December 1, 2025 • 30 mins
Building something new sounds exciting. Rebuilding something after it breaks sounds exhausting. And yet most of us are living in a world where both are happening all at once. In this episode, Patti, Dan, and Lynne dig into the questions we should be asking when we talk about building and rebuilding and why these processes are never as simple as they seem.
Dan brings his experience as an engineer and technologist and admits that even in fields built on data and logic, most decisions are emotional ones. Lynne talks about coming back from a serious injury and how rebuilding a life and rebuilding a body are never separate experiences. Patti reflects on transformation and why rebuilding feels so loaded with history, memory, and meaning.
Together we explore questions about resilience, fragility, anti fragility, institutional collapse, community, collaboration, disagreement, and the emotions we attach to words like build and rebuild. We also look at what is worth rebuilding, what is better to build from scratch, and how personal rebuilding shapes everything else we try to create.
This conversation moves from sandcastles to frozen yogurt shops to democracy to the stories we tell ourselves about what should last and what should change. It is thoughtful, curious, and surprisingly funny in moments that remind us just how human these questions are.
If you are navigating change or trying to understand what should be saved, strengthened, or scrapped, this episode offers the questions that help you see the path more clearly.
Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Listening for the Questions is where curiosity is our compass.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:00):
Hey everybody, welcome back to Listening for
the Questions, the podcast withno answers.
My name's Dan Ward.
I'm an author, a juggler, and apunk.
I'm also an engineer and amilitary technologist by
training, and I spent most of mycareer building things.
I am joined as always by my dearfriends Patty and Lynn, and one
of the things we are buildingtogether is this podcast.
SPEAKER_02 (00:20):
I'm Lynn Cuppernal, and I am a leadership coach, a
facilitator, and an innovator.
I'm also a mom and a triathlet,and I do know a little bit about
rebuilding after injury.
SPEAKER_04 (00:31):
And I'm Dr.
Patty Fletcher.
I'm a recovering C-suiteexecutive from Big Tech, a
leadership futurist working atthe intersection of people,
business, technology, and data,and a best-selling author.
And I have to say, you guys, Iam so excited about today's
episode.
As you all know, one of mybiggest themes in my life,
(00:52):
personally, professionally, istransformation, right?
It's taking something from itscurrent state and either
creating something totally brandnew or acting all humpty dumpty
and dismantling it and maybebuilding it to be something
fresh and new that can serve theworld better.
SPEAKER_01 (01:08):
And that's right.
Today's topic is building andrebuilding.
And then, of course,specifically, since this is the
Listening for the Questionspodcast, what questions should
we be listening for when we talkabout building and rebuilding?
SPEAKER_02 (01:21):
Oh my gosh, Dan, this has been on my mind over
the, I don't know, past 100days, maybe.
Uh, one of the things I amwondering about is how long does
it take to rebuild something?
And why can something bedismantled or unbuilt?
Is that a word?
Um, in days or weeks and thenhave to take so long for it to
(01:44):
be rebuilt.
SPEAKER_04 (01:45):
I want to spend the rest of our episode on deciding
if unbuilt is a word or not.
But I have so many questions.
Who knew where that was gonnago?
Um, but you know, Lynn, buildingon what you said in ha, did you
see what I did there, Lynn?
See what I did with thebuilding?
I've been thinking a lot abouthow we can rebuild in ways that
address those root causes,right?
(02:05):
When we only look at symptoms,but address those root causes of
destruction rather thanrecreating, let's face it,
vulnerable systems.
SPEAKER_01 (02:14):
Ooh.
So, Patty, are you saying thatthe way we build or rebuild
might have an effect on howresilient or how fragile
something is?
Like if we build our sandcastleclose to the waves, it gets
wiped out quickly.
If we build it further up thebeach, it might last longer.
Is that kind of where you'reyou're going with this?
SPEAKER_04 (02:31):
It is, right?
And and Dan, in that, I can'thelp but listen to you and go,
and what does resilient meananyway?
When it comes to supply chainsand systems, maybe that's a word
we have to redefine.
Because I think if we wereasked, I don't know, six months
ago, is our let's say democracy,for example, resilient, I think
(02:56):
we would have had a differentanswer to the reality we're in
today.
SPEAKER_02 (02:59):
Yeah, Patty, and I, you know, just hearing you say
resilient.
Um, I used to love that word,and now I feel like it's all we
hear about.
And it it makes me kind of tiredjust thinking about being
resilient.
And I've read a lot of peopleare feeling that way.
There's like a little bit of abacklash against resilience
these days.
(03:19):
And that's why I love that we'retalking about rebuilding
instead, um, at least today,because I feel like rebuilding
is a more active thing that youcan do to demonstrate
resilience.
SPEAKER_01 (03:35):
I love that perspective of the emotional
response to words likeresilience.
And yeah, resilience can feelfatiguing if we're having to
constantly be resilient againstsome sort of stress, some sort
of destructive force.
And, you know, we were talkingat the beginning of before we
started recording the show, uh,comparing notes about the
difference between building andrebuilding.
