So, welcome all of you to our series here of talks from 42 courses, and I'm honestly delighted today to be joined by today's guest, Nula Walsh. Nula is the CEO of Mind Equity. She's a behavioural scientist. She's a TED Talk speaker. She's the founding director of GABS, which you may or may not have heard of, the Global Association of Applied Behavioural Scientists. Is that correct, Nula? Is that the right answer? Yes, that's it. She was the first female director of the British National Archives. I mean, the list goes on. You're very welcome today, Nula, to talk about your new book, Tune In. Thank you very much, Louise. It is great and ironic to be here, given that we were involved in a book club four years ago. That is right. And I will just tell everybody Nula and I met in a book club, as she said. We have joined these events weekly, many, many times together as listeners like yourselves. Most recently, Nula has also been hosting these events through her role in GABS. And now, of course, you're taking on the new role of joining these events, Nula, as an author. How does that feel, Nula? A little bit different, to be fair. I'm not sure which is worse, being the interviewer or the interviewee, but I think I did think that writing the book was the hardest part, actually. And I thought even getting endorsements is incredibly hard. You know, it's not easy. Unless they're your friends. But now I've discovered that actually, third leg of all of this is actually marketing the book and talking, talking about it's okay, because I did write it away. I do I do remember most of it. But I think I think this is another section that people sort of underestimate. So I don't know if we're going to you're going to be talking about that that angle at all. But it is it's an interesting thing, because I know a lot of people think about doing it. I did and did for a long time, but the actual doing of it and the process and the industry, the publishing industry is a was a whole new world to me in terms of in terms of the process, then, you know, what you should do, what you shouldn't do, etc. Very, very interesting. Yeah, maybe we can have a whole other other event talking about the actual process of writing the book. But as you say, being an interviewee like myself is an absolute pleasure to be able to speak to so many interesting people. Nula, I've given a sort of introduction about yourself, but for people who don't know you, you know, tell them a little bit more about yourself other than my introduction. Okay. Well, I guess I wear I wear many hats, too many hats sometimes. But the bulk of my career is in investment management.  So that's sort of the bulk of my career. And maybe five, six years ago, I left and I did the LSE, went to the London School of Economics, and I did the Masters in Behavioral Science. So again, that's another story. Going back to school in my in my late, late years, was quite difficult. But it was a fantastic, fantastic course. And what I learned there was how to articulate and label, I would say label the human biases and behaviors that we under undergo. So what I wanted to do then was always to supply that because I had I had I have a number of seats on different boards, as you said, and I have my own consultancy. So what I wanted to do after that was together, if you like, and just make sense of it for people. So it's a very eclectic background. Someone was asking me about the career transitions. So I have done a number of transitions to be fair. But but but all within it, within a space. So if I had to put it all together, I guess I've got three strands of consulting angle, I've got the writing, and then I've got this the board's piece where I work with UN women, human rights organizations, the Innocence Project. So that plays to my background. And one of my earlier academic degrees was was around philosophy, but also then I went on to do forensic psychology. So if you read the book, that's where that that's where it came from. So you will see in the book, my whole life, I've got CEO stories. I've got, you know, presidents, astronauts, sports, huge amount of sports stories. And then also put a huge amount from from the criminal world as well. Serial killers, just to the unethical side of side of life. So it all comes together in the book, I guess, Louisa, I feel it's a slightly comfortable circle. And when I gave all of the examples in the book, and I do have an I do have an editor and publishers that said they had never seen so many examples. They normally have to tell writers to give me a few more. I probably wrote like I speak pretty fast. So it's story, story, story, story, just to make the point.  Because some of them are pretty big and well known. But I just used them to make the point. And for me, that that made it richer. And I was able to put in some stories that moved me. And that's sort of one of my own filters that I had to have some connection with the story, or to think it was really interesting or fascinating or something. And then because my thinking was well, both, you know, if one person likes it, usually when it comes to the emotional triggers, we all sort of feel X, Y and Z when we watch Netflix or read different books. Yes, yes, let's turn to the book. And as you say, there's a lot in there, Nula, there's a lot of stories. Tune in how to make smarter decisions in a noisy world, obviously, about the decision making process. And you tell us in the book that, surprise, surprise, not all decisions have happy endings. We can tune in to the wrong voices. People can tune into voices of evil, people can tune into voices maybe of overambitious reach. Voices that maybe aren't realistic. And as you say to us, when policymakers tune out, I mean, this can lead to huge human era, fatalities. What was it? Do you think, Nula, that made you feel that honing in on this particular area of, I suppose, the different categories that we'd considered to be under sort of behavioural science is this decision making process?  