Part 1: The Polgar Sisters

Can prodigies be created with early specialization? Laszlo Polgar was an educational psychologist who believed they could. He experimented with his own children and the results were fascinating.

This is Part 1 of a re-release of the first 3 Prodigy episodes. They are meant to be listened to together as they cover the argument of nature vs nurture as related to performance.

Created, produced and hosted by Lowell Brillante

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, it's a productive of I heart radio. Prodigies are
children that display rapid skill acquisition in a domain. A
domain is any specific area of activity or knowledge, like tennis,
or writing, or psychology or chess. Chess is a domain

(00:27):
where mastery is associated with a superior intellect. It's incredibly strategic.
Yet it's simple enough that a child can play. But
some children do more than just play. My name is
Lowell Balante, and this is prodigy. If you're like me,

(01:02):
you believe that a prodigy is a rare combination of
genetic talent, environment and effort. But some people have made
a lot of money selling the idea that talent doesn't
exist and that the driving force behind expert performance is
just effort. They also call it hard work or practice.
A common way they introduced this idea is by using

(01:24):
the example of the Polgar sisters. Here is their story.
Before his children were even conceived, Laslow Polgar believed they
would be prodigies. Laslow is a Hungarian educational psychologist born
in nineteen forty six. As a university student, he studied

(01:47):
intelligence and came to the conclusion that people who were
recognized as geniuses had early introduction to their domain. Laslow
is quoted as saying, it's very interesting because when I
looked at the life stories of geniuses, I found the
same thing. They all started at a very young age
and studied intensively. Mozart is a classic example because his

(02:09):
father was a music teacher. Mozart began learning to play
the piano at three years old. He developed perfect pitch
and became so famous that his name is interchangeable. A genius.
So Laslow theorized that early specialized education is far more
important than talent. He concluded that introduction should begin at
three years old and intensive education should begin at six.

(02:33):
Laslow was so confident that he became determined to prove
that he could turn any healthy newborn into a genius,
and he decided he would do it with his own children.
Laslo began courting the daughter of a family friend. She

(02:54):
was a Ukrainian foreign language teacher named Clara. They wrote
to each other often, and in the letters, Aslow disclosed
his plan. Claire thought he was a little strange, but
became convinced, and after a year and a half he proposed.
Laslow and Claire married and had a daughter they named Susan.
They considered various topics for Susan to specialize in, originally

(03:15):
considering mathematics and language, but one day the toddler found
a chessboard in a cabinet and became intensely curious. Years later,
Susan would say he could have put us in any field,
but it was I who chose chess. I liked the chessmen.
They were toys for me. Here's a quick introduction to

(03:36):
the game of chess. The board is a square made
up of sixty four smaller squares. Each player has sixteen
pieces which control one fourth of the board. Those pieces
include six different types, made up of eight pawns, two rooks,
two nights to bishops, one queen, and one king. Players

(03:58):
alternate turns with the goal of arapping their opponents king.
Once the game begins and each player makes their opening move,
there are now four hundred different possibilities for their next move.
After their second move, they're over seventy two. After three
moves there are nine million, and after four moves they're
over three eighteen billion. To put this in perspective, the

(04:24):
observable universe is estimated to have approximately ten to the
eighty atoms. That's a ten with eight zeros after it.
The number of possible permutations of chess is estimated to
be ten to the one three, so the quantity of
possible games is nearly unlimited. This is why chess, while
easy to learn the basics, has infinite layers. Chess, Clara said,

(04:49):
is objective and easy to measure. Chess is what's known
as a zero sum game, which means the winner takes
rating points from the loser. Those points out up to
your rating in what's known as an Elo rating system.
In an Elo rating system, two equally rated players facing

(05:11):
off should win an equal number of times, thus winning
and losing an equal amount of points. But if a
lower rated player defeats a higher rated player, then they're
awarded more points than if a higher rated player defeats
a lower rated player over the course of many games.
This system is designed to give players a rating consistent
with their skill level. Laslow only had an amateur understanding

(05:35):
of the game, so how would he turn his children
into grand master level players. He published a book in
nine titled Raise a Genius, where he discusses his method.
The first thing he states is that there is no
secret to his system. It's based on the following standard
educational concepts. You can't achieve results through coercion. Too much

