price 6 to price 5 or price 5 to price 6, the elasticity of demand is not same, because it is from the different direction if it is increasing or if it is decreasing. It means, if the case of increase or in case of decrease, the demand may be different, sometimes the demand may be inelastic and sometimes the demand may be elastic. Now, we will take the case with respect to the arc elasticity of demand. So, if you remember arc elasticity of demand, where you measure the elasticity of demand in a segment. So, if you consider here the different point of price and quantity combination. So, price is, suppose price is 10, quantity demanded is 30, price is 11, quantity demanded is 25, price is 12, quantity demanded is 21, price is 13, quantity demanded is 12, quantity demanded is 18, suppose point A, point B, point C and point D. The current price is rupees 12. Now, if there is a increase in the price by 1 rupees, suppose from price increases from 12 to 13, we will calculate how much is the change in the quantity demanded. So, now, we have to calculate the price elasticity in the segment or in the arc. Now, how we are going to do this? So, when price is 12, quantity demanded is 21, price increases from 12 to 13, quantity demanded will decrease from 21 to 18. Now, in case of arc elasticity of demand, what is the formula?  Since, we are calculating this in a segment, we always take the average price for find out what is the original price and what is the original quantity. So, if elasticity of demand is del Q by del P multiplied by P 1 plus P 2 and Q 1 plus Q 2, let us find out what is del Q. So, del Q is minus 3, because if you remember the quantity demanded decreases from 21 to 18. What is del P? Del P is equal to 1, because the price increases from 12 to 13. What is P 1?  So, if you put all the value now, then del Q is minus 3, del P is 1 multiplied by 12 plus 13 upon 21 plus 18, which leads to minus 3 multiplied by 25 by 39 leads to 1.92. So, elasticity of demand is equal to 1.9, which is greater than 1. It means the percentage change in the quantity demanded is greater than percentage change in the price and this generally happens in case of the, in case of, if you remember in case of which type of goods the price, this quantity demanded is more than change in the price, in case of the elastic good, any small change in the price leads to greater change in the quantity demanded. Now, we will take the case of a numerical in case of a income elasticity of demand. So, if you look at the government announces 10 percent dearness allows to each of its employee. So, in this case, if there is a increase in the DA that leads to increase in the income. Now we need to see what is the corresponding change in the quantity demanded or by which magnitude the quantity demanded is changing when there is a change in the income of the consumer. So, 10 percent increase in the dearness allowances is announced by the government. As a result, the, as a result the monthly consumption of the petrol that leads to increase in the salary. So, 10 percent increase in the DA leads to increase of salary of the, increase of salary of the employee. That leads to the fact that the consumption of fuel has increased because there is a increase in the income. Now what is the increase? Increase earlier they used to consume 150 liter of fuel. Now they are consuming 160 liters of fuel per month. In this case what we will do? We will find out what is the income elasticity of demand. For this what we require? We require the change in the quantity, we require the change in the income, we require the original income, we requires the original quantity. So, what is the increase in the salary when there is a increase in the 10 percent DA? Earlier they were getting rupees 22,000 and earlier they were getting rupees 20,000. Now they are getting rupees 22,000. So, what is the change in the income? The change in the income is 2000. The change in the quantity demanded is, what is the quantity demanded change? That is 15 and what is the change in the, what is the original income? Original income is 20,000. What is the original quantity? Original quantity is 150. If you simplify this you get a value which is equal to 1 and that leads to the fact that increase in the income is just equal to the increase in the quantity demanded. Now, we will take a numerical with respect to the cross price elasticity of demand or may be first with the advertising elasticity of demand. So, the company increases the advertising expenditure from rupees 10 million to 20 million and as a result the sales decreases from, sales increases from 50,000 unit to 60,000 unit. We need to find out what is the advertising elasticity of demand. So, advertisement expenditure is increasing that is rupees 10 million to 20 million. This leads to increase in sale from 50,000 units to 60,000 units. Now, we will find out the advertising elasticity of demand. So, advertising elasticity of demand generally captures the relationship between the change in the advertisement expenditure and change in the quantity demanded of the sales. So, what is the formula for this? Change in the queue with respect to change in the advertisement expenditure, the original advertisement expenditure and the original quantity demanded. Now, what is the change in the advertisement expenditure? That is 20 million to 10 million, right 10 million to 10 million increases. So, what is the change? The change is 10 million. What is the change in the quantity demanded? The change in the quantity demanded is 60,000 to 50,000. So, the change is 10,000. The difference between the 60,000 and the 50,000. So, we know the change in the advertisement expenditure, we know the change in the quantity demanded. We know what is the original advertisement expenditure, we know what is the original sales. Now, we will find out what is the advertising elasticity of demand. So, del Q by del A. So, del Q is 10,000. This is 10 million, multiplied by 10, this is 50,000. So, 10,000 is the change in the quantity demanded because there is an increase in the sales from 50,000 unit to 60,000 unit. So, 10,000 is the increase in the quantity demanded, change in the quantity demanded. Earlier 10 million was the advertisement expenditure, now 20 million is the advertisement expenditure. So, 10 is the change in the advertisement expenditure, 10 is the original advertisement expenditure, 50,000 is the original sales. So, if you do this, then we will get to 0.2 as the advertisement expenditure, advertising elasticity of demand. It means 1 percent increase in the advertisement expenditure leads to 0.2 percent increase in the sales and if you look at this is the case of a relative inelastic because the change in the quantity demanded is less than the change in the advertisement expenditure. So, if you summarize whatever we have discussed in today's class and also what we discussed previously on the price elasticity of demand, the price elasticity of demand is generally defined as the degree of responsiveness of the demand for a commodity to change on its own price. It is the percentage change in the quantity demanded as a result of 1 percent change in the price of the commodity. So, if there is a 1 percent change in the price, what is the corresponding percentage change in the quantity demanded. So, through price elasticity of demand we generally measure the sensitiveness of the bias due to change in the price change in the price if there is increase or there is a decrease. So, the price elasticity of demand measure in two points, one is on point another is in the arc elasticity of demand. So, if it is in a segment generally this is known as the arc elasticity of demand, if it is measure in a point this is generally known as the point elasticity of demand. Now, what are the determinants that influence the price elasticity of demand? The first one is the nature of the commodity, the second one is the availability of the substitute, more substitute in the market more is the price elasticity of demand. The nature of the commodity whether it is luxury, whether it is necessity, whether it is a semi-luxury, and what is the proportion of income spent on the commodity. If it is more generally it is more elastic because when the consumer is spending sufficient amount of money on a commodity when the price changes they always look for the alternate. What is the time of time for adjustment available to the consumer? The longer is the time more elastic is the demand shorter is the time less elastic is the demand. What is the durability of the commodity? If it is more durable it is more elastic, but it is less durable it is less elastic. Item of addiction generally this is not considered as the normal consumption because people they are addicted to more and in this case the demand is inelastic. Then we discuss about the cross price elasticity of demand. So, cross price elasticity of demand is the degree of responsiveness of demand for a commodity to change in the price of its substitute and complementary goods. And if the cross price elasticity of demand between two goods is positive then two goods may be considered as the substitute goods and if it is negative two goods may be considered as complement. The greater is the cross price elasticity of coefficient the closer is the substitute and the higher is the negative cross elasticity coefficient the higher is the degree of the complementarity. Then we discuss about the income elasticity of demand it can be defined as the degree of responsiveness of the demand to change in the consumer income. The income elasticity of demand is always positive specifically in the case of the normal goods, but in case of inferior good the income elasticity of demand is always negative because the demand for inferior good decreases with the increase in the consumers income and vice versa. Then we discuss the advertisement elasticity of demand and found useful in the determination of the optimum level of advertisement expenditure and it helps the producer to decide that what is the right kind of production they have to do it in the future. So, that diverge the over production and under production. And for this typical topic this elasticity of demand these are the reference what has been followed for preparing this specific session.