Excuse the praise into this particular area? It's a brilliant question, Louise, because I didn't initially, I didn't initially, as I went through. So initially, I thought I would almost do a compendium. And we'll talk about it later, but I'm not sure if I should say it, but I've a series of 10 traps. So basically what I did was combine a lot of different biases under some of these traps, like power-based traps or ego-based or risk-based, etc. So what I was trying to initially was, well, what are the power-based traps? Are the biases? What ones in particular seed that? And when I did that, okay, there were a few, and you would know some of them, authority bias, or being too complex, but I think you know, being too compliant, and all of those ones. But what I tried to do then was say, what voices were people listening to? So it's easy if you think of ethics, right? Did you listen to the voice of conscience or not? But also that it wasn't as simplistic as just one voice. So you could have the voice of familiarity, or the voice of probability. So you've got all these probabilistic biases that we, when it comes to numbers, and we're doing numerical evaluations. So the voice of experience or the voice of self-interest, glory, you know, compassion, and convenience. And I argue that of course, in a fast-paced world, we listen to the voice of convenience, it rides very high over the voice of common sense or rationality. So we rush to misjudgment, particularly in this noisy, fast-paced world. So yes, you're right, you can have these sort of intangible voices that you listen to. But also, I also wanted to make it very real in terms of, do you listen to the first voice you hear, which is probably, it could be the most, it could be the person next to you, or the most senior voice, the leader in the room, the expert voice, or the fastest voice, or the voice you admire most. So we all listen to idols, you know, whoever we admire, but they're not always right. And neither are experts, and neither is your boss, nor is your parent or your partner. But we rush to judgment, so, and then mavericks, we tune out mavericks and braggers and boasters, but we tune into the gossipy person or the fun person. So it's really, it's an invitation to think differently about who you're listening to and why. And just ask yourself, why am I listening to this person? Yeah, what do they know that I don't? Should I be, should I be thinking a little bit differently? And the filter with all of the stories is, did this person tune in or tune out? And was I able to map onto it, whether it was the voice of reason or evil or authority, or this or the identity tracks were all about the need for acceptance? You know, so FOMO, we want to be, we want to be judged well. So what do we do in that moment? When we're making a decision, how vulnerable are we to impression management? And are we really buying a new car to impress the neighbors? You know, or because we really want it? Can we afford it? It's any decision. Why you leave your job? Why you leave your partner? What house do you buy? But in business, it's about important leadership decisions rather than rather than the individual decisions. And you mentioned they're the type of person that we listen to and who we are influenced by. And it can be somebody completely peripheral to our, to our reality, to our real life. And that sort of leads in well, Nula, to this model that you have created in which so this would be a person of of power, I presume this is the P of power for this model of perimeters that you've created. And these are what you can explain, explain to everyone who's joined us today, how you came about this model and how it's to actually work when we're trying to think through a decision. Yeah, well, well, the first thing is to we all it is, it reflects when you are in a given situation. So let's just take power. It's not somebody with power. The point is, when you are chasing power, since you might be a graduate, you might be in your first job, you might not might be at the top and still chasing power, but you're chasing power, right? So you're either you could be chasing power, you could be in a position of power and be so desperate to keep it. What decisions are you making? I what traps? What biases are you liable to fall into and be triggered by? And then thirdly, or you could be, you could have lost power. So you could have been fired, you could have, you know, it could be a CEO who's fired or an individual who's fired, you could be anyone who has lost your pursuit, either actual power or perceived power. So you might be, you might come second, you might be ranked number two, you might think, well, I've lost face. So so you're losing something. And the question is, okay, now now you are at risk. Now you are at risk of rushing to misjudgment and making the wrong call, because you are so involved in these situations under stress, uncertainty, you're triggered, what what biases are you likely to fall into? So that's what it's a power based misjudgment trap. So it's a misjudgment trap that you're liable to fall into when you are vulnerable to power, or whether you have a high or a low ego, or whether you're risk seeking or risk averse, whether you're thinking about the present or the past. And I go through these 10 different scenarios, they're not scenarios or situations. And they stand for the word perimeters, which is about narrow thinking. And I've given you some of them, P, power, ego, risk, identity, memory, memory was a very good chapter, a very interesting and very hard chapter, right, I would have thought. Memory, ego, I'm testing my own memory now, sorry, not ego, emotion, time, ethics, relationships as in the crowd, and stories. So even when I say those words, you can think, Oh, yes, I'm liable to, to make a misjudgment when I'm vulnerable to, you know, just accepting stories with a face value without tuning, tuning in to the right storytellers, the right messengers decoding what you hear, reinterpreting what you hear, rather than misinterpreting and reflecting. So this whole thing is about reinterpreting, it's not about listening, it's about reinterpreting what you hear and going through those second order effects and thinking, why, why, why, particularly in an important situation and whose voice are you listening to. And then, of course, you have all about the messenger effect and we know from the messenger effect, for example, that we listen to the most familiar voice, the most credible voice, and scarily, the voice that you like, so the likability factor, so the voices that you like, and we tune out the Mavericks and the naysayers and even though they may be the right voice in a particular situation.  