(03:58):
And I was thinking likerebuilding sounds exhausting to
me, but building soundsexciting.
Even though the behaviors arekind of the same, the amount of
energy it takes are the same.
And so as we talk aboutrebuilding or building, I think
the questions we should beasking ourselves are like, well,
how do we feel about theseterms, whether it's resilience,
rebuilding, or building?
And what does that say about us?
(04:19):
And how does that feeling shapeour engagement with it?
And how might we reframe it sothat we do bring the energy that
we need to either build,resiled?
Is resiled a word?
I think resiled is my newfavorite word.
Build, resiled, or rebuild.
SPEAKER_04 (04:34):
You know, Dan, it's it's so interesting.
And and I love that thinkingabout you know what we we talked
about right before recording andand build and rebuild.
And isn't it interesting to havesuch an emotional reaction to
rebuild whatever we think?
Lynn, you had an emotionalreaction, Dan, you had one, I
(04:55):
had one.
Dan and mine were pretty similarin terms of exhaustion.
Whereas Lynn, you were coming,it felt like you were coming at
this from almost like a revival,uh, you know, just something to
make it better and respectingand giving nod to where we came
from.
And it does make me wonderabout, you know, people are
having an adverse reaction.
The word build and rebuild is anemotional word.
(05:19):
And we can't help, right?
When I think of rebuild, I thinkof the baggage that came along
with the need to rebuild.
And I'm wondering if that's whyit's so exhausting.
And then I'm wondering, maybe Ishould be asking myself why I
felt that way, because mayberebuild doesn't have to be so
(05:39):
exhausting.
Maybe it's an opportunity foreach of us to look at our own
root causes as to why we thinkthat way.
Because building and rebuilding,I think it's a reality.
SPEAKER_02 (05:48):
Yes.
Oh my gosh, Patty, so many morequestions that just made me
think about that lookinginternally to how we react to
these words and words that aresimilar.
And yeah, we were talking beforethe podcast, and I think about
rebuilding, I don't know, as ahopeful thing, as a way to build
(06:10):
something back stronger than itwas before, better than it was
before, informed from whatevertrauma caused it to break so
that it's stronger.
SPEAKER_01 (06:21):
You know, when I was uh studying engineering as an
undergraduate and all theemotional intelligence courses
that we had to take, where welearned how to no, we did not
learn how to tap into ouremotions in engineering school.
Um, but why don't we, right?
We like to think human beingsare data driven.
We don't make decisions based ondata, we make decisions based on
emotions.
And engineers make a lot ofdecisions about what to build
(06:43):
and how to build and when torebuild, when to tear down.
All of all of those decisionsare not fundamentally driven
just by the analysis of thecircuit diagram or the you know
stress and and dynamics uhcalculations that we do.
A lot of the decisions areemotional decisions because
humans are emotional creatures.
Why don't we teach that inengineering school?
(07:05):
That it took me quite a while tofigure that out.
What would we how would we builddifferently if we did teach that
to our builders, to ourengineers in particular?
SPEAKER_02 (07:16):
Dan, I love that.
I and you know what?
I think you've hit on somethingI was thinking about before this
podcast too, which isinstitutions and the fact that
in our world today, it feelslike they are being dismantled
either systematically or one ata time.
Um, and and what opportunitiesdoes that offer to us to do
(07:39):
things differently, like teachengineers differently, like
teach physicians differently.
I think there's maybe a lot ofpossibility in some of the
institutional destruction thatwe're seeing happen.
SPEAKER_01 (07:53):
Yeah.
So how do we turn thosepossibilities into realities?
Where are the levers that we canpull to nudge the building and
the rebuilding in that morepositive direction?
That that's a big question.
SPEAKER_04 (08:06):
It is because why?
It takes other people.
And I think some of us are readyto build or rebuild, but not all
of us are, right?
And so we have to ask why.
And, you know, what do you doabout that, right?
What do you do if you can't finda catalyzing nudge?
And what does it take?
(08:27):
Like, does everyone have toagree on the build and rebuild?
And, you know, Lynn, when I waswhen I was listening to you,
when I was hearing aboutinstitutions, it's kind of the
fragility component, right, thatcomes in.
And I know we talk a lot aboutwhite male fragility.
And thank you, Dan, thank you,um, for letting us talk about
(08:47):
that, right?
But it's it's essentially asystem that cannot accept
criticism, right?
That's kind of what we'retalking about and can't be
questioned.
And so when I think about thebuilding and rebuilding, and I
wonder kind of, is is somethingtoo fragile to rebuild it?
Like at what point in time doyou say the what the institution
(09:12):
was there for and its purposewere great?
But is it still great today?
Is it needed?
And if you look at it andthere's everything so fragile
that there's no foundation, likewhat must be true to rebuild
versus say in this new worldorder with how people are?
(09:33):
Here's what education as anexample means, right?
We are in a misinformationworld, it's only gonna get
worse, global versus domestic,blah, blah, blah, kind of
living.
At what point, given humanbeings, feelings, right?