one, I think we'll go ahead and get started. So I am so happy to be able to introduce Zach Drapekin, who is over at Primary Children's in the ED, and who is very passionate about how we communicate in medicine. I don't know if you guys realize this, but we're not very good at it. And, and that's pretty much the hallmark of everything we do, right? It's communicating with each other. It's communicating with patients. It's communicating with insurance companies and we do it in so many different ways. And of course, we're all human and in 10 situations, conflict happens. And I think I know my preferred method of conflict resolution is probably all of your preferred method, which is to ignore it and shove it way down deep inside me. And then usually have it come out at the person I'm not actually having conflict with, particularly like my husband, which I know he really appreciates. Anyways, we're going to learn better strategies for dealing with conflict in the workplace today. And so we're going to start with a lecture and then we will be breaking into smaller groups to kind of put some of these lessons into practice. So for those of you on Zoom, you can actually do like a little zoom chat if you wanted to or you can feel free to Okay, excellent. We've got breakout rooms on Zoom. So if you would like to participate on Zoom, you will still be able to do that as well. A lot of these scenarios are things that we encounter in everyday life. Some of them were with input from you know, the people that run a number of our divisions. And so these are things that we're actually dealing with here at Moran. And then a lot of them are also just things that you may encounter over the course of your career. So I've talked too long already. Zach, thank you so much. Thanks so much. And thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate being here. So I just want to first off start by just doing a big disclaimer. This is about managing interpersonal conflicts and medical setting in the goal of achieving good patient care. This is not an HR talk about how to deal with mistreatment or harassment and stuff like that. That's a completely different issue, different topic. And this is not what we're doing right now. So I want to start by just telling a story about why I'm here today talking about this because this is kind of an odd topic to be talking about for most people in medicine. When I was I did a ER residency, then I did a Pete's fellowship. I was feeling pretty good after I finished my residency, loved my job. I was doing I felt like I was doing great in fellowship. And then I got my first set of feedback. And it turns out I was a dumpster fire to work with, like the nurses, the techs, everyone hated working with me. I was like way too intense. I was not I didn't create a good working environment. I got a lot of feedback. I was not expecting and I was causing a lot of conflict in medical settings. And it really took me by surprise. That's not how I viewed myself. So I was fortunate to have some mentors who are really helpful. And I approached them and asked them, like, what do you do in these situations? How do you deal with this conflict that comes up every day? And my boss now, Howard catish gave me the best advice I heard in this is that no one's naturally good at dealing with conflict. It's not a innate skill that you're born with it to learn skill just like everything else we do in medicine, just like doing a physical exam, taking a history, seeing the fund is whatever it is, it's something you learn by practice and deliberate practice and actually learning the skills. So I went in a deep dive after that and and really explored how other specialties address dealing with conflict. And I learned a lot from by taking like a law course, I talked to people in business in the HR talk to people in medical specialties that routinely deal with conflicts like palliative care and child youth pediatrics, red books on hostage negotiation, all sorts of things and was able to put together some tips and tricks. And the thing I found most interesting about this is that medicine is the thing we think we'd need it the most like we're dealing with people in their worst hours we're dealing with people in stressful situations where they have loss of control conflict is a daily part of our lives. And we don't know how to deal with it. It will like lead us to death by 1000 paper cuts. It's really painful. And it just like you said, it's a burden on you if you don't have the skill set to deal with it. It's kind of interesting me that no one else really taught me in medicine how to deal with this and I did learn it from other specialty. So I had a chance to put it all together in terms like what I thought was the highlights of things I stole from other places and and come up with some tips and tricks that have really helped me out a lot. So I'm really excited to be here. So the key thing this is I'm not good at this. This is all things I learned and when I was learning about conflict, the first thing I learned is I had a George Costanza moment that every intuition I've ever had is wrong. That when it comes to conflict, like I was used to like, you know, this is why I'm right. This is why you're wrong and this is why we should move forward like this. And that's in medicine what we're trained to do, right? Like we're trained to have logic and to be logical people and to convince people that we're right. And that's what we do as consultants. We talk to each other on the phone and we're selected for that when the medical school application process like literally what's selected for it turns out that's just not productive when it comes to the day to day interactions and conflicts that happen. So I what I found is that I was doing everything wrong. Every tuition I've ever had is wrong. I kind of had to start over when I was when I was learning about how to actually deal with this. Like you mentioned, there are kind of three approaches for dealing with conflict. One is the serenity now approach where you just kind of say like, okay, I'm just going to ignore this. I'm going to push it off. And that's okay for the short term. And I would say I use this all the time if I wake you up at three in the morning with a crappy console and you're short with me, I just let it go. It's fine because I'm going mountain biking the next day. I'm cool with that. But eventually, like you said, it does build up in you and you can't hold it in forever. And you end up taking out other people. It ends up showing in your body language and your nonverbal cues in your tone of voice. It comes out. And also you don't have the opportunity to share your input. So it actually is detrimental ultimately if you use that as your only technique. Dug or not. This is what I was doing. This is where you just put your head down and get what you want. And it can be effective in the short term, not in the long term.  And you also lose valuable input from your team. And also you the camaraderie that happens in the workplace is one of the most enjoyable parts of being in a productive work environment. And you lose that. And that I think is a huge cause of burnout. So this will work in the short term, like just waiting to get senior enough to get your way. But ultimately, it's not effective long term. What I learned is that there is a way of going about conflicts where you actually learn skills to empower yourself to deal with them effectively in a way that you can get what you want, but also preserve relationships. And it was a really interesting skill set to me that was completely nonintuitive to me and completely different from anything else I learned in medicine. So that's why I want to talk about today is the skill set that will empower you to deal with these conflicts in a way that doesn't crush your soul.  And ultimately, I think it's one of the major causes of burnout in medicine is that we are not trained to deal with conflict. I mean, it's one of the most we know when it looks forward to dealing with conflict. Once you have the skill set to deal with it, we all like hard things, and it's nice to do hard things when you have the skill set to deal with it. So I'm hoping to give you some of those skills so that this is no longer like something you dread, but something that you're actually able to deal with and kind of look forward to. It's like a psychosocial jujitsu match. So the goals for the session, I'm going to talk about some ground rules of reframing conflict that will be crucial in terms of getting to better results. I want to talk about some common word traps that come up that just completely derail things, and it's fun to identify those when other people are using it, but also to make sure you don't use those word traps. Talk about some Jedi mind tricks that just put people at ease and get things going the right way. And then last, we're talking about an outline for managing conflicts and most importantly, go through some cases that are hopefully are relevant to you guys. So generally, when a pediatrician who works part time is giving a talk about feelings, there's no conflict of interest, and that's the case here. So I want to talk about some misconceptions with with conflict. First one is the one I had is that we're trying to prove that we're right and the other person is wrong. And if you have that attitude, it's just not going to be productive. And again, this is the attitude that makes us successful in medicine because we're used to proving our point and finding the right answer. And it turns out if you're trying to prove that you're right, you're just going to go in circles and not going to get anywhere. People are not very good at being told that they're wrong. So I think the first thing you think about is conflict is not a means of showing that we're right. The other person is wrong. Our goal should really be achieving mutual understanding and