(06:02):
severity will diminish the child's interest. Allow the child to
win sometimes, so they are given the feeling of success.
Play with a handicap, then gradually reduce it as the
student becomes better. The training must be age appropriate. Use
games to awaken interest, because students master subjects much more
quickly when they are interested. So he gradually taught Susan

(06:27):
the basics of chess one concept at a time, and
kept her interested by making smaller games out of it.
The first thing he did was teacher the names of
the squares using pieces of graph paper. Since chess consists
of an eight by eight square grid, the row of
squares facing the player are labeled alphabetically A through H,

(06:48):
and the perpendicular squares are numbered one through eight. Laslow.
It gives Susan a location B three, for example, and
she would have to mark it with an X. Next,
he taught her the colors of the squares, which alternate
between black and white. After Susan learned the layout of
the board, he introduced the simplest piece, the pawn. They
would play pawn wars with the goal of reaching their
opponents baseline. Then he introduced the next piece, and so

(07:11):
on and so forth. Mastering the basics is a critical
concept where Laslow believes standard education fail students. Without it,
you cannot master more complicated subjects. My father believes that
innate talent is nothing, that success is hard work. I

(07:33):
agree with him. Susan Polgar. Susan is the firstborn child
of Laslow and Clara Polgar. She played her first major
tournament in an eleven and Under Championship at only four
years old and dominated with a perfect ten and no score.
The media labeled her a prodigy, but there were many

(07:54):
who were critical. They believe little girls should play with dolls,
not chessboards and wooden pieces. At six years old, it
was time for her to go to school. Her parents
decided that formal education would be more harmful than helpful
and decided to apply for a permit to homeschool Susan.
It was a very difficult process, but they did eventually

(08:15):
receive permission. The following five years were spent studying chess
to improve tactical and calculation skills. She read books, studied
famous Grandmaster games, learned to play blindfolded and practiced her endgame.
When Susan was twelve, she won the sixteen and Underworld Championship.

(08:39):
By age fifteen, she was the number one ranked female
chess player in the world and remained in the top
three for the next twenty three years. She became the
first woman in history to qualify for the men's World Championship.
In nights one, she became the first woman in history
to achieve the men's Grand Master title. In two thousand three,
she became the first woman to win the USO been

(09:00):
Blitz Championship. She went on to win it again in
two thousand five and two thousand six. She became the
first World champion in history to win the Triple Crown,
which consists of rapid blitz, A and classical chess all total.
She is a five time Olympic champion. Susan was not
an only child, and when Sophia was born in nineteen

(09:22):
seventy four, chess was already taken seriously at home. When
Sophia was five years old, she won the Hungarian Girls
eleven and Under Championship. She won the gold medal in
the Under fourteen Girls World Chess Championship at age eleven,
When Sophia was fourteen. While playing in an open tournament
in Rome, she delivered one of the strongest chess performances

(09:45):
ever recorded, defeating four grand master level opponents and scoring
an ELO rating of two thousand, eight hundred and seventy nine.
It has since become known as the Sack of Rome.
She finished second at the Rapid Women's World Chess Championship
and get in the World Junior Chess Championship. Although she
never reached the level of grand master and hasn't played

(10:05):
competitive ranked chess since two thousand ten, she was at
one point ranked six amongst all female chess players in
the world by chess standards. Sophia is the least accomplished
of the three sisters, but Susan considered Sophia the most
naturally gifted of them. Susan wrote in her book Breaking
Through that Sophia would give up fights easier, and rather

(10:26):
than focusing on one thing entirely, she diversified her interests.
Two years after Sophia, Judah was born. By the time
Juda turned three, both Susan and Sophia were playing competitive chess.
They lived in a small apartment and her older sisters
were training in the living room behind closed doors. Judah

(10:47):
was forbidden to go into the room, and as you
can imagine, she very much wanted to. Her parents told
her she could enter. Once she learned to play chess.
From an early age, Judah loved challenges. She take the
stairs when everyone else took the elevator, so the challenge
of chess suited her. Judah would become the strongest female

(11:12):
chess player of all time. She was the youngest player
to break into the top on international chess ranking at
only twelve years old. She achieved the title of grand
Master at age fifteen, several months younger than even Bobby Fisher.
Gary Kasparov, considered by many to be the greatest chess
player all time, once said she has fantastic chess talent,