What I found since reading the book, Nula, I mean, often you'll read a book and it will have one of these sort of acronyms of a model and when it comes to real life, they're not very practical or you don't remember them. And what I found since reading the book is that it little bits of them sort of keep returning to me as I sort of think about it. And I think how the model seems most effective is that sort of any of them can stand on their own to make, you know, you can, oh, is that something I should be considering? So it's not necessarily one of those acronyms that you need to be going one, two, three, four, five, they each are independent in terms of recognizing how it might be playing a role in in biasing a decision. Is that the way in which you hoped they would work, Nula? Well, yes and no, because, yes, you can read a standalone chapter on you can read power ego or impression management identity. So you can read so you can read that. However, they're not on their own. There is a force multiplier effect. So if you were analyzing any different situation, so a power based trap, you know, when you're chasing power or losing power, of course, ego is going to come into effect there and affect your decision making. It's going to affect the risks that you take. So it's going to be filled with emotions. So you need to understand the emotional triggers. Are you talking about regret, envy, greed, fear? What is it? And, you know, there are 27 emotions. So knowing which one it is, so regret, regret avoidance, envy is huge when you're talking about careers. So I think you're right. They are standalone because each chapter could have been a book and it really could. So and so it's deliberately, slightly high level, but enough for you to run through in your head. Am I guilty of or vulnerable to P.E.R.I.M.E, T.E.R.S. Anyone can remember them because it's kind of easy. And then if you think I'm feeling really emotional right now, this is really what it is. And you know what, just go and read the piece and do it, go through a checklist. So I'll be issuing a checklist shortly that has just a very simple, here they are, and they're actually 75. So I've got, I've got about six or seven in the 10 to be fair. And I've got a few others dotted around, but you can you can look at the six or seven in each of the traps and say, which one is this? And once you label that, Louise, once you can say, you know, I'm feeling so invulnerable, I'm never going to be fired. Let's do the I'm never going to be fired one. Or I'm never, my house is never going to go on fire. So I'm never going to invest in insurance or, you know, etc. But people do this all the time. They underway the judgment traps. All you need to say is I'm feeling particularly vulnerable in the situation. What am I guilty of? So I could sit here and say, identity doesn't matter if I say the wrong thing. Am I going to, am I going to make a really bad, well, I won't make a bad choice because I'm sitting here doing it, but I might if I was, if I was, if I was on a stage or on television, I might, I might make a bad call because, because I'm feeling at risk that what if I get it wrong, etc. etc. So, but and also I think it's important to note, it isn't about the individual. This is about three levels. The individual level, yes, you what you're doing wrong, but also the organization, the collective group. So I've plenty of examples. And I know the individual equals the collective in an organization. But the, at an organization level, you get to culture and everything else when you're, when you are, when you're a fast paced organization, an entrepreneurial organization in news room, you are more liable to these, to these traps than ever because it's so fast. And I do argue, I do argue in the book that the biggest and most underestimated risk of all is actually human decision rate risk. It's not economic, political, and it's not only economic, political or technological or even climate risk, because underpinning it all is of course human decision risk. But people tune out, people don't accept that, even though we know that, that, that it's a major, a major factor. So what I'm trying to do really is draw people's attention to this human risk and increase the level of responsibility that people take when they are in positions of power, because the more power you have, the greater the consequentiality of you getting it wrong. And you will get it wrong if you don't at least consider, consider some of these factors. And the, the evidence is there, the way I mean organization life cycles are down, they're down from 61 years to 18, M and A. And how, how many articles have we all read on M and A? So we know the advice and who listens to us, nobody. So, you know, miscarriages of justice, misconduct, all the fines, all the scandals, all the malpractice suits. So we know this because we're smart people who just don't do it. So it's just trying to give people a different way of thinking about this. So I do deliberately talk about deaf spots. So we know about blind spots. So, you know, with the best respect for, for, for the fabulous Daniel Kahneman who writes and wrote about what you see is all there is. I deliberately write about what you hear is all there is.  