finding a path forward. So I think that that's the biggest thing, the biggest like take me remember nothing else. When you're in a conflict with the person, don't think about trying to prove that you're right and they're wrong. Think about how do I understand the other person and how can I help the other person understand me so we can move move forward. One thing that is tough with that is that we don't like being told we're wrong either. And it's really tough on us. And I think that the one of the most liberating things when you're dealing with conflict is to realize that you always each of us, me, everyone contributes to the conflict in some way. It could be that last time the person came up to me with suggestion, I was short with them. It could be I didn't have a good tone. It couldn't be I may be not receptive. I maybe didn't ask what their opinion was. There's something I may have done to contribute to the conflict. And the sooner I just acknowledge that the better. One thing in medicine that we were really bad at is engaging in all or nothing thinking we're either good or bad or competent or incompetent. And you can be a good caring physician and have made an error. You can be a kind person and have hurt someone by your actions. So the sooner that you drop that liberate yourself from that all or nothing thinking and just realize that yes, I've contributed this conflict. I need to understand how I contributed this conflict and acknowledge that the sooner you can move forward and avoid that cycle of just beating each other up. So this is one of the key points is what I like to call the lizard brain. So we all think that humans are rational people because we have an inner monologue that's very complex and tells us things. And we think that we're very, you know, rational. We're used to dealing with logic, especially in medicine. There's been a lot of really cool studies in psychology that have broken the brain down into two thought processes. One is our slow deliberate process. And that is our inner monologue. It's our logic, it's our reason. And the other is our flash judgments, what I call the lizard brain. It's related to the fight or flight response. It's ingrained. It's subconscious. We're not aware of it. And it turns out it has a very large play in our actions and a day to day basis. Our lizard brain has more control than we like to give it credit for because we don't hear we're not aware of it. And when there's a perceived threat of some sort, lizard brain wins hands down. So if there's any sort of threat in the beginning of a conflict, there is no ability to have a rational reasonable discussion. And there are certain things that trigger the lizard brain and again, a perceived threat. And in medicine, one of the biggest things that we have is when you attack someone's character identity.   If that gets attacked, I want to get real defensive.  So one of the first things we have to do is we have to realize how can we deactivate our own lizard brain so we can be rational and how can we deactivate the lizard brain of our counterpart so we can have a rational discussion moving forward. So reframing conflict. This is a really cool example I read in a book that I really like.  What's your response to that experience? Was that? Get out of the water. Fear. OK, so I'd have the same response, right? I'd be afraid, fear, terrified, mind blown. What if I would tell you that that 22 foot long basking shark is the second largest shark in the world that feeds on plankton. It's completely harmless to humans and seeing one is a once in a lifetime opportunity. There's no danger to humans. How would you describe that same experience? Yeah, so some people still say fear. Some people say super cool. Some people say excited. Some people post on Instagram, whatever. It's a completely different experience based on that one little fact. It's the same basking shark. It came up to you the same way. It had the same set of events, but you experienced it completely different because of your background because of your knowledge. So I think that it's important to remember that everyone perceives experiences differently. And we have to work to understand how our counterpart perceived a given experience and try to understand them, understand them and rather than trying to explain them how they should be seeing it. So I think that that's the key thing is that everyone has their own basking shark moments. Everyone experiences things differently and we need to understand where they're coming from in order to understand how we can be forward. Another problem that we do is we are really quick to write a story when we're having a conflict.  We're quick to call someone incompetent. We're quick to call someone lazy, whatever it is. And here's an example I read from a book also that I really liked. Say that you're driving to work and you get stuck in traffic because there's a Maserati double parked in front of a nice restaurant. All the cars are stopped and you're now 15 minutes late for work. What story do you tell yourself about the driver that Maserati?  What else?  Yeah, for sure. All these things, I would be saying the same things, right? Now, say as you're driving by, you see it's actually a physician and they've their post night shift and they're providing first aid on someone who claps on the street. What story do you tell yourself about that person? OK, so you're just as inconvenienced, right? You're still late for work. You're still inconvenienced. The person is still double parked and stopped traffic. But you've called the completely different story about the person. The truth is we don't know what people's intentions are. We only know about the actions we know about the impact it had on us. We don't. And so when we focus and we blame people for the problems at hand, we're prone to cause conflict that just escalates and again gets into people's character identity and activates the lizard brain. We're free to talk about the actions. We're free to talk about what happened. But when we assume what people's intentions are, which is so easy to do, it is so easy to get into trouble. So I think that one of the key things we want to separate people from the problems at hand and focus on the problems. We want to focus on actions rather than what people's intentions may or may not have been because the truth is we just don't know. And the last thing is we want to focus on interests rather than position. So this is a concept from mediation in the business world. Interest is the why. So and a position is the what? So say if I'm in the ER, someone comes in saying, I'm demanding an MRI of my child's brain like right now. I'm not leaving to like an MRI. That's a position. I can't do anything about that. I can't get an MRI in the middle of the night is I just I just can't. But if I get the what the why?  We can have a discussion. We can go somewhere. We can get somewhere with that. So I think one of the key things we have to figure out is not what the person is saying or counterpart saying, but what is the underlying issue at hand? All right. So those are some just backgrounds in terms of reframing conflict. I feel like this is one of the most high yield slides in this talk because it's something that we all do all the time. And once you become aware of it, you realize how often you see it happening. These are words that just have a magical ability to activate people's lizard brain and cause them to freak out and does the same thing for me. When people say these things to me, I lose it.  So some of the words that really cause problems and conflict are always and never. There's a couple of things wrong with always and never. First off, they're almost never true when you say that and it creates a cause for debate and also you take up what is a problem or an action and make it about someone's character identity.  So using always or never are very often detrimental. But I'm sorry, but you really can't do that. When you say but you just invalidated everything you said before then. So just mean you just be realized that if you're if you're apologizing, if you're trying to get somewhere and use the word but that's a word that you're just displaying to the other person that you really don't really mean what you just said. So just be very careful when you use the word but I do though my wife all the time she hates it. You. So this is a tough one. When we say you, we are prone to assign a judgment to a person or tell someone what to do. So you are unprofessional. You were late. You were not related. Okay. Cause that's that's actually an action, but you were inconsiderate. Those things create an argument about what is unprofessional, what is inconsiderate and also attack someone's identity. So when we do that, when we assign, when we were telling someone how they're behaving rather than what actions they did, it triggers a lizard brain and they will shut down. Likewise, if you tell someone you need to do this.  