(11:34):
but she is, after all, a woman. It all comes
down to the imperfections of the feminine psyche. No woman
can sustain a prolonged battle. Judah defeated him in two
thousand two. After the loss, he has quoted as saying
the pulgar showed that there are no inherent limitations to

(11:55):
their aptitude, an idea that many male players refused to
accept until they unceremoniously been crushed by a twelve year
old with a ponytail. Jude was the number one ranked
female player in the world for twenty one years. She's
the only woman to have ever won a game against
the world number one ranked player. All total, she has
defeated eleven current or former world champions. Although none of

(12:26):
the sisters accomplished Laslow's goal of becoming the world champion
for both women and men, Judah did reach the overall
rank of eight, which was an unimaginable achievement. Chess had
been completely dominated by men until the Polgar sisters broke
the gender barrier and proved that women can compete with
men at the highest levels of chess. Laslow's educational experiment

(12:47):
was incredibly successful, but as with any experiment, it has
to be repeatable. We'll get into that after a quick break.
Welcome back to Prodigy. So I'm interested in the Pollgars
actually were suited for chess, or if this method could
be repeated with any child. I contacted a child psychologist
who has worked with gifted children for decades, Dr Spamanka Newman.

(13:10):
I began by asking her to define what a prodigy is.
We have extraordinarily advanced and very early domain specific skill,
and then we have a child who exhibits ability to
perform in that domain as though he is a talented adult.
In popular media, sometimes people refer to very smart children

(13:31):
as geniuses, but genius is an adult. That adult doesn't
just have a skill in a domain, but transforms a
domain in a way that is irreversible. As a result
of a genius, we start thinking differently about something that
is very important and it has a lasting value. Children
prodigies have early promise and they have early performance, but

(13:53):
they might not transform the field. They just perform in
the field as though they are talented adults. I know
this may be a different definition of genius than you're
used to. The word has evolved over time, and psychologists
seem to prefer not to base the word on an
IQ test result. Laslow's ability to initiate and retain interest
in his children, it seems rather critical. What was the

(14:14):
significance of his method. We are having extraordinary talent here,
but we are also having a child. You may have
potential to achieve in learning chess as an adult, but
you are three year old. Three year olds play. Unless
learning is a play, it might not be sustained for
a long time. Play is rewarding place, exhilarating, place energizing.

(14:39):
Like in every development of mastery in any field, there
is a point later where there is going to be
transitioned from play to discipline. Mastery cannot be achieved without
disciplined practice, but that comes later. If that is introduced
to early, it may kill the joy and so the
child might lose interest. Regardless of what I think Laslow

(14:59):
did state with as plan was and it worked, could
it not be reproduced with other children? There is that
intersection of a parent who is already having a child
with exceptional potential, drive and interest that can lead that
potential into realization. But I don't think it can create

(15:20):
a prodigy. Most parents would try that if they don't
have the child with a potential and interest, create very angry,
resentful children who actually at the end don't love what
they are exposed to. So Dr Newman believes that loudslow
success was a coincidence and would not be as effective
with the average child. And she's not alone. Here's Dr

(15:41):
Scott Barry Kaufman. Faldman noted there's usually a lucky coinciding
of lots of different factors. You know, they usually do
find a parent who accelerates the process in some way.
And here's Dr Feldman himself. I asked him about the
belief that any healthy child is a potential prodigy, the
behavior of belief, and a lot of people bought it

(16:03):
and still do that you can make any child into anything.
And it's not true. So that they got to just
is maybe fortunate in their case. If they had tried
something else, the probabilities are not in their favor, they
probably would not be known to us as the Polgar family,
They probably wouldn't be known to us at all. Laslow

(16:25):
believed that genetic predisposition was irrelevant. However, if that were true,
wouldn't his daughters either have the exact same skill or
increasing skill as he refined his method. While the youngest sister,
Jude was the most successful, the middle sister, Sophia was
the least. To me, this shows the influence of genetics.
Genetics can indirectly influence our attention and fluence our drives

(16:51):
to want to create experiences for ourselves. I mean, they're
all throughout the course of the day, we have a
million little micro decisions. We have to make these things
at up, starting at a very very young age. I
think jeans can help direct our attention two features of
the environment that we find interesting, and help us ignore
features of our environment that we don't find interesting. Based