It's what he meant about what we mean. But that's the point there, that what you hear is not all there is. And you must go to that extra level of detail. If you want to, you know, make sure that you avoid this predictable error. And it is predict. The marvelous Daniel Kahneman, yes, who for many of us was our gateway into the world of paper science that died yesterday, an absolute giant to many of us. So a very sad day. Nula, there's another aspect of the book, which is a fun aspect. Now we don't have to put the address. I'll find the address of it and put it into the chat. The fun aspect, I'll tell you all of Nula's book, tune in, is that you can go to the website. I'm just looking, I did write it down. I'll tell you what it is, if you like. Yes, please do. UliGwalt.com slash quiz. Okay, I'm going to post on it later. www.nula.gwalsh and typing as I speak.com slash quiz. Yeah. So I hope I've typed that correctly. I'm going to send it on to everybody. Great bit of fun. You must all go on to the website for the book, NulaGwalsh.com slash quiz. Nula, explain what we can learn by answering this. There's about 12 questions are there? There are actually 10. And each one relates to the perimeter is trapped. And it was a very difficult thing to do. I had to really think about the scoring and which question I would ask. It's one question. So and my scoring is quite interesting. So if you say I always, so I can't even remember what they're in front of me now, but one of them might have been, and do you, so if I was doing ego, might have been, do you, how often do you rely on yourself rather than other people that might be always, sometimes never. So if you say I always rely on myself and my intuition, well, I discounted you or it was like I because it's because you shouldn't always rely on yourself always. So, so what I did was I deliberately used the perimeters to, to test people. And if they were overconfident, so I deliberately wrote in the analysis, if you were a confident Chris, for example, you know, well done you, you got 65%. Well, you know, there's a problem now because it's the problem there is, it's not, if you are, if you do get a lot of things, right? And then we see this in, in business leaders, when you get to the top or near the top in an organization, this illusion of invulnerability gets reinforced. You think you always get it right.  And therein is one of the bigger traps. You are just on a precipice now, because it is not humanly possible for you to get everything right. And that's when you must think, well, I've been lucky, smart and lucky, not just smart, smart and lucky so far. Things have gone your way. But we know that in this noisy world, because the fundamental argument is that we, we hear less than ever, and we misjudge more than ever.  That is a fact, because the, the evidence, you know, the actual numerical statistical evidence says that the rate of human error is rising. And it's phenomenal in certain industries as well. So, you know, even if you just think of scams, as one very simple or school shootings, missed terrorist signals, missed FBI warnings, they are getting more. And it's not just availability bias. And because I did, I did, I did check all the statistics, and that we just hear about these things more, you do hear about them more. They are also more sensationalized than, than non-defense. But the fact is that they are increasing in a number in too many cases. So, so doing this test, I mean, it's only a fun test, but it's just a test to at least get people thinking. I was, I was careful when I, when I was doing my, when I was doing it up, my sister did one, she got 95%. So I knew my scoring was wrong. You cannot get 95%. This is wrong. So I do it. So you can't get below 30. I know that because you don't get it all wrong. So there is, so there is some margin of error.  Yes, we all get more right than wrong. But that, but if you want to maintain your track record, you'd need to be much more careful because it's a noisy, distracting, faster pace world where, where we do hear less. And even if you need, if you don't, if people think, well, what do you mean we hear less? Well, look at, look at polarization. Look at unheard voices. Look at the rising rate of activism. How many, how many, we read it all the time. Employees in organizations. How many strikes do we have now? Let's go hard off.  Now you have not just industrial strikes, but you have people doing some, you have employees grouping together employee power, making their voice really heard. So you have that power of the populace and the power of the employee. And they do it. Why? Because they feel unheard. They feel people aren't listening to them. They've tried. Look at Disney, do you remember Disney? They were Disney and they were passing that bill. And, you know, the management wouldn't, wouldn't listen to them. It was a gay rights bill. And they wouldn't get Disney wouldn't take a stand for the employees, you know, did their strike outside and drew huge attention. But it's not, I mean, HP have done it. Amazon have done it. A lot of companies and employees who work for these big brands are doing it. But people are now learning from that.  