People don't like being told what to do. So we can have a conversation about how we can move forward. But when you tell someone what to do, it doesn't work that well. Why? Why is a tough one? Because we want to get at the why we want to get at the interests, but when we sometimes start it by phrasing why do you why are you worried about this that comes out as questioning their logic, questioning their experience. Oftentimes it's a little more it's a subtle difference, but what about this has you concerned? What would you like to see different moving forward? These type of things can come at the same issue without seeming like we're questioning the other person. Just and only. Just and only is a good way of minimizing the other person experience, which again will trigger lizard brain and they will get very defensive. You're I'm only running five minutes late. This is just one extra assignment to do. These things will minimize their concerns, minimize their experience, make them feel like they're not heard and people will shut down when they hear this. Calm down. It doesn't work. Telling someone to calm down just doesn't work. You don't get to tell other people how to feel when you tell other people how to feel lizard brain feels threatened and you will shut down. You want to see someone not calm down, tell them to calm down. So those are things that can go terribly wrong during a conflict. I'm going to check my time. Let's talk about things that we can do moving for the Jedi mind tricks. And a lot of these things are remarkably simple and we know them intuitively, but just are very bad at doing them in real life. The first one is listening. And I mean really, really listening. I think that we all know about active listening is to sit down, make eye contact, all that stuff, but listening is not a skill. It's a choice. We actually have to listen to understand where the other person's coming from. What we're used to doing in medicine is listening to wait our turn to speak. We're used to listening so we can make our counter argument to the other person. That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to listen to understand where the other person's coming from. One thing, a couple of choices that a couple of word phrases that are really helpful in this is help me understand. When you get in trouble in a conflict and you always use the word phrase help me understand where you're coming from, help me understand what you're concerns are, it really opens things up. It really deactivates the other person's lizard brain. And one of the most funny things I see is that when I say that and people just like vent at me, usually end up apologizing for all the things that happen like without me asking at the end of it is they just need to get stuff off their chest. That phrase works magic. I'm hearing so I'm hearing and then stating back what the underlying interest is that again, you are showing that you're listening. You're showing that you care about the other person and that will help the other person turn down their lizard brain and feel deactivated. People will not will not listen until they feel heard. So if you feel like you're going back and forth in a conflict, you're trying to explain the same thing over and over again. It probably means that the other person is not feeling heard. And you just need to stop and really listen and understand them and then also validate their experience. I can see why that would be a frustrating experience. Like it really makes a huge difference to say that and you can actually with that phrase see lizard brain just kind of like toned down to human brain be like, whoa, I said some crazy things a couple minutes ago. I'm going to back it down. So these phrases can make a world of difference in terms of helping you with the listening, which is the first step. Because again, no one will listen until they feel like they've been heard. Next is framing this discussion. So this is where we really want to to make it clear that from my perspective, I'm focusing on the problems rather than the people. I'm focusing on actions rather than tensions. And one of the things I find most helpful for doing that is to explicitly say that the problems are the things that we're working with and that I know it's not your intention. And those two things will disarm people and make people willing to listen because no one wants to hurt other people.  But we all do.  We'll argue back. But if someone tells me about their experience that my actions had an impact on them, I'm going to listen.  And and I'm not, you know. And so I think one of the things one of the phrase I really like to that is I like to share the impact of blank event or blank action had on me. Again, I'm not even saying I try to avoid even saying like the thing that you did. I'm saying that conversation what was said in that meeting stuff like that. It really separates the person from the problems at him and really makes it clear that I'm really want to fix the issues here and not criticize you as a person as a person. Then adding on, I don't know what was not your intention. That makes a huge difference when we acknowledge that people's intentions, we don't know what they are, but we just want to focus on the actions that impact it has on us in a relationship. Lastly is don't get defensive. We all contribute to conflicts. So the sooner we acknowledge that, the better. There's this idea of drop and rope that if you feel like you're in a tug of war with another person and you're going back and forth and not getting where it just dropped the rope. Just get on the other person's side and say and try to find a common common goal. Acknowledge how you contribute to the conflict and that will make a world of difference because all of a sudden, instead of arguing about who's at fault, you're finding ways to move forward. Last is sharing your perspective. I think this is a hard one because we do have valid perspectives that we need to share. This is not a course and in canning up your feelings and just wait until they explode when you get home. This is about finding solutions moving forward. I saw you laughing at that. So there are effective ways to share your experience and it's important to do these things effectively. So one of the things is I statements and I statements are tricky because we are allowed to say talk about simple, unemotional, undeniable facts and we're allowed to talk about how those impacted us. So an example of my statement is when when that was said during the conversation, I felt hurt because I felt like my perspective was not heard. Moving forward, I would really appreciate if you asked my opinion before we make these changes, something like that. Again, I'm separating the person from the problem. I'm talking about how that undeniable, unemotional action impacted me.  That's not OK. You're not allowed to label other people. You're allowed to talk about simple, undeniable, unemotional facts and the impact that those things had on you. Not labeling those things, but the impact it had on you. So I statements are tricky because people oftentimes fall into the I feel like you are unprofessional. I feel like you were create an unsafe working environment. Those things create opportunity for argument. We want to talk about simple, unemotional, undeniable facts that a newspaper reporter would say and how it impacted us because no one could ever criticize us or argue with us about those things. The other thing is I wish I wonder I worry. This is a great way for bringing up concerns or bringing up disagreement with someone in a way that is not as confrontational and allows them to empathize with you a little bit as well. So these phrases make a huge difference. So this is what I like to call the four step approach in terms of how to approach a conflict because these are really challenging to deal with. And and I think it's worth going through these steps. And then we're having about another five minutes of didactic. And then we're going to spend the rest of the next 55 minutes going through six examples that are hopefully very relevant and feeling real and probably a little raw to you guys. So the first thing I like to think about when I approach the conflict is what are my goals of the conflict? If my goal is to prove that I'm the alpha dog and that the other person cannot behave that way, that's fine. It'll probably hurt me in the long run, but I'm going to behave very differently than if my goal is to try to understand where the other person is coming from, help them understand where I'm coming from and find a path moving forward. So the first thing is just to think, what is my goal? What am I trying to get out of this conversation? As we different different times, like I said, if I wake you up with a crappy console at 3 a.m. and you're short with me, I'm probably not going to like bombard you with I feel statements. I'm OK with just letting that slide.  Next step, deactivate your lizard brain and deactivate the other person's lizard brain. So the first step is your own lizard brain. Best and most important thing is just taking space. If you're like mad and revved up and you can feel that your tense and then all those signs that we all get, that's going to come off in your in your nonverbal cues is going to come off in your tone of voice, come off in size and rolling your eyes and it's going to come out. So you need to take space and make sure you're in a space where your lizard brain has not taken over.  