Institutions of varying ages, ithow do we know how to answer if
(09:53):
something is a build or rebuild?
What have you two seen?
Like, what are the questions youask yourself around when is it
worth it?
And when do you have to buildversus rebuild?
SPEAKER_01 (10:05):
Yeah, Patty, I think you're really putting your
finger on the social reality ofbuilding and rebuilding.
That, you know, as much as wemight ascribe to the, or as much
as some people might ascribe tothe great man theory of history,
that building anything ofsubstance, building anything
that's going to last is acollaborative exercise, and we
don't build in a vacuum.
(10:25):
And this reminds me a couple ofyears back, there was a summer
where suddenly my town had sixfrozen yogurt shops that all
opened up in the same like week.
And it was crazy.
SPEAKER_04 (10:35):
One card interrupt, but that sounds like a great
problem to have.
SPEAKER_01 (10:38):
I was so excited.
I love frozen yogurt, and I didmy best to keep all six of them
in business.
I'm sorry, I couldn't do it.
I could not possibly eat enoughfrozen yogurt.
And what happened is they allwent out of business.
So we now have zero frozenyogurt shops.
That doesn't mean that this towndoesn't like frozen yogurt.
We would have loved to have hadfrozen yogurt.
We just didn't need six.
(10:59):
So when we think about buildingand rebuilding, we should ask
questions not just, does anybodylike frozen yogurt?
Does this town need frozenyogurt?
We might also ask, does thistown need six?
Is somebody else buildingsomething similar uh nearby?
Are there ways to sort of joinforces or ways to distinguish
ourselves?
Because I couldn't tell you thedifference between any of these
(11:20):
six frozen yogurt places andwhat we ended up with was zero.
So when we try and build inisolation, when we try and build
without awareness of what'shappening in the larger space,
yeah, 10, we end up with nofrozen yogurt.
And I'm very sad about thatstill.
Uh so how do how do we avoidthat?
How do we ask the good questionsand pay attention to what's
happening in the space around usand take a more social approach
(11:41):
to our building?
SPEAKER_02 (11:42):
Yeah.
What does it even look like tobuild collaboratively?
I mean, going back to thequestion we started with about
where to build the sandcastle, Ithink about when I see kids
building sandcastles, the onesthat seem to be last longer are
the ones they build together.
There's just more hands puttingwork into it.
(12:03):
They seem more energized aboutrebuilding it.
So that's children.
What does it look like foradults to build collaboratively?
SPEAKER_00 (12:11):
I still like building sandcastles, and I'm
I'm with you.
It's more fun when you havesomebody else building it with
you.
SPEAKER_04 (12:16):
It is.
I think, you know, for me, it'sreminding me a bit of abundant
leadership versus scarcityleadership, right?
Abundant is and scarcity is or.
And when you're bringingsomething together, it's
different.
I read this really good articlethis morning in the Boston Globe
about the marijuana industry.
(12:38):
And it went from this, it's agold rush, right?
It's gonna be amazing, and it'snot gonna be like the tech
industry.
We're not gonna be a broculture, and everyone's gonna
win, and we're gonna getminority people in here, and
we're gonna get all this stuff,and life's gonna be amazing, and
we're all gonna be super happy,you know, for the rest of our
lives.
And instead, it is a case studyin what not to do when you're
(12:59):
building an industry from theground up.
There's the local government,the federal government, they're
working in silos.
So, what exactly are theybuilding?
I'm not sure.
There are people entering tobusiness who are not business
people, who do not know theright questions to ask when it
comes to is it worth theinvestment, right?
And what is all those things?
And what's it like to work witha government agency that's
(13:22):
literally making up the rules asit goes along, right?
What does it look like, Dan, toyour point with you know, frozen
yogurt?
There's like 15 dispensarieswithin a one mile radius,
nobody, right?
So they have a billion-dollarinventory problem.
And so when I see that from theground up, you know, Harvard
needs to get its business casepeople onto that, but they
(13:43):
weren't building the sand castletogether.
They were building, some werenot even building castles,
right?
Some were building other things.
And so maybe that's one of thequestions that we ask, whether
it's building or rebuilding, howimportant and is everyone on the
same page of what at least whatthe charter is or the impact, if
(14:07):
not the what, then maybe howthings should be different.
SPEAKER_01 (14:11):
So I came across two really interesting phrases in a
political context that I thinkhave applicability here.
Uh, the phrases were hostilityto criticism and contempt for
disagreement.
And I thought, boy, what a toxicmix to be hostile to criticism
and contemptuous ofdisagreement.
And it's easy to point tocertain political actors and
(14:31):
say, oh my gosh, that describesthem so perfectly.
And yet, how often does thatshow up in our own businesses,
in our own projects and in ourwork?
And to use a question that Iasked in my latest book, Punk,
how do we avoid being that kindof asshole?
You know, it it's it's fine tosay someone else is hostile to
criticism, someone else is iscontemptuous of anybody who
(14:53):
disagrees with them.
How do I maintain somethingother than hostility when I'm
criticized?
How do I maintain openness?
How do I have appreciation fordisagreement rather than
contempt for disagreement?