So the evidence is there for greater activism and greater polarisation. So yeah, we've had three sort of particularly big cases, two of which you definitely reference in the book. I'm thinking of Serenos. I'm thinking of We Work. And now I'm just thinking of the Sam Bankman Freed. Yeah, two of which you definitely reference in this book, situations where with hindsight, reading the stories afterwards, we think to ourselves, how did it ever get this far along the line? And yet, as you say, so swept up in, I mean, we still, I suppose, find it hard to understand, but they're perfect examples of when people tuned out. Well, they are. And actually, actually, the third one is in there as well. Is it? Yes. And there's a fourth one, which is the British Post Office. And the most recent scandal. The whole book could have, I could have done a perimeter's analysis of any of those four. And that is the truth. And when I was writing, I'm thinking, oh, I'm not really doing justice to, you know, to do any of these particular stories. So I've tried to put a few links and we referenced them in a few different places. Or am I I majored on one. So the introduction to every chapter has a story about and that typifies the trap. So, so you're absolutely right. And I think ethics was the third last one. And I use We work for something else. And I use the British Post Office for the crowd effect from that. And so I think I did that. But I wanted to have done the more but since then, I've actually written an article on the British Post Office. I had one for Sarah Nuss at the time. Because you're absolutely right. Pick any of the traps. And we could we could do a whole session on it here. And you can analyze what happened, not just the leader, but people who are complicit. And you've probably read Max Bassam and work on, you know, complicity, my own research is on whistleblowing and the bystander effect. So combined in all of those and, you know, which voices do they listen to? There's a there's an interesting thread in the book about whistleblowers.   And that's why I urge people when people don't speak to try and go that extra mile of what are people really saying or not saying. So the whistleblowing is another example of they tuned they tuned in. So the individual. So if you take Harry Markopoulos, for example, who you may recall was involved in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, as in he was the whistleblower in the Madoff scheme. For many, for many years before nine years, Louise, nine years. Never being listened to and reaching out to the most, I mean, high levels of power to alert them to the fact that this was impossible. Unbelievable story, unbelievable story. And I'm sure a lot of people, you know, have read that. But here's another thread in the book, I do say we rely on what who we see, not what not what we hear. OK, so we know about first impressions and there is a theme about we're too reliant on the visual rather than the arrow. So with that in mind, Harry Markopoulos sprung to mind. And I did I just wrote a sentence on it. Harry Markopoulos was not the best looking chap by Hollywood standards, according to himself. He was a geek using his words. So if he was of that orientation, he definitely was in the out group. So even that alone made that he was less likely to be heard. And what's really tragic is that he raised this when when the fund was was six billion, nine years later, was sixty five billion. They spoke to Harry Markopoulos himself or sorry to make Duff himself in prison.  And he said he couldn't believe that the people didn't couldn't spot this, that like it was so obvious. How could anyone not see it? So some of them. And then there was a I did give an example of a chap in the book, Thierry, Thierry de la Véluche, a really sad, really sad individual who Harry Markopoulos did go to speak to a financial adviser in France, and he went to speak to him a number of times and really tried to get him to see that his friend, his friend Bernie wasn't all that cracked up to be. But so so for this chap, Thierry did analyze. He said, well, I've got the statements here. I've got you've got the statements in front of me and I've looked at them and I've checked them and they all they all seem right and they tell you what's in the accounts and stuff. So he dismissed it. He heard what he wanted to. And of course, he lost an absolute fortune and God love him. You know, he couldn't face it. Proud man committed suicide, you know, a week later. So really, really tragic. And he wasn't the only one. You know, other people actually, ironically, I don't know if you know this, but Bernie made off son himself, also committed suicide a year to the day that Bernie was arrested.  And and she didn't.  So a misjudgment called, I mean, you can understand it, of course, you know, one sees it's easy to say it in hindsight and that's outcome bias. So very easy to say to see this after the fact. But that's what this is about, trying to avoid regret, trying to at least ask the questions. And, you know, she may decide I'm willing to live with whatever it was those consequences. But people may need to say I'm comfortable. I can live with the consequences whatever they may be. So one of the tips here is, of course, to go to that end state and say, what is the worst case that can happen here? How likely is it to happen? And then if so, what will I do about it? And can I deal with or live with the consequences? And when you do that, you shrink the emotionality and the consequentiality of whatever decision it is that you're trying to make. And the fear factor slightly goes. So you've got a plan if the worst thing happens and or you're willing to accept and live with the consequences. And that's, I think, that's almost a route out of indecision and guide to making better decisions. Now, everyone who's joining us on this call, if you have questions about the decision making process for Nula, do put them in the chat and we'll come to those as I see them appearing. The examples you give in the book, Nula, they're not all business examples. Your opening story very much is along the theme of earlier you were talking about sycophants and a story that everyone is familiar with talking about Elvis Presley surrounded by people giving him very bad advice. Maybe you just like to tell us why you decided to open with that story. I know it has a personal connection for you and then to go on and sort of tell us about how decision making impacted the king. Well, well, you know, what's really interesting, Louise, that I actually had the book written. I had my introduction done and my editor didn't love my introduction. I'm thinking, so then I thought, OK, well, maybe I had my opening was the Jonestown story, actually, that was my original and I used it elsewhere. My other thing was