I like vent with my wife. I write an angry email. I don't send it. I just let it sit there and I come back like two days later when I've had a time to mountain bike and ski and feel much better as your doctors do. So first is deactivate your lizard brain. The other thing is make sure you deactivate the other person's lizard brains. And the way to do that is you have to very deliberately with those Jedi mind tricks, separate people from problems, very deliberately separate actions from intentions and then try to get an understanding of where they're coming from. And if you want to bring up something that's troubling you, again, start with simple, undeniable, unemotional facts and how it impacted you. You always have the ability to talk about those. And it's very hard to argue when you say something like those, when you start with those things. Next is to understand where the other person's coming from. That's where that listing comes from. Again, if you start by just explaining why you're right or explaining your experience, people won't listen until they feel heard. So it really, it makes a big difference and it may seem silly, but you need to understand where the other person's coming from. You need to understand how they perceived their basking shark moment and how they perceived your contribution to the conflict. You need to understand what underlying interests are rather than positions and how we can move forward. So just really listening to understand and not listening to wait your term to speak is absolutely key. And if you don't do that, people will not listen to you until they feel heard. Next is bring it back to your goal and share your perspectives. This is where you can use those I statements. I wish, I wonder, I worry, I feel. Those I statements can be really effective in terms of bringing back to your perspective. And one of the things you wanna focus on again is how do you address your goal for the conversation while also acknowledging and finding a solution that involves the other person's concerns? And I think using that phrasing is really helpful. So moving forward, how can we address your concerns while also addressing these issues that I'm concerned about as well? That makes it so it's a collaborative effort and rather than just a negotiation or a boxing match more commonly about who's gonna be right and who's gonna be wrong. So these are some tips and tricks. The next thing we'll do is an exercise and this is gonna take the majority of the time for the session today. I like to call the Jedi time machine. So everyone should have a worksheet. If you don't, we have extra ones here. And in the breakout groups, they will be posted as a link and we'll have breakout groups on Zoom as well. There are six scenarios that are listed here. I'd like you to take 35 minutes to go through these six scenarios. In these six scenarios is a brief vignette and then there is an example response of things gone awry. And what you have to do with that example response is underline the work traps that you identify. Things that will deliberately make this conversation a lot worse.  I want you to get into groups of about three and work together because this is not an easy exercise. And I oftentimes will do this when I'm encountering conflict and medical settings is I will run it by other people. I will show people the draft of my email. I will write down how I'm gonna phrase difficult conversations. And it really helps to have that neutral observer, that third person to give you feedback. So I want you to get into groups of three, I'll be circling around the room just to listen in on your conversations. We're gonna reconvene in about 35 minutes. Now it may seem ridiculous that we're gonna take 35 minutes to write six sentences. That's what the effort is. And that's like fast.  So we're gonna do that exercise. I'll circle around the room before we do that. I wanna see, are there any questions or any comments or any concerns with the content of the didactic before we go into the application of it? Yes. That's a lost cause. Yes. Oh, thank you. Thank you so much for reminding me. Please mix it up. So I don't want like all residents, all attendings, all fellows. I would love to have a mixture because these cases are, I'm not trying to paint one group of people as the bad guy. I'll take the hit in the ER. We were printed as the bad guy in one of them. But I wanted to be a mixture. I wanted to show that this is about finding paths forward and understanding where other people are coming from. It's really helpful to have that experience of different levels of training, of different levels of medical hierarchy. So please mix it up into groups of threes and we'll reconvene at 840 to kind of bring it back together. Thank you so much, everyone. I've heard some really great conversations about these cases. I wanna go through just as a big group to kind of summarize the take home points from these cases. And then summarize the take home points from the talk as a whole. So I'd like to start by just going through the cases one at a time and hear the approaches that different groups have come up with and some of the conversations that they came up with. So the first case that we had was the late colleague, the 25 minute late, there's traffic. So could I get a group to volunteer about how they would potentially address the conversation like this? No volunteers, I will volunteer. This group here. Yeah, I think some of the things we talked about were first of all, having this conversation not in the moment when this person is showing up to clinic 20 minutes late and waiting room's full, kind of creating the space to talk about it in more detail. And then there's a role too for making an observation and saying, hey, I notice that you're showing up to work at this time. And there's kind of two parts to that. That you can also talk about, hey, is there something going on that's keeping you late? Like, is there something going on at home? Is there kind of asking more questions of the person of what is leading to that? So they also know that you're not just jumping to conclusions about what's leading to it, but also talking about I statements that saying when you're late or when you can even say it generally, when people show up late, this affects the rest of the team in the way that where clinic doesn't run on time and people are not being seen in a timely manner, making those observations and then kind of inviting them to talk about how can we come up with some solutions for this? Well, that was really great in multiple levels. So thank you so much for sharing that. First, I wanna say that, yeah, people won't listen until they feel heard. So I think that that's key. We don't know, this is a Maserati example. We don't know what is going on in their lives. We don't know about their experiences. We don't know what's causing them to be late and we're not curious about it. People would generally shut down. They won't listen until they feel heard. And in truth, we might get some really valuable information about what's going on in this person's life. They might have just had a divorce and lost their house and we don't know. So being curious is key. And then you are never wrong with I statements where you make simple, unemotional facts when you showed up 20 minutes late.  So that's really a great approach to that. Any other discussions that people had about this case? What do you wanna bring up? I love your point about not in the moment because your lizard brain is active.  I despise tardiness. And if people show up late, I lose it. When I was a chief, I used to call the other services chief and wake them up so they could yell at their resident if they showed up late to the ER. I mean, it was really bad. But so for me, this really hit at home. But sometimes to address this, I need to wait a couple of days. I need to do my own internal venting and then address it. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, and again, that's not judgmental. It's just I wanna share the impact that this action has. And that's why I like that phrase. I wanna share the impact that event or action has. Again, you're separating the people from the problems. Let's go to the next case. Thank you so much for that discussion. Next case. Oh, the ER. The second year residents are gonna love this case. The crappy consult from the ER. So can I get a volunteer about? I'm gonna go to Dr. Wilkinson because he's my resident on consult. So he's in the thick of it right now. You did. All right, Dr. Wilkinson's team. All right. So we talked about starting with kind of acknowledging kind of your shared concerns, see some sort of statement along the lines of like, I see that you're concerned about this patient and then explaining kind of your interests and why you want more information. So explain that we cover multiple hospitals. I've got a long list of patients. I need to figure out how to triage these patients. If we could get a few more things on exam, that'd help me kind of prioritize who to see next. But I think that's completely valid. Like everything you said there is completely valid. And it's hard to argue with that, that you need this information.  It's that I need this information is what you're saying. Any other discussion that happened on that case? Emitory statement. Yeah, that's fair. Like sometimes it's gonna be tough and that's depends on your goals are. What are your goals of the conversation to get through this consult and just get through the night or is it to have a relationship? One other point I will say with this is one thing to always remember is people won't listen until they feel heard. And if someone is behaving badly, they feel threatened. Their lizard brain is activated. They just don't know that. And so one of the best things you can do in that situation is to figure out what from their experience what was their basking shark moment? What made this experience tough for them? So it's something simple. I stole this phrase from a resident who used it on a tough interaction with a nurse they had was, hey, it seems like this was a tough interaction. Tell me more. What can I do to make this interaction better? And people will just vent. They will unload and they'll usually apologize like immediately after. But once they have a chance to feel heard, it makes a huge difference in their ability to listen. Two hands, yes. To that effect, I was thinking of this sentence to perhaps de-escalate and maybe establish a shared goal saying something like, I can see things are really busy in the emergency room and I really want to help you. And so that way we can all just realign ourselves. And then the next thing I said was something like, when I don't have enough info about the patient it's really hard for me to give good advice and then following with what Sam had said later on. I was gonna say actually the same thing and that was kind of out of a discussion with this group over here where Jordan was like, one of the things that drives me crazy is when it's like, well, the person on the phone's like, I'm just trying to advocate for this patient and the assumption is of course that then you are not advocating for the patient. So something that like what Tony was saying puts you