Yeah, that's that's kind of thethe deep work of of maturing,
right?
The deep work of growing up.
SPEAKER_02 (15:09):
So I'm thinking about what's so the opposite of
hostility to criticism and howthat connects to building.
So if you are open todisagreement and open to
criticism, are you more able tobuild something?
SPEAKER_04 (15:29):
It it makes me wonder.
I think it's important.
And it goes back to what Dan hadmentioned with the nudge, right?
The catalyzation.
And it goes back to why arepeople being hostile?
So, number one, what I like thatDan said is asking yourself the
question about ultimately whatyou can impact immediately.
And that's your own behavior,right?
(15:49):
The things I learned inkindergarten kind of thing.
And one of the things, maybe ispart of that we should be asking
is not just checking our ownopenness about are we open to
criticism, but check our ownopenness about being aware why
someone may be not open to itand ask them some questions, but
(16:09):
really like, is it about askingthem questions to understand,
accept, and maybe do what Iwould do as a marketer, which is
manipulate the crap out of it?
Or is it really because itshould feed into the rebuilding
or a net new build?
Right?
So maybe if this is just a newtoolkit of questions, because I
don't know about you guys, butit feels like everything's up
(16:31):
for grads now in terms of whatwe build and rebuild.
SPEAKER_01 (16:35):
Yeah, and yes, absolutely.
And so if if nobody is allowedto disagree with me, what do I
miss?
Don't I miss alternativeperspectives?
I miss other data points, I missanything that doesn't reinforce
my own biases and preferences.
If nobody is allowed tocriticize me, what do I miss?
What do what do I leave on thetable or what do I overlook?
I probably overlook stuff that Ishould have some awareness of,
(16:58):
whether I agree with thecriticism or the disagreements
or not, but just that experienceof having those disagreements
and having those conversations.
How does that help us buildbetter?
I think it does.
And by exposing us to things,you know, aspects of the of the
thing that we might haveoverlooked otherwise.
SPEAKER_02 (17:16):
You know, these these questions have made me
really like I think about what'sthe root of these sources of
disagreement?
Where does where does it go backto?
And and I know it goes back somuch farther than this, but it
feels like we really started tosee it during COVID, right?
I mean, I was thinking about howfidelity and beliefs, including
(17:36):
in things like science, thatalways seemed like so
unquestionable, how could youquestion science?
Became something that you couldcriticize and that that you
could just say, you know what, Idon't believe in that.
And I'm just wondering like,what would it look like to
rebuild science and how we thinkabout science?
(17:59):
Could we make scientificprocesses more transparent and
accessible?
SPEAKER_01 (18:03):
Yeah, and I think you're asking a really important
question here when we thinkabout critiques of science or
critiques of results.
You know, one thing that droveme crazy with people is the
science keeps changing.
The science was actually notchanging.
New data was coming in, but thescience was still science,
there's still the scientificmethod.
So it does make me wonder how dowe make sure that the criticisms
(18:25):
we offer and the criticisms thatwe receive and accept are our
good faith criticisms, our validcriticisms, are criticisms in
line with a scientific approachand not the uninformed bad faith
actor type approach to criticismand disagreement.
And so learning to tell thedifference between those two,
how do how do we how do we makesure we're we're telling the
(18:46):
difference between those two?
How do we make sure we aregiving credence to the good
faith argument and not givingtoo much credence to the the bad
faith argument?
SPEAKER_04 (18:54):
I wonder if the the questions then, right, become
has this person been down thispath?
Has this person made thesedecisions or lived with these
decisions?
Because there are opinions andthen there's informed responses.
And look at the business you twoare in around innovation.
(19:16):
It's part of who you are.
If you simply just took a courseand wanted to teach my team and
I about innovation and thequestion we asked, I probably
wouldn't hire you.
So I think, right, we wantpeople.
So I'm a I executive coach forwomen, right?
All my executive coaches havebeen women because our paths are
(19:36):
in the things that we talk aboutare highly relatable.
So, you know, do we set thattable?
Because you can't back to thesandcastle analogy, right?
You've got to have other peoplebecause other people have not
just the hard skills and all ofthat, but they to Dan's point
have different ways of thinkingfor blind spots.
Hopefully they're you knowdifferently minded, like valued.
(19:57):
But maybe we start thinkingabout building, rebuilding,
whatever the answer to whateverquestion that might be, bringing
those people in sooner who arebeing very thoughtful and
intentional, right?
Is it one of the things weshould do is really think about,
you know, here's where I am,here's where where I think this
(20:19):
thing needs to be.
And therefore, let's assemble ateam that represents not only
different knowledge, butdifferent ways of thinking, but
they already know that eithersome part of the topic or or
something not.
Like, Dan, you talked aboutengineering school, and that's a
lot of planning and tech, andyou need that because you don't
want bridges to fall down orbuildings.
(20:41):
But what about the people piece?
Shouldn't that be phase one?
SPEAKER_01 (20:45):
For sure.
Yeah, go ahead, Lynn.