Jonestown because it typified all of the perimeter of the fact. So I did in the book go through the Jonestown cult for 906 people committed mass suicide. So and Jones was the cult leader. OK, so Jones was the one that they were all listening to, etc. So but it typified the people in there under estimated the risks, accepted the stories, forgot their home life, dreamt of bigger things, etc. So it all worked out and I did. I did really analyze Jonestown and it worked. So the perimeters trapped did it fits all of them, but it fitted that. And I had it done and I did like it. I really did like it. And I thought, you know, it was good. Then hilariously, the movie came out and I was on a plane and I watched the movie and I thought, oh, my God, this is decision making to a D. And I went off. I must have read. Of course, we all know the story. I probably have read. I read six to seven different books afterwards to write that piece. But I first my first version, I gave to my niece and she said, you look like you're writing a biography. Where's decision making here? And she was right. I got so grossed in the story and the bits that I was learning and there's a phenomenon. I mean, it's way deeper, way deeper than just what we see on TV. Way deeper. But anyway, so I read it. I rewrote. I rewrote it and I was very pleased that I rewrote. It's probably the bit that I enjoyed the most because what I felt was the greatest voice of all time, according to whomever. Didn't you actually mention that we're talking about Elvis Presley? Everybody. Sorry, you did. Yes, you did. You absolutely did. So that voice of all time didn't hear the voices that really mattered. He made fantastic decision, musical and artistic decisions. And he made a polling, personal decisions, financial decisions and health care decisions. And the introduction I do like a problem. It's probably the bit that I like the most because. Well, I think we all feel that we would have we would have of course we wouldn't have done what he'd done. And if we had five jets and all that money, we wouldn't have delegated to other people. But he was at the top. He was afraid of losing power. He had ego. He had a temper. But he was surrounded by sycophants. And but he wouldn't listen. He wouldn't listen to reason. But his background story explains why. So this desperation, this fear of, you know, being poor again, etc. So but he suffered the illusion of invulnerability and exceptionalism. So he thought that he could do no wrong. He was clever. He did actually do a huge amount of research on all of these tablets and medic medication. But he trusted the experts. He wasn't confident. So it both in Jonestown or Elvis Flair is saying they both. The whole thing it works for both. So so I could equally have done a diagnosis through that. So I used him because I thought it really mattered. I had actually been to Graceland 30, 40 years ago. And before I finished the book the month before we were going on holidays to the States. Or were we? Maybe I just made sure we were. Anyway, so my poor husband got dragged, dragged out to go again. And it was fantastic, actually, because I didn't want to submit the book until I had written that this last piece that said that because I sort of felt that I had come 30, 40 years in my own life. I did feel that I was putting my own decision making in context. And as I walked through those gates, I really did feel something. I'm not a fan. I should have said I'm not a huge fan. I just it was a story was so moving that like, how could you have got this so wrong? How could any any of us get this so wrong in our situations? So that was really the poor rather than the music. I will say since I have started listening to music again, though different the gospel music particularly. But anyway, so that's why I use that as a story, too. And I used it to go the whole way through. I just use different examples of Priscilla, the acolytes, et cetera, as an example. So I used that and I used the space story. I didn't use Neil Armstrong and the Apollo mission, the three astronauts, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, there's a huge, there's a huge thread there of that, but definitely it's all CEOs and all business. Serial killers feature very strongly as well. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy. I'm afraid they're all in there. So. But again, as I said, I only picked things that had some meaning or some connection to me that I liked and I really felt and so far people have been very kind and I say they love it. So. Yeah, as you say, there's a huge there's a lot in there. There's a lot in the book. And as you say, as you read it through, you do feel that any number of these sort of chapters could be taken away and expanded to a great degree. Maybe that's what you'll spend the rest of your time doing, writing books about one chapter. And as you mentioned, there's quotes throughout the book. There's some fantastic quotes. I've just written this one down quote by the Dalai Lama when you, which I thought was absolutely perfect for this book. When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new. Such a powerful quote really about the power of listening. And I'm just for for everyone who's joined us today. I'm just going to read out a few quotes from the book to give you a taster. These are all towards the end, but I scribbled them down as I felt they were quite meaningful. So Nula says, those who stand out use behavioral insight as a route to exceptional judgment. I mean, that's that's so strong. Most people want to do the right thing. Understanding how misinformation becomes a judgment killer reduces this risk. I mean, that's very powerful, isn't it, Nula? As you say, most people do want to do the right thing. And yet the power, the power of misinformation with so as humans, we are so vulnerable to it. I mean, any any amount of articles will read, you know, the impact of social media. And as you say, absolutely, coming back to the title of