(17:13):
on my research of Susan Paulgar, I think she might disagree,
so I reached out to her. I was very curious
whether she applied the same strategy to her own children.
I began by asking her if inherent talent was important. Well,
it definitely helps, although I think it's very much overrated
in many people's minds. I think hard work definitely is

(17:33):
a much more important ingredient in someone's success. So I
I certainly agree with my father's theory that success is
mostly hard work and sweat rather than innate talent. I
wasn't necessarily an extraordinarily talented chess player when I was born,
but rather that it took years of assistant practice and

(17:57):
devotion that resulted in my success. Do you believe that
you might have been born with genetic traits that were
suited for chess? Well, it's obviously hard to tell, but
I don't think I had a very special talent for chess.
There are other types of talents that are more generic
like having the patients to focus on a particular subject

(18:19):
for a lengthy amount of times, and and having the
perseverance or this type of more generic human qualities I
think are more important than than the specific talent for
a certain activity. Why do you think early specialization is
so important. I think that children rast certain concept and

(18:40):
dynamic of the various activities. It becomes second nature as
you grow up. You don't think of it as a
study or work or anything like that. It just kind
of becomes normal and natural for you. And that's something
I think it's hard to teach, and I think that's
a very important control ement of my father's theories. The

(19:02):
brain is like a sponge. You grasped the knowledge the
dynamics of the certain field just so much clicker and
naturally then than it would later. Often you find prodigies
and families where a parent was talented in the domain
and accelerated the process. Was your father a skilled chess
player as well? He was not a professional chess player, robber,

(19:25):
or even a competitive chess player. He had very limited
skills as a chess player. However, he was a teacher
and a psychologist by education and profession, so he had
amazing skills patients and asking the right questions. And initially
we were learning together. I mean he was ahead of

(19:45):
me a bit, but we were learning together from books.
The mark of a good teacher is to a having
the patience keeping the interest of the student, and then
not less importantly, keep asking stimulating questions and the type
of questions. And he was really really good at that,
in creating my interest and then keeping my interests, which

(20:07):
is not easy. I can tell you as a as
a mother and as well as a coach that, especially
of young children who are four or five six years old,
it's not easy to keep the interest for an extended
period of time. But he was really good at it's
making it's fun. I remember, I couldn't wait for for
the next lesson, for the next discoveries. How exactly was

(20:31):
he able to first get you interested in chess? Well,
he he made it sound like a fairy tale story,
you know, like the king and the queen in the
castle and the fortress, and it's not competitive. And I
think the fact that he did not emphasize the competitive
aspect of chess in the beginning was important. Susan was

(20:53):
monumental in breaking the gender barrier that existed in chess.
She was the first woman to become a men's grain master,
But I was curious if she resented missing out on
a typical childhood. Well, at some point, obviously, I realized
that my life is somewhat different than of my peers.
I certainly missed out on some things. But I understood

(21:14):
also at the same time, even back then in my
teenage years, that while I am giving up on some things,
I'm getting a lot of other things that they miss
out on and may never get those opportunities. Your parents
dedication to your training must have been an incredible amount
of work. Did you use the same educational method on
your own children? I definitely did, consider it did not

(21:37):
exactly happen quite like that for a number of reasons,
partly because I got divorced pretty early on from their father. Also,
it takes a lot of sacrifice from the parents perspective.
I had to focus on my career at the time
and wasn't in the position to fully focus on them.
You were obviously born from some really intelligent parents. Do

(21:59):
you think you're father could have reproduced the success with
adopted children. I think he could have, and I know
that he was approached by some people in trying to
see if he can and he was ready and willing
to do it, but he did not want to do
it with children unless he was able to actually legally

(22:20):
adopt them. That was a little bit complicated, and eventually
it never happened. But he definitely believed that he could
have done it. It's obviously a very long term experiment
or project. It's like a fifteen twenty year project, and
it's a matter of having the energy to to do
it all over again. In fact, he believed that he

(22:41):
would have been even more successful because he had the experience,
and he he would have not had made some of
the mistakes that he made back with us, but he
could have improved on them. Also, we were growing up
very poor, you know, years later when this was in question,
he would have had much more resources to make it easier.