SPEAKER_02 (20:47):
Well, Patty, you're making me think again, back to
the this educational question,and something that you said
earlier made me realize is someof this questioning that people
are feeling at risk because theydon't know that much.
Uh I think there's so muchanxiety in our in our world
right now because people arefeeling less than uh
(21:09):
undereducated, not as educatedas someone else.
And so, what if we couldreenvision education, uh, for
example, to foster scientificliteracy as a civic capacity
rather than just specializedknowledge?
SPEAKER_03 (21:26):
Okay, I wish people could see us on video because
Dan and I, I think our headsjust blew up.
SPEAKER_01 (21:32):
Lynn, you're a poet, and that was brilliant.
Say that again.
Scientific education as a civiccapacity?
SPEAKER_02 (21:40):
Scientific literacy literacy as a civic capacity,
yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (21:44):
Yes, that is oh my gosh.
SPEAKER_04 (21:46):
I think we can end the podcast.
SPEAKER_01 (21:48):
Yeah, thanks for coming, everybody.
That's amazing.
That's amazing.
I love the way you frame that.
The the combination ofscientific literacy as a
data-driven decision mechanism,but as a social capacity with an
empathy built into it.
I think that's the thing that'smissing in so many places is
(22:10):
this lack of empathy.
We we tend to be self-centeredrather than other centered.
And Frank Turner is one of myfavorite punk musicians.
He's got this terrific songcalled Pandemic PTSD, going back
to the COVID discussion earlier.
And one of the lines toward theend of the song, and it just
knocks me out every time, hesays, it might not be you, but
God knows it's us.
And I think that is such abrilliant observation that you
(22:31):
know, any given individual mightnot feel the weight of the of
the pandemic's trauma.
But we as a society, God knows,we as a society feel that weight
of that pandemic trauma.
So, how do we get beyond thatself-centered perspective?
How do we adopt a broaderus-centric perspective?
Is listening to punk rock thesecret to all of this?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
(22:51):
But also what Lynn said, andasking questions about how can
we bring more empathy andscientific literacy into the
work that we do?
How do we, how do we make surethat we are doing our part to
bring those things together?
SPEAKER_04 (23:02):
I love that.
And I think, you know, we can't,and I know we're coming up
against time, you two, but Ican't help but think about the
word that we talked about alittle bit, which is the
fragility of it all.
And, you know, I think when weask those questions, and and
he's right, it is us, we have toalso remember and be able to
(23:22):
hold somewhere that noteverybody is you, not everybody
is us, not everyone wants tobuild or rebuild.
And just because they don't,does that make them a bad
person?
Does that make them against you?
Or are they simply on their ownpath?
And going back to that, youknow, ego-centered, we have to
be willing to accept otherpeople just might not be where
(23:47):
we are.
So I right, we're all there,right?
And I don't know about you guys,but it's more than once a day.
I got some judging going on,right?
For other people who are maybein a different part.
But I think those are things,Dan, that that when I hear you,
we have to add those questionsand ask ourselves about those
biases because we might be partof the problem and not even know
(24:10):
it.
SPEAKER_01 (24:10):
Yeah.
And Patty, you use the wordfragile.
So that reminds me of uh NassimTalav's book, Anti-Fragile.
And he sort of describes aspectrum from fragile on the one
end, so things that break underpressure, like a teacup, to
robust, sort of in the middle ofthe spectrum.
That's things that don't breakunder pressure, like a rubber
ball.
And then if you keep going alongthat spectrum, you get to
anti-fragile, which he admits isan awkward word.
(24:32):
It's kind of an ugly word, butthat describes something that
gets stronger under pressure,like your muscles.
And so I think one of the corequestions in his book is how do
we make things anti-fragile?
SPEAKER_02 (24:43):
I really like the concept of anti-fragile.
I had not heard that until Dan,you just said it.
And then getting back to, Iguess, my my sort of allergic
reaction to resilience thesedays, maybe anti-fragile is just
another way to talk aboutresilience.
And you know, as what now feelslike a former athlete, so much
(25:04):
of working out is about beinganti-fragile, about not breaking
under pressure.
So yeah, I think that's a reallyI don't have a question.
I just am left thinking aboutanti-fragility.
SPEAKER_04 (25:17):
I I love that, and I'm wondering, like, you know,
resilience I've redefined asbeing successful because of, not
despite, but the anti-fragile isso interesting.
And I'm wondering, is thatultimately the goal here with
building and rebuilding?
Are there cases where to that,maybe fragility is also a
(25:37):
virtue?
I mean, an unbreakable teacup,like, is that really a better
thing, right?
Or is the fact that it isbreakable, right?
It is precious.
And no matter what you do withthe glue to put it back
together, it will never be thesame.
Like, couldn't that be beautifuland valuable as well?
unknown (25:57):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (25:57):
And similarly, like, do we need a rubber ball that
keeps getting stronger everytime we bounce it?
I think they made a movie.
I think that was called Flubber.
Or is it enough for the rubberball to just keep bouncing?
And it's just robust tostresses, it neither breaks nor
gets stronger.