both on the same side. Like we are both 100% working to make sure we are taking care of this patient. I know that that is your number one priority. It's my number one priority. I can't do that unless I get this information. So... I like the shared goals and the moving forward statement. So I understand that this has been a frustrating experience for you because oftentimes you feel like you're belittled by consultants or whatever information you got from listening. I also need to get some information to make sure I can take care of the patient with both the same goal of taking care of this patient. Moving forward, how can I make sure that I address your concerns about how I talk to you while also getting some critical information that will be important for me to treat this patient? Brown was saying, kind of setting somewhat of a boundary and saying like I'd appreciate if you don't speak to me that way. Cause I mean, at some point, especially if it's like repeated behavior, you know, residents who are on call, don't have post-call days. It's hard when like multiple people are calling you and if they're speaking to you in a rude way, I think at some point it is maybe necessary also to just set a boundary and so how would you do that and when do you think would be like best to address that so that you're not still getting their lizard brain? So any thoughts from the groups? I'm sure other groups had that kind of discussion. What ideas have you had about setting boundaries in a situation like that? I saw a hand go up here. Yes, totally agree. So I think that that's a perfect use of an I statement.  When you said just see the damn patient, it made me feel like I was not being valued as a colleague and like I was being in, made me feel incompetent and inconsiderate, whatever emotion you wanna label for yourself. Cause again, you are always out of liberty to discuss simple, undeniable facts. You're always out of liberty to talk about how those simple, undeniable, unemotional facts impacted you. Moving forward, how can we make sure that we are most effectively communicating together, both me in terms of talking to you on the phone to the consultant and also communicating a way that's respectful and doesn't create these tough emotions. I think that's totally valid. We don't need to, this is not a talk about how to take it. This is a talk about how to move forward. Any other comments on that case, the ER case? Sorry to the two people on call right now. Yes. What? Perfect. Let's go to the next case. This is the one about the, which one was this, is it the OR? Yeah, you add on the OR. Any volunteers about how you'd address this add-on case in the OR, the person in the OR desk rolling their eyes and making a comment under their breath? All right, Teresa choose. All right, Dr. Wong. So as far as this scenario, our goal, cause it sounds like the decision has already been made to add the case on, we decided that our goal was to like try to improve our relationship with the OR staff so that they wouldn't be trying to fight us in our goal of taking care of patients in the future. So our first statement that we came up with was, I'm hearing that it's a tough situation, you're getting home late, and then just trying to express like openness to hearing things to. So we said, help me to understand the impact that this add-on is having on you. You can just, you can see it in the body, like that they're just like, oh God, I really shouldn't have done that. I don't care if it's part of the relationship with that. Yeah, and then I think just like apologizing, like I'm sorry I'm running behind, I had an unexpectedly difficult case and just saying that in the future, I will try to come up with a plan to avoid this kind of running late in the future, whether it's like canceling a non-urgent case when I do have an add-on or scheduling fewer cases so that we have room for add-ons. The other thing I want to add to that though, you don't need to take it, but you don't need to have people characterize it as scientists, like eventually you don't need to take it as scientists, and you don't need to take it as well. You're probably, sometimes it's appropriate to accept it. I have no idea, because I feel like that's like normal and I just accepted it. So I'm just going to pass this to someone else who feels like they can't accept rolling the eyes and grumbling. Dr. Petty, I'm going to ask Dr. Petty. Dr. Petty, how do you set boundaries? As someone who's, you're probably asking me because you know I'm not great at setting boundaries. You know, that's a really good question. One thing I really like that Nana just briefly referenced, but he said it again in our small group discussion is, it's not the person's fault that we don't train everyone on ophthalmology. And it's just such a lovely way to create some empathy in the situation. And from there, once you're thinking about that individual, that invitation to, hey, maybe we can do the exam together if you've got a moment, or at some point getting to the point where you could comfortably say, this is actually something that'd be really helpful for you to know and understand. Maybe you don't have time now, but I'd be happy to follow up and find a time that I can teach you this and you can have this skillset moving forward. And so I think part of it is growing in to the competence to set a boundary, but it has to start from a place of empathy. Otherwise, the boundary becomes more about you and your needs and less about them and what would be helpful for them. I think that's a great point. The other thing I think it's always good to go back to as well when it comes to setting boundaries is you are always at the liberty to talk about simple, undeniable, unemotional facts and how it impacted you. So, hey, I noticed that when we spoke, you said under your breath, I'm never gonna get home in time. I just wanna share the impact that that had on me. When I hear that, I feel hurt because it makes me feel like I'm not a caring member of this team and that really impacts me negatively. Moving forward, how can we address the concerns that you brought up from that conversation we just had? While also finding a way that we communicate that doesn't impact me like that. And you always make it about you and how it impacts you. We talked about this a little bit is that I sometimes don't understand the logistics of how it affects someone else. And I think as a consultant, sometimes the person who's consulting you doesn't understand the logistics either. Like I'll turn this on the residents when I'm on call and I'm taking a transfer call and I'm like, Ashley, what do you think about this? And it's mainly like, I don't exactly know what to do with this patient. Do they need to come? Can we do an outpatient thing? Cause I don't deal with the logistics of the situation and someone in ER doesn't deal with the logistics of a lot of these situations either. I love Jeff's point of like involving them in the care, not just like doing a consult and then telling them what you think, like involve them and help them understand like how you're thinking about it. I think it's really, really empowering. Yeah. I totally agree and having the approach that we're all in the same team and I'll have different strengths and I'll have ability to improve including myself and everyone that having that attitude and showing that attitude as well, showing your openness to hear feedback will make other people open to hear feedback. We don't have time to go through the rest of the cases. I do want to real quickly as a closing thought. Okay. Closing thoughts. These are some things, some comments that come up. Is that one, conflict management is not conflict resolution. We're not always going to get a resolution. Our goal is not to prove that we're right is to find mutual agreement. So it's a sort of find an understanding and find a path forward. It's not necessarily agreeing on the right answer. So our goal is to understand heard a lot of great conversation about picking your battles that this as we saw the rewriting six sentences took like 40 solid minutes. That's a lot of effort. This is not going to be every battle that we're going to pick but for the ones we care about where it's going to impact our wellbeing longterm it is worth putting in the effort. And it's worth like, I mean, when I do this I literally pull out that cheat sheet and like happen from me when I write an email and run it by my friends and run it by my wife and stuff like that, get feedback on it. We all make mistakes. And I think just acknowledging that we will make mistakes and we'll say things like, oh, wow I really screwed that up. But that was embarrassing. That's okay. We're human and we're always trying to be better. So we will make mistakes. We have made mistakes. We will make mistakes in the future. And lastly is power dynamics do complicate things. Medicine is very hierarchical, hierarchical.  One thing I will say with that is that the same skill set applies when you're using your allies to help you. So if you talk to your program director and you're using effective I feel statements talking about how it impacts you you're gonna be a lot more effective moving forward and finding solution with your allies who can help you address those power dynamics. So even though power dynamics complicate things it still is helpful to apply these skills when you're using your allies to help you through these situations. So any other questions or thoughts? Cause I have now run out of time. All right, great. Thanks so much. Appreciate you having me. I do just wanna say this was not born out of any like any issue or complaint.  This was just an opportunity came through and I know that has given this talk at a number of other departments and it's been so incredible that we just were able to get him here. But you guys all do a great job doing this all the time every day.