the book, this noisy world that we live in is is challenging to the most intelligent and alert person. You're not wrong, Louise, an actual fact that the quotes I did, I did I did put a lot of effort into the quotes, actually. And I was very pleased with the quotes anyway that I used in the end. But the misinformation even that you refer to, I argue it's mental misinformation. So we know that misinformation, fake news is the number one global risk according to the World Economic Forum. But we don't think about the misinformation of our minds. And that's sort of what I'm trying to get to, that if you tuning out is a source of misinformation, because you're not listening to the right voices, but tuning in is a source of opportunity. So I've deliberately given the good and the bad there. So you're right, most of the stories are for, you know, here's the warning, but I had to go to a lot of trouble to find these great ones as well, that refers someone to who tuned in. And one of the, one of another, one of my favorite examples in there, which we won't have time, you can read it, is of an FBI investigator, how he tuned in.  I had the privilege of speaking to him afterwards. And honestly, I felt very moved to myself listening to that poor man who spent his whole career saving children, torments himself now about the children he didn't save. He was in the child protection unit and he spent his life doing horrendous, horrendous against serial killers. So anyway, you can read that one, but there's an example, for example, of someone, what story is he listening to? So he's retired now and all he's listening to is the people that he didn't, the children he didn't save. And the terrible, terrible stories that are there. But, you know, he's got a fantastic book, if anyone's interested in his book, in the name of the children, called Really, Really Moving. Thank you. Thanks for that recommendation, Nola. And I'd say we are coming close to wrapping up time. I do just want to ask you about another subject, which I know you and I have chatted about ourselves. And it's when we had the conversation about generalists and specialists and the danger of being amongst a group of specialists who in a way become too focused on their speciality without sort of opening up their minds to what, you know, when we're talking about having teams of people and needing diverse voices, the danger then of being too narrow in your own speciality which creates its own danger. Yeah, I mean, you're right. If you are a generalist or a specialist, and it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter which you are, you still might be listening to a generalist and get it wrong or a specialist and get it wrong. And I see Vishal has a question there in the chat, actually, that sort of relates to that, asking about creating. I think it's Adam Grant who suggests creating your own personal board of advisors, or somebody has suggested, now everyone suggests to that, which is what we come to. Do you think it's wise to increase the amount of voices you listen to so you get the broadest amount of perspectives or picking fewer right voices? Fantastic question. Thank you, Vishal. It's a very, very good and very hard question. I'll go to the second one, picking fewer right voices. You don't know which is the right voice. Someone asked me yesterday, Diane Pelle from Trinity, and she said, how do you know the right voices? And it's sort of one of those questions you don't want to get asked because it's so hard. But, because you can't know which is the right voice, but you can know what's the wrong voice. And the wrong voice is the voice that's, that's the first voice, the loudest voice, the fastest voice, the most popular voice or the expert voice. If you are choosing your answer to whatever decision based on only those criteria, and you're not doing as what Vishal says, increasing your general wisdom, you are in a dangerous spot. Yes, of course you broaden your perspective because the whole thing is about don't have a narrow perspective, but you can't broaden it so widely that you get punch strong and you don't know who to turn to and you've got so many you're just completely confused. Then you have to narrow it down. So you broaden the funnel, then you narrow it down. So you can't go straight to A or B and I do have a piece on binary thinking which of course is as bad as going too far at this side. So it is about narrowing it down to the point where, you know, which is, I go back to, you have to, you have to make the call at the end of the day. So it's not that you rely on it on your own. You may end up as a decision maker having to make the call off course. And, but you, but if you do that to the exclusion of listening to other people, the broad piece, then you are in a danger. So it is a, it is, and because at the end of the day, you might be a consultant, a doctor, a therapist, a lawyer. It is based on your judgment call. But you do. Often that may vary quickly. That's right. And the problem is that people don't, don't listen to enough people quickly enough. Or often enough rather. Yeah. That's very interesting insight actually not listening to the first voice. It made me think of something I've just read recently and they were saying about when you're brainstorming and having ideas. And you would think that the first two or three ideas would be the best. But actually they're saying, no, go on, go on. Because once you get to idea eight, nine, 10, you're starting to dig deep and think more deeply. And in a way, that's sort of what we're doing with this concept of listening to voices. Don't listen to the first, maybe the second voice but allow many, many to come in to contribute to the final decision making process. Nula, it's been absolute joy chatting with you like this. I know you and I could go on chatting for the rest of the day, but we have come to the end of our session. Really enjoyed hearing about the book that you've written, Nula. And obviously we do recommend