SPEAKER_02 (26:11):
Yes, yes.
Is there a cost to makingsomething anti-fragile?
Maybe sometimes, right?
And I'm not talking about justthe financial cost, but the
experiential cost.
Like the unbreakable teacup,Patty.
Maybe that makes tea time lessspecial because it isn't
something that you have to holdlightly in your hands.
SPEAKER_04 (26:30):
Oh, I love that, right?
So, look, sometimes beinganti-fragile, it might be the
goal, right?
Lynn, going back to yourquestions around things like
government institutions, forexample, do we actually want
them to be unbreakable?
Do we want to have theunbreakable teacup there?
Or do we want them to beresilient instead so that
(26:52):
they're standing because, right,or on top of large and small
disruptions?
Like, is that even possible?
I think unbreakable is, I'msorry, anti-fragile, excuse me,
is is resonating better.
And I'm already hearing myselfask different questions because
of it.
But what do you two think?
SPEAKER_01 (27:09):
Ooh, like what are the costs and what are the
dangers of an unbreakablegovernment institution?
If it's shaped in a way thatdoesn't do good things, like
what dangers are we introducingto the to the overall society?
SPEAKER_02 (27:22):
And I'm not sure anti-fragile and unbreakable are
the same.
They are different.
Yeah.
So I think as we rebuild ourgovernment, our democracy, our
institutions, maybe we do itwith a lens towards
anti-fragile, but notunbreakable.
Ooh.
SPEAKER_01 (27:41):
Because anti-fragile, like the exercise,
the athletic when we talk aboutanti-fragile, like the athletic
example you gave, Lynn, there issomething to breaking down and
then coming back stronger asopposed to not breaking down in
the first place.
And I know you had some personaluh experiences you could point
to as well as we come to ourending here.
SPEAKER_02 (28:00):
Right.
So I'll just share those as wecome to a close.
But working on this episodereally got me thinking about the
rebuilding that I've done in mypersonal life and most of it in
the last, gosh, 10 years or so.
I mean, from coming back from aserious head injury that I got
while cycling to being able todo an Iron Man just four years
later.
It's the same four years that Igot divorced, and I I had to
(28:22):
rebuild my life.
And oh my gosh, the questionsthat came up.
So many questions, right?
Is this the right thing?
Who will be my friends?
Will my sons be okay?
How am I gonna run a marathonafter I rode my bike 112 miles?
Just a few of the questions inthat personal rebuilding.
SPEAKER_01 (28:40):
Yeah, that is so much rebuilding on so many
levels.
And I know all that happenedbefore I met you, but I am so
glad to be one of your friendsnow.
And you know, it's just a greatreminder that when we talk about
building and rebuilding, it'snot just about the future, it's
also about looking to our past.
So, you know, what lessons orwhat skills, what resources or
or what friends from ourprevious rebuilding might we
want to bring forward into somefuture building or rebuilding?
SPEAKER_04 (29:04):
And you know, I know this is the listening for
questions podcast, but I amnever gonna question how happy
it is to be building arelationship with the two of
you.
And, you know, that brings me tothe how might, right?
Because Lynn, that was such apersonal story that is so
relatable in so many ways toprobably everyone listening
here.
(29:24):
And we all know this disruptionstarts with the person in the
mirror, and we can't divorce toDan's point.
What questions are we asking andanswering about ourselves first,
right?
In our kind of role in things.
So, how might our personalrebuilding relate to other forms
of rebuilding?
Is that where we start?
Or let's face it, is it allpersonal?
SPEAKER_01 (29:47):
Well, that's our time for today.
We hope today's episode hassparked lots of questions for
you and gotten you thinkingabout rebuilding in ways both
large and small and allmeaningful.
SPEAKER_04 (29:56):
And who might you share those questions with and
Who do you want to build yournext rebuilding project with?
SPEAKER_02 (30:04):
Thank you so much for coming on this journey of
rebuilding and discovery withus.
Be sure to join us next timewhen we'll ask questions about
misinformation anddisinformation.
And is there a difference?
SPEAKER_01 (30:15):
Ooh, what are the questions we should be asking
when we talk aboutmisinformation and
disinformation?
Stay tuned, everybody.
SPEAKER_04 (30:21):
I can't wait for that one.
Today's episode was sponsored bySandcastles because isn't that
how we all learned aboutbuilding and rebuilding?
Our music was composed by JakeCuppernal.
SPEAKER_01 (30:33):
Our cover art was created by Mads Graham.
SPEAKER_04 (30:35):
Catch y'all next time.
Hey everybody, welcome back to Listening for
the Questions, the podcast withno answers.
My name's Dan Ward.
I'm an author, a juggler, and apunk.
I'm also an engineer and amilitary technologist by
training, and I spent most of mycareer building things.
I am joined as always by my dearfriends Patty and Lynn, and one
of the things we are buildingtogether is this podcast.
SPEAKER_02 (00:20):
I'm Lynn Cuppernal, and I am a leadership coach, a
facilitator, and an innovator.
I'm also a mom and a triathlet,and I do know a little bit about
rebuilding after injury.