for those of you in Hawaii. Good evening. Those of you on the mainland and good day wherever you may be. Thanks so much for joining us. Think Tech Hawaii. Today we've got just a really exceptional, exceptional group of people. Dean Danielle Conway and also a professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, Dean Jelani Jefferson Exum and also professor at University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and seasoned mediator, arbitrator, business coach Tina Patterson in Maryland. And we get to talk about just an amazing, amazing opportunity for this country for the rule of law, for all of us.  What most hits home most deeply to you about Judge Katanzi Brown Jackson's Supreme Court appointment? So thank you and Aloha everyone. I am so pleased to be here with Chuck, a woman's rights man, of course, and then my sisters, Tina and Jelani. What makes this a important historical moment for all of us is that for 232 years, there has not been representation of one of the most important demographics in this nation, black women. And that is important in this nation to recognize because of the history of slavery, the enslavement of black peoples, the creation of a enslaved workforce from the wounds of black women, the creation of a unequal society by virtue of black codes, Jim Crow, the Nadir, Jane Crow, up through the civil rights movement into the time when we had war on poverty, when we had the crack wars, when we had war on black communities. In this moment, we have an opportunity to see through all of that the ascension of a black woman who by her very symbolism means representation in a multicultural democracy. That is who Katanzi Brown Jackson is and that's what she means to me. What a great way to put it. Jelani, what hits home most deeply to you? You know, Danielle, Dean Conway, she covered so much of it so well. So I'll just add that. I mean, you think of those 233 years of the Supreme Court's existence and then we add on to that. That's 115 justices that we've had in the United States, on the United States Supreme Court, five women, two black people. And we just think about that and let those numbers sit with you. You just recognize not only how awesome this moment is, but really how, what's a good word, let's say, absurd. It is that it's taken this long to get here. And so I've been watching the confirmation hearings with a sense of joy, of course, very excited that we're here at this moment, this important historic moment, with also just a sense of pride, you know, watching Judge Jackson, how she has carried herself through this situation that I'm going to have to turn to the word absurd again, right? There's been so much absurdity in these hearings and the questioning of her and the questioning of her credentials, of her qualifications, of her record. And so to see her there really with all that she brings, all of whom she's representing, that just to see her sit there so poised, so brilliant, just really exuding everything that we want her to exude in this moment is just a moment of joy and of pride. And at the same time, a frustration that we're here and we're watching things play out in this way where this really should be a point of pride for all of America, right?  And why has it taken this long? So there's this frustration in watching her go through this process. But I've got to tell you, as Senator Booker said last night, you know, we're not going to let anybody steal our joy. She is doing amazing. She is amazing. And this is an amazing moment. She is indeed. Tina, what strikes home most deeply to you? I think the Dean's covered everything. I will say this. I sense of pride. This is a woman who is both credentialed and showing the world that regardless of the stereotypes and means that attempt to degrade us, we can be poised, professional, and credentialed. This is a woman who's a double Ivy. And in layman's terms, that means that she has an undergraduate and a professional or degree from an Ivy League institution, not just any Ivy League institution, but from Harvard, one of the most regarded Ivy Leagues. And I'm saying that as a Brown University graduate. So I'll give them their props on this one. But this is a woman who is showing the world that we can do this. The story regarding persevere.  It's not possible. It is possible. It's happening. It's unfolding right before us. And I think Jalani hit the nail on the head. The moments of frustration, the moments of, oh my goodness, we've all experienced it in some former fashion, but to rise above it and to keep moving forward. That is what struck me. There's a photo today that's been circulating regarding the pride that the judge's daughter has in looking at her. And it's the pride that I think many of us have that you are sustaining. You are standing still and standing upright in the midst of these line of questioning and some of, as Jalani indicated, absurdities. And you still stand proud. I think the other piece I want to remember is two weeks ago, Ben Davis was on this show, and he dedicated Maya Angelou's Still I Rise to judge Jackson Brown, sorry, Brown Jackson. And I think it's appropriate. And that was also a sense of pride because we see it personified. She walks in in a regal fashion. She sits down, even when the questions seem to go in places that no one ever thought they would go. She's remained calm. She's remained collected and at all times dignified. She has. And I think that amazing grace and poise that she has demonstrated throughout, no matter how childishly, no matter how unethically, unprofessionally, dishonestly, misleadingly, others may have behaved. And even some from that other side have come up to her off the record and complimented her on representing exactly that potential of the best that we can be. But Chuck, just what you said right there, we need it on the record. Because the record the record must reflect that this nominee is eminently qualified and is a citizen of our United States, our United States. And so to be treated any less is an affront to our patriotism, our collective pride, and our duty as citizens in this America. No, that's exactly right. And Jelani, you're one of the leading experts anywhere on sentencing discrimination, disparities, and inequalities. That subject came up. It was used as a political pretext ploy and tool. Set us straight on that. Well, first, thank you for that endorsement, Chuck. I appreciate that. I have to tell you, I've been watching the nominations, the confirmation hearings as we all have. And that frustration has really been right there front and center as Judge Jackson's record on sentencing has been pulled apart, cherry picked, taken out of context in so many ways. And the really, I don't, frustrating is probably not even the right word here. It's really, as Dean Conway said, this really an affront, right? Because what you're seeing happen is pure political theater. It's not really about her. It's about grandstanding and speaking to a base of voters. And so it's intentional misleading, which, you know, take take what you will from that. But it's telling you about the character of a folks who have been who've been in these hearings. But this is what I'll say. The misconstruing of Judge Jackson's sentencing record is just that. So the discussion about the child pornography sentencing in particular, which has been this flashpoint, this provocative topic to bring up is really misrepresenting her as someone who is somehow extreme. When the reality is that for really over a decade, judges have been talking about the federal sentencing guidelines, particularly the child pornography guidelines, and have been saying, we're not going to follow them because they're not giving us relevant advice. The guidelines are supposed to have points in them that help judges to differentiate amongst offenders. So we have a group of offenders who've committed a horrific crime, right? A disturbing crime. But out of that group, how do we pull apart who is at the lower end of culpability and who's at the higher end of culpability? Guidelines are supposed to help judges to do that. When they cease to do that, judges cease to follow them. And that is what has happened in the child pornography possession, mostly possession situation. Two thirds of the judges across the country sentence these offenders to below guideline sentences that is perfectly fine. It is perfectly normal. And it's because the guidelines are not advising. And I'll just give one point that I think is a point of clarity here that might help to illustrate it for your listeners. Think about the use of computers. This has come up in the hearings, right? And the misconstrued aspect of it is that Judge Jackson was somehow saying she's going soft on pedophiles because she's not worried about computer use. That's completely false. What's happening is that the guidelines, which are supposed to differentiate amongst types of offenders, apply points for using a computer when now all offenders for child pornography possession use computers. So nobody adds that, right? Numbers of images. The guidelines give numbers of points for numbers of images that's supposed to differentiate amongst the less guilty and the more guilty. People now who commit these crimes hit one click of a button and get thousands of images. So numbers of images don't tell you anything. So judges have just said this is not important guidance. It's not giving us information. And so we'll go to other sources like arguments by counsel about risk factors of harming children. And that's what judges follow. That's what judges across the country follow. That's what just Jackson follows. It is not out of the ordinary. It is quite ordinary in mainstream. This is a non-story, and it's really unfortunate that it's been pitched as anything else. Well, and you've just hit on something that's critically and important insight. And that is with all of this misleading mischaracterization, what was missed was that Judge Jackson served a really important valuable role in reform of a badly, badly broken sentencing system, some of whose deficiencies you've just highlighted. And that's not the only area where she has been a leader of reform. Danielle, you're spearheading at Penn State Dickinson Law an anti-racism curriculum. While that's not part of the judicial decision making that has brought Judge Jackson to where she is, it certainly was a central ploy of some of the questioning and mischaracterization that was used against her. Hey, can you straighten us out on that one? I certainly will. And thank you for your expert commentary, Dean Exum. It was phenomenal. And hopefully I'll do the same here. So they're conflating many, many things in this portrayal of anti-racism. So they are conflating the very important instructive pedagogy under critical race theory, which is taught at universities and law schools. They're conflating that actually with anti-racism. Anti-racism, I posit, is the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment. So if they have a problem with anti-racism, then they must have a problem with the 14th Amendment. And then they confuse all of this with history. And so history is subject matter that we all must learn as a liberal art. And history may have overlap with critical race theory, with anti-racism, but history is in and of itself what must be taught as a liberal art from the moment we step foot in society. Because this is how we know how to progress, how to relate with and among one another, how to take lessons from the generations before. And if you don't understand history, you can't be a lawyer in the United States. If you cannot understand the 14th Amendment, then you cannot be a lawyer in the United States and pledge to serve society under the tenet, the value of equal justice under law. And there cannot be any way to overstate the importance of