all of you to go away and discover Nula's book for yourself. It is absolutely chock full of very, very interesting stories, which as I say, I feel Nula could go away and create a whole other sort of library around the content that's in there. So Nula, thank you so much for joining us today. I don't know if you have any sort of closing thoughts that you would like to share with everyone who's joined us today. Well, not really, I guess, I do really appreciate people dialing in. I know how valuable everybody's time is. So I really appreciate you at least dialing in and being interested in the book. I do urge people to buy the book, not for any reason, except that I actually do think it makes a difference. And I do think it's something that people can go back to time and time again. So I'd love to connect with people. I'd love to hear what you think and do, of course. I am on LinkedIn. I think most of us are on LinkedIn now, but really, really I would love to hear from people. So thank you to everybody, particularly those who came who've been dialing in very late or early in the morning. Yes, thank you all of you. Thank you so much for joining us. It's been lovely to see you all come and jump on the call. As Nula said, in your valuable time, I hope that you've enjoyed everything we've discussed today and thank you again, Nula, for being our very lovely guest in this session of 42 Courses Speaker Series. Thank you so much and do keep your eyes open for our posts of our up and coming speakers in the next month in April. So thank you all very much.


Singing games were beloved of 19th century collectors who often believed that they preserved evidence of ancient rituals. They were also seized on by those who imagine and lament a decline in children's traditional games. Singing games have been revived a number of times, for instance in the late 19th and late 20th centuries. Nowadays, tend to be taught by adults, whether in the playground, in singing lessons, in children's parties or via children's television programs. The classic singing games were generally performed by girls, though boys sometimes joined in. Many involved circling, whilst holding hands, and had a courtship or marriage element. Though the older singing games, including Ring-a-Ring-a-Roses and In-N-Out-the-Dusty-Blue-Bales, form a part of this repertoire, they are mainly found among children in the first few years of primary school. As children grow older, more of their singing games can be traced to their media cultures, ranging from cheerleading, handshakes and pop-song routines to elaborate restagings of routines from their favourite musicals. The opus recorded children performing songs of the pop stars of the day from Bob Merrill's She Wears Red Feathers to Lena Zavaroni's Ma, She's Making Eyes at Me to Abba. I mean her recent examples of children using songs and dances from Beyoncé, High School Musical and Mamma Mia. Singing popular songs in groups of two or more was already well known in the 1960s, and it's a popular activity on today's playgrounds. Sometimes this is accompanied by dance moves, either made up by the children themselves, or increasingly copying routines seen in films, music videos or learnt in dance classes. Boys and girls both engage enthusiastically with this kind of play, girls often showing a preference for mainstream pop and boy bands, while boys tend to follow street dance forms and male performers such as Michael Jackson and the dance group Diversity, which won the TV show Britain's Got Talent in 2009. A casual adult observer might suppose that children are simply mimicking routines they've seen in the media. But the picture's more complicated than that. They very often combine elements of dance, gesture, music and words from different sources, blending them into one routine. They may also learn these routines from each other, or from parents, siblings and cousins, rather than directly from the media. In some ways then, media-based songs and dances can be passed in the same kind of way as a folk song or folk dance. Such activities clearly contribute to social development and the gradual building of identity, but they're also undertaken for all the reasons adults perform music, song and dance, for the sensory, aesthetic and intellectual interest involved and the sheer pleasure of performance.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com coming at you with 1819 Chronicles basketball fatpack break number 61 with 10 hip parade Basketball spots being given away. This is for break nine the spot giveaways for break nine Big thanks to this group here for making it happen. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it one and a five six times for names and teams one two three four five and six And of course a different dice roll for the giveaway part at the end of or after we do this pack break one and a five six times for the teams one two three Four Denver down at Toronto. All right. There's the first half of the list right there second half right over here and Let's print and rip Excuse me. All right, so we've got Mo Bamba, Wendell Carter, Jr Miles Bridges, Spellman A lot of fun little rookies here. There's a Luca Dodger. That's the ones we're looking for Who's got Dallas in this one? That'll be for Chris All right now. Let's flip screens over here and then let's see who's gonna win at those Hit parade spots. Let's gather everybody's names one through 30 new dice new list and it'll be the top ten After ten four and a six ten times one two three four five six seven eight nine and 10th and final time now from 11 through 30 Sad times surely Wen Shun and Chris will get spots, but let's see if some of the others That we're trying will get spots Chris has a spot. So does Chris Chris Chris JC. You're in Chris Wen Shun Chris Chris and Wen Shun There you go. There's the top ten JC snuck in say that all it takes is one ladies and gentlemen after ten Thank you. We'll see you in the next video for the break Jaspies case breaks calm