SPEAKER_04 (00:31):
And I'm Dr.
Patty Fletcher.
I'm a recovering C-suiteexecutive from Big Tech, a
leadership futurist working atthe intersection of people,
business, technology, and data,and a best-selling author.
And I have to say, you guys, Iam so excited about today's
episode.
As you all know, one of mybiggest themes in my life,
(00:52):
personally, professionally, istransformation, right?
It's taking something from itscurrent state and either
creating something totally brandnew or acting all humpty dumpty
and dismantling it and maybebuilding it to be something
fresh and new that can serve theworld better.
SPEAKER_01 (01:08):
And that's right.
Today's topic is building andrebuilding.
And then, of course,specifically, since this is the
Listening for the Questionspodcast, what questions should
we be listening for when we talkabout building and rebuilding?
SPEAKER_02 (01:21):
Oh my gosh, Dan, this has been on my mind over
the, I don't know, past 100days, maybe.
Uh, one of the things I amwondering about is how long does
it take to rebuild something?
And why can something bedismantled or unbuilt?
Is that a word?
Um, in days or weeks and thenhave to take so long for it to
(01:44):
be rebuilt.
SPEAKER_04 (01:45):
I want to spend the rest of our episode on deciding
if unbuilt is a word or not.
But I have so many questions.
Who knew where that was gonnago?
Um, but you know, Lynn, buildingon what you said in ha, did you
see what I did there, Lynn?
See what I did with thebuilding?
I've been thinking a lot abouthow we can rebuild in ways that
address those root causes,right?
(02:05):
When we only look at symptoms,but address those root causes of
destruction rather thanrecreating, let's face it,
vulnerable systems.
SPEAKER_01 (02:14):
Ooh.
So, Patty, are you saying thatthe way we build or rebuild
might have an effect on howresilient or how fragile
something is?
Like if we build our sandcastleclose to the waves, it gets
wiped out quickly.
If we build it further up thebeach, it might last longer.
Is that kind of where you'reyou're going with this?
SPEAKER_04 (02:31):
It is, right?
And and Dan, in that, I can'thelp but listen to you and go,
and what does resilient meananyway?
When it comes to supply chainsand systems, maybe that's a word
we have to redefine.
Because I think if we wereasked, I don't know, six months
ago, is our let's say democracy,for example, resilient, I think
(02:56):
we would have had a differentanswer to the reality we're in
today.
SPEAKER_02 (02:59):
Yeah, Patty, and I, you know, just hearing you say
resilient.
Um, I used to love that word,and now I feel like it's all we
hear about.
And it it makes me kind of tiredjust thinking about being
resilient.
And I've read a lot of peopleare feeling that way.
There's like a little bit of abacklash against resilience
these days.
(03:19):
And that's why I love that we'retalking about rebuilding
instead, um, at least today,because I feel like rebuilding
is a more active thing that youcan do to demonstrate
resilience.
SPEAKER_01 (03:35):
I love that perspective of the emotional
response to words likeresilience.
And yeah, resilience can feelfatiguing if we're having to
constantly be resilient againstsome sort of stress, some sort
of destructive force.
And, you know, we were talkingat the beginning of before we
started recording the show, uh,comparing notes about the
difference between building andrebuilding.
(03:58):
And I was thinking likerebuilding sounds exhausting to
me, but building soundsexciting.
Even though the behaviors arekind of the same, the amount of
energy it takes are the same.
And so as we talk aboutrebuilding or building, I think
the questions we should beasking ourselves are like, well,
how do we feel about theseterms, whether it's resilience,
rebuilding, or building?
And what does that say about us?
(04:19):
And how does that feeling shapeour engagement with it?
And how might we reframe it sothat we do bring the energy that
we need to either build,resiled?
Is resiled a word?
I think resiled is my newfavorite word.
Build, resiled, or rebuild.
SPEAKER_04 (04:34):
You know, Dan, it's it's so interesting.
And and I love that thinkingabout you know what we we talked
about right before recording andand build and rebuild.
And isn't it interesting to havesuch an emotional reaction to
rebuild whatever we think?
Lynn, you had an emotionalreaction, Dan, you had one, I
(04:55):
had one.
Dan and mine were pretty similarin terms of exhaustion.
Whereas Lynn, you were coming,it felt like you were coming at
this from almost like a revival,uh, you know, just something to
make it better and respectingand giving nod to where we came
from.
And it does make me wonderabout, you know, people are
having an adverse reaction.
The word build and rebuild is anemotional word.
(05:19):
And we can't help, right?
When I think of rebuild, I thinkof the baggage that came along
with the need to rebuild.
And I'm wondering if that's whyit's so exhausting.
And then I'm wondering, maybe Ishould be asking myself why I
felt that way, because mayberebuild doesn't have to be so
(05:39):
exhausting.
Maybe it's an opportunity foreach of us to look at our own
root causes as to why we thinkthat way.
Because building and rebuilding,I think it's a reality.
SPEAKER_02 (05:48):
Yes.