(23:04):
Since your sister Sophia displayed such a strong aptitude, I
was really curious as to why she never reached the
rank of Grandmaster. Sophia has a different personality and she
always had a lot of interest in art. She's quite
a good artist. She basically gave up relatively early and
chose a very different lifestyle, mostly to support her husband

(23:26):
and raised a family and all that. But it's also
that she has skipped at one point a month or
month and a half from chess away from home. By
the time she came back from that trip, her younger
sister Judd kind of made a Humongo's jump and it
was kind of difficult for her, I think, to handle

(23:47):
that she's older, and before she left on the trip
she was clearly ahead of Judith as she was expected
to beg than that she is older. And basically the
month month and a half or so that she was
away and didn't practice at all, it just made a
bold of a difference. All of a sudden, Judy it
was fitting her, and the whole dynamics changed and her

(24:12):
motivation level dropped. And on one end, of course, she
was very happy for Judy, but at the same time
for her own motivation, it was white life changing, I think.
And then after that she never really quite got back,
even though she showed some brilliance and she had some
amazing results even years later, but nevertheless I think she

(24:35):
lost the belief that she will be as good as student,
even if the goal is not the creative Grandmaster, Do
you think it's beneficial to teach her child to play chess?
Chess with your children is definitely a verse, while endeavor,
if for nothing else, to develop the mind, to develop
good habits that can are transferable for any other field.

(24:56):
Susan has retired from competitive chess. She's currently the head
coach of the number one rated collegiate chess team in
the United States. She's led them to five Final Four
championships along with dozens of national, World, and Pan American titles.
Remember those people I mentioned in the beginning that sell
the idea that talent is unimportant. Well, the reason why

(25:18):
they used the Pulgar Sisters as an example is because
when you first look at their success, they seem like
genetically talented prodigies. Once you dig into their backstory you
realize the massive amount of training and practice they accrued
by starting so young. This reinforces their argument that the
most important predictor of performance is practice. The first issue

(25:38):
I see here is that the example uses the demand
of chess, but his chess an accurate representation for other domains.
We'll get into that after a quick break. Welcome back.
If you want to learn more about my guests the
research my Dog, or get in touch with me visit
Prodigy podcast dot com. All right back to the show.

(25:59):
To me, competitive games like chess are fun, But what
I'm really interested in is do these lessons actually apply
to other areas like your career. Professor Robin Hogarth came
up with the reason we should differentiate domains like chess
compared to others. He refers to skill games and sports
as kind learning environments. Yeah you're here is the following.

(26:20):
When is an intuition going to be successful? When will
an intuition be accurate? An intuition will be accurate if,
in fact, it's based on the right information. So if
you've learned learned about the situation you're involved with in
the past, in an environment is what I call kind,
where you've got good feedback, You've been able to see
all the data. Everything's been clear to you and it's

(26:41):
well laid out. The environments are going to change. That's
what we call kind ruling environment. So in a kind
learning environment, the rules don't change. Feedback is immediate and
all the data is clear to you. Chess is a
kind learning environment, so time accrued memorizing patterns is valuable
and early specialization is an advantage. The opposite learning environment

(27:02):
he refers to as wicked. But on the other hand,
you can also be in a wicked learning environment where
are you getting the wrong information, where there's a lot
of noise in the system, and perhaps even where data
is missing. So that's the difference in your kind than
a wicked learning environment. And we think it's very important
to understand where you're forming your opinions, whether you're in
a kind environment or wicked environment. In wicked environments, feedback

(27:26):
is delayed, inadequate, or simply doesn't exist. Data can be
ambiguous and even misleading. Ho Garth used the following example.
An early twentieth century physician working in a New York
hospital developed a reputation for being able to accurately diagnose
typhoid before symptoms manifested simply by feeling a patient's tongue.
It turned out that the doctor was actually infected and

(27:49):
giving the patient's typhoid. It's an extreme example, but it
shows how in a wicked environment, feedback can teach the
wrong lessons. So if you want to improve your performance
in a wicked environment, should you try and turn it
into a kind one absolutely. One of the interesting things
about experience and learning is that we learned automatically. We
can't help it. We're just tuned to picking up information

(28:12):
that we're exposed to, and because of that, if the
environment is kind, we learn the right thing. For the
environment is wicked. Rule in their own things, quick, accurate
and abundant feedback is critically important. Chess is a very
kind environment. The rules don't change, the games are easily recorded,
and you can track your rating as a measure of performance.
The pollgars had the benefit of grand master level coaches