exactly that point. We know that those people that we've just referred to do have a major problem with the 14th Amendment because they're working as hard as they can to support those 19 states and approximately 40 laws restricting voting rights and access. And more than 250, they're still out there proposed and pending. So what is it? And we know that the Supreme Court has been complicit in eroding the protections of the Voting Rights Act, two of the most important, the disparate impact and treatment, and the historical precondition of federal approval for states with a long history of discriminatory voting laws and practices. So Tina, where do you see it going from here? How is future justice Jackson important to reversing that trend, turning that time? Looking at the body of the judge's work and experience, what's most eye-opening to me, and I think will be critical moving forward, is her work as a public defender in her work was working with those who have been part of the criminal justice system. I was especially, I guess the word would be surprised, delighted, amazed at her description of proportionality. And she explained it to the Senate and anyone listening in the public could see how this concept can be applied to state issues with state issues regarding criminal requirements. But it also will bring to the body of justices this experience, this thought process, this perspective that we haven't seen since Thurgood Marshall. So I see that being critical. I also see the fact that she brought to bear the critical thinking and emotional intelligence that we don't always see from the justices. I think Justice Sotomayor definitely brings it. Justice Kagan, when we do hear from her, but she's going to bring that perspective, she's going to bring that larger perspective in terms of application of the law and what's applicable and are we applying it given all of these other elements. But I know the other justices have more experience in corporate and other areas, but I think that that experience, her experience as a private lawyer as well will also come to bear. And Deans, I welcome your weighing in on this, but I do want to say this, and I know you didn't ask this question specifically, but I think there's also a lesson for dispute resolution providers to consider as well. And what struck me, and I'll be very transparent, I had arbitrated the case earlier that day. And so listening to Judge Brown Jackson talk about proportionality and this sense of what's equitable, what's appropriate, what's fair, really hit home for me because I've been struggling with rendering a decision, and I thought, you know what, let me go back, let me go back and look at my notes, let me go back and do some initial and additional analysis and applying this concept. Not that I haven't before, but again, it really struck home for me because it was being conflated in a way that just didn't ring true. And when we kept hearing this line of questioning, and she said, you know, I have guidelines, I'm supposed to follow these guidelines and apply these guidelines, the parties come to me and present their arguments. And for dispute resolution resolvers, especially media, excuse me, especially arbitrators, we're in that same capacity. So I think she's going to bring that emotional intelligence and critical thinking to bear. But again, I'm going to defer to the deans if they want to add more to what I've said. I do have something to add because I think that what Tina is pointing out is something that I wish had been highlighted more about Judge Jackson during these hearings. So Judge Jackson spent time as vice chair of the sentencing commission. And in her role there, in pushing forth really, as Chuck, you mentioned, really important sentencing reform measures that were bipartisan measures that were accepted widely. In doing it, she had to really display skills that I think are so exciting for her. And we think about her as a justice. So she had to really find commonality amongst the sentencing commissioners who are sentencing commissioners who come from various parties, right? So the two parties. So you have Democrats, you have Republicans on the commission. So you have people of different ideologies when it comes to sentencing law and sentencing practice. And she had to find points of commonality. She had to think about how she was going to approach these commissioners who may see the world completely differently than she did that would have completely different backgrounds. She has her public defense background. And so she's coming to it with a certain understanding of the consequences of criminal justice. And so she had to talk her commissioners through all of these sort of disparate identities and ideologies. And what she was able to do during her time as the vice chair of the sentencing commission was to help guide forward unanimous sentencing reform measures. This was everybody on board saying, yes, these are things that we need to do to make our criminal justice system fair, to make punishment appropriate and proportional, to correct for systemic wrongs. That was Judge Jackson. That was her voice. And so I'm very excited to see what Justice Jackson will do on a court. We talk about the 6-3 split. I'm not concerned that she may not always write majority opinions. What I think is so exciting is that she will be the one who is shaping those opinions on the margins. She will be pushing justices to think about things a little bit differently. And when she's writing dissents, I mean, let's watch out because these are going to be impactful. They're going to be legacy building. And this is just, this is something that's good for all of us. It's good for justice. It's good for America. And that's to me what's so very exciting. And I wish that could have come out more in these hearings. And to extend what you're saying, Jelani, and to try to connect it to you to the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment has been laying dormant since reconstruction. It has been laying dormant. And the Voting Rights Act and the evisceration of it with Shelby County the holder has just boomeranged us back to that dormancy. And so at the very least with a justice Katanji Brown Jackson on the court, we will know that there are conversations in those chambers about the reality on the ground in terms of the fundamental manifestation of citizenship, who is and is not getting access to the ballot when we all should have access to the ballot as citizens. Tina, I see the wheels turning. Now, if you see the wheels turning, it's me clapping broadly for both of the deans. They took it home. Thank you. They took it home. That's exactly what I think it's fantastic as we go into our last few minutes is you've connected these two ends of their own spectrum, voting rights and processes at the front end, sentencing and criminal justice at the back end. And she has a level, a depth, a breadth, a scope of first hand understanding of the broken parts of those systems, because both are clearly systemically discriminatory, unequal, and have been in need of repair. And what Jelani, I love that you brought out is her ability to be able to bring that home to disparate groups of people, probably more prosecutors than defenders, maybe as many Republicans as Democrats, and to get all of them to see this is broken, this is a good direction for reform. We can hope because she's got 25, 30 years, maybe more to help bring those changes. And hopefully there will be some, maybe not in existing seats on the mail side, but in future appointments who may bring functioning ears to the table so we can have hope. Okay, our last couple minutes, last thoughts on Judge Katanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation appointments in future. I'll take a page out of Jelani's book. She is going to add her voice to the record, and that record is going to extend for at least two to three decades. She will be bringing law clerks in to the enterprise. She will be communicating to everyone in the United States. You too can do this, everyone. So her existence there is representation universally. That is what is so fearsome about Judge Katanji Brown Jackson. Jelani? I echo that, and I'll just add a perspective of someone who has had the privilege of teaching constitutional law as a black woman in realizing when I stand in front of students and I teach about the constitution that I'm teaching about a document written by people who, in their wildest dreams, would never imagine me as the person who's teaching that doctrine. And to think that in years and decades to come that when people like me, black women, stand in front of classes and teach about the constitution, they're going to teach about justice Katanji Brown Jackson, whether it's majority opinions or dissents, they're going to be teaching about her, whether they're saying her name because she's written the opinion or not, they're going to be teaching about her because she was on the court, because she was in the room, because she was in the place. And that is just something that is so amazing that I don't even know how to express really the impact that that will have, but it is phenomenal. It's profound and it will be long lasting. Tina, last thoughts? Judge, we see you and we know history will too. So thank you all. This has been an amazing deep dive into the things that Judge Katanji Brown Jackson brings to the table that show us that exactly as you've indicated, she will leave a mark that is entirely her own. That will have immeasurable value for every single one of us. Thank you all. Take care, come back, rejoin us in a couple of weeks. We will be back. Thank you.


This study investigated the effects of welding on a bridge constructed from steel S355. Welding was performed at low ambient temperatures, and the resulting deformations were measured using optical system tritop. These data were then used as input for finite element analysis, FEA software sysweld, which predicted the temperature cycles, angular deformations, and residual stresses. The results showed that the predicted values of angular and linear d- This article was authored by Radoslav Konar, Marek Patek, and Nilos Mykian.


Committee on Aviation and Aerospace Technology will investigate the controversy surrounding the Nigerian air project and address air crashes and safety anomalies in airports. And Chairman Henry Blobionua-Kinlai stated that the committee will engage with stakeholders and show Nigerians benefit from a highly innovative and productive aviation industry despite ongoing budget defence by various House committees. The House Committee on FCT Area Councils is committed to addressing diverse issues, including agriculture, cultural festivals, resettlement schemes and satellite town development. Joshua Rubica representing AMAC, who are a federal constituency, has appealed for a special security intervention fund and intelligence gathering. Security is everybody's responsibility. I am totally dismissed as the total lack of coordinated effort by the A states, neighborhoods and communities in FCT to form a bulk work against organized crimes. Light cross should be given a standard operational procedure. There should be required to install necessary electronic security service gadgets in and around their places of business and as well as cater for the patrol by the security operators with light arms. We have received defence calls. As we enter into the first season, there is no doubt that crime is likely to spike. I appeal to the FCT minister and the relevant security agencies to meet with security service in the territory. The lawmaker identified several areas requiring urgent intervention in the FCT, including education sector reform, health, urban transportation, rural infrastructure, housing and environment. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.