(28:35):
throughout their training, So early specialization can definitely be an advantage,
but the major value in it might just exist in
kind learning environments. Also, early specialization might not actually be
much of an advantage at all. Professor Gulick, director of
the Institute of Applied Sports Science in Germany, published a
study in the Journal of Sports Sciences that compared the

(28:56):
training history of eighty three Olympic medalists to eight three
Olympic non metalists. The results showed that the metalists actually
started training in their main sport later than the non metalists. Additionally,
the metalists accrued more time training in other sports. This
is really interesting, and I asked Professor Gulick what the
reason was, and the answer was, we don't know because

(29:19):
it's really difficult to study. But he does have a
couple of hypotheses. The first one is that early specializers
become mentally fatigued a k A. Burnout, or succumbed to
the increased risk of injury. The other is something known
as the gene environment correlation. We'll get into this in
a later episode, but briefly, the idea is that our
genetic traits have an influence on what environments we seek out.

(29:43):
The basic example is, if you are very tall and lean,
you may be drawn to the high jump. However, a
person who specializes early in basketball due to these same
physical characteristics may not realize they are actually better suited
for the high jump. So late bloomers have more time
and opportunity to find the domain best suited for them.
I think it's worth noting that Laslow didn't actually choose

(30:05):
the domain Susan did, so the claim that they could
have chosen any domain doesn't really hold much weight. Here's
Dr Feldman, one of the few people who has actually
directly studied prodigies, and there is a whole movement making
the claim that talent is irrelevant, and I and others
who have actually done the work have tried to show

(30:26):
that the evidence does not support that claim, and it doesn't.
It's a reasonable claim if you're arguing that effort and
sustained effort and teaching are essential to high level performance,
and that is absolutely true. That's part of what I
learned from my prodigies research. It's not something that happens

(30:48):
easily even with the most gifted, the most extraordinarily talented kids.
But to ignore the fact that they are extraordinarily naturally
talent for kids, it's just ignoring the evidence. The evidence
is very clear, and anybody within any of the fields
that we've studied, people who actually do it, knows that

(31:11):
that's true and will assert it. Everybody knows that that's true.
Dr Kaufman has some really good advice about finding your calling,
finding a service from outside of yourself, not just that
you can do, but that also makes you feel an
intrinsic sense of joy and satisfaction when you are engaging
in it. That's enough. You don't have to be a

(31:31):
go go on the TV circuit for your amazing ability
to do one narrow thing in order to feel like
you've lived a meaningful life. The behaviorists who champion the
power of practice don't just use sensationalized examples like the
Pollgars to make their argument. Another thing they do is
cite a particular study that is at the very core

(31:53):
of their argument. It was published by a researcher that
would come to be known as the father of expert performance,
Dr Carl anders Ericsson. We're going to dig into the
details of that, as well as how we learn and
what is physically happening in the brain when we do.
I have so many questions to answer and a ton

(32:13):
of really interesting topics to cover. Thank you so much
for listening, and please subscribe to the show because I'll
be back next week with another episode of Prodigy. Prodigy
was created and produced by me Lowell Berlante. Tyler Klang
is the executive producer. Without him, this show would not
have been made. If you want to learn more about

(32:34):
my guests, the show, my dog, or get in touch
with me, visit Prodigy podcast dot com. Dr Spomenka Newman
performs psychological assessments and therapy in Tucker, Georgia. You could
find more information at psychologist for kids dot com. Robin
Hogarth released a book titled The Myth of Experience, Why
we learned the wrong lessons and Ways to correct them.

(32:57):
Susan Polgar Foundation teaches chess and get opportunities to young people.
You could find more information at Susan Polgar dot com.
Dr Scott Berry Kaufman is host of the Psychology podcast
and has a new book out. Visit Scott Berry Kaufman
dot com for details. Dr Feldman is a brilliant psychologist.
He's currently retiring, but hopes that more people will take

(33:18):
the initiative to study the prodigy phenomenon. If you like
the show's artwork, check out Pam Peacock on Instagram at
The Voyager Peacock Special. Thanks to Ben Kybrick, Krista McNeil,
Michael Meyer, Dave Kuston, Alison Canter, and Alex Cardinali. For

(33:43):
more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the I Heart
Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.