Oh my gosh, Patty, so many morequestions that just made me
think about that lookinginternally to how we react to
these words and words that aresimilar.
And yeah, we were talking beforethe podcast, and I think about
rebuilding, I don't know, as ahopeful thing, as a way to build
(06:10):
something back stronger than itwas before, better than it was
before, informed from whatevertrauma caused it to break so
that it's stronger.
SPEAKER_01 (06:21):
You know, when I was uh studying engineering as an
undergraduate and all theemotional intelligence courses
that we had to take, where welearned how to no, we did not
learn how to tap into ouremotions in engineering school.
Um, but why don't we, right?
We like to think human beingsare data driven.
We don't make decisions based ondata, we make decisions based on
emotions.
And engineers make a lot ofdecisions about what to build
(06:43):
and how to build and when torebuild, when to tear down.
All of all of those decisionsare not fundamentally driven
just by the analysis of thecircuit diagram or the you know
stress and and dynamics uhcalculations that we do.
A lot of the decisions areemotional decisions because
humans are emotional creatures.
Why don't we teach that inengineering school?
(07:05):
That it took me quite a while tofigure that out.
What would we how would we builddifferently if we did teach that
to our builders, to ourengineers in particular?
SPEAKER_02 (07:16):
Dan, I love that.
I and you know what?
I think you've hit on somethingI was thinking about before this
podcast too, which isinstitutions and the fact that
in our world today, it feelslike they are being dismantled
either systematically or one ata time.
Um, and and what opportunitiesdoes that offer to us to do
(07:39):
things differently, like teachengineers differently, like
teach physicians differently.
I think there's maybe a lot ofpossibility in some of the
institutional destruction thatwe're seeing happen.
SPEAKER_01 (07:53):
Yeah.
So how do we turn thosepossibilities into realities?
Where are the levers that we canpull to nudge the building and
the rebuilding in that morepositive direction?
That that's a big question.
SPEAKER_04 (08:06):
It is because why?
It takes other people.
And I think some of us are readyto build or rebuild, but not all
of us are, right?
And so we have to ask why.
And, you know, what do you doabout that, right?
What do you do if you can't finda catalyzing nudge?
And what does it take?
(08:27):
Like, does everyone have toagree on the build and rebuild?
And, you know, Lynn, when I waswhen I was listening to you,
when I was hearing aboutinstitutions, it's kind of the
fragility component, right, thatcomes in.
And I know we talk a lot aboutwhite male fragility.
And thank you, Dan, thank you,um, for letting us talk about
(08:47):
that, right?
But it's it's essentially asystem that cannot accept
criticism, right?
That's kind of what we'retalking about and can't be
questioned.
And so when I think about thebuilding and rebuilding, and I
wonder kind of, is is somethingtoo fragile to rebuild it?
Like at what point in time doyou say the what the institution
(09:12):
was there for and its purposewere great?
But is it still great today?
Is it needed?
And if you look at it andthere's everything so fragile
that there's no foundation, likewhat must be true to rebuild
versus say in this new worldorder with how people are?
(09:33):
Here's what education as anexample means, right?
We are in a misinformationworld, it's only gonna get
worse, global versus domestic,blah, blah, blah, kind of
living.
At what point, given humanbeings, feelings, right?
Institutions of varying ages, ithow do we know how to answer if
(09:53):
something is a build or rebuild?
What have you two seen?
Like, what are the questions youask yourself around when is it
worth it?
And when do you have to buildversus rebuild?
SPEAKER_01 (10:05):
Yeah, Patty, I think you're really putting your
finger on the social reality ofbuilding and rebuilding.
That, you know, as much as wemight ascribe to the, or as much
as some people might ascribe tothe great man theory of history,
that building anything ofsubstance, building anything
that's going to last is acollaborative exercise, and we
don't build in a vacuum.
(10:25):
And this reminds me a couple ofyears back, there was a summer
where suddenly my town had sixfrozen yogurt shops that all
opened up in the same like week.
And it was crazy.
SPEAKER_04 (10:35):
One card interrupt, but that sounds like a great
problem to have.
SPEAKER_01 (10:38):
I was so excited.
I love frozen yogurt, and I didmy best to keep all six of them
in business.
I'm sorry, I couldn't do it.
I could not possibly eat enoughfrozen yogurt.
And what happened is they allwent out of business.
So we now have zero frozenyogurt shops.
That doesn't mean that this towndoesn't like frozen yogurt.
We would have loved to have hadfrozen yogurt.
We just didn't need six.
(10:59):
So when we think about buildingand rebuilding, we should ask
questions not just, does anybodylike frozen yogurt?
Does this town need frozenyogurt?
We might also ask, does thistown need six?
Is somebody else buildingsomething similar uh nearby?
Are there ways to sort of joinforces or ways to distinguish
ourselves?
Because I couldn't tell you thedifference between any of these
(11:20):
six frozen yogurt places andwhat we ended up with was zero.
So when we try and build inisolation, when we try and build
without awareness of what'shappening in the larger space,
yeah, 10, we end up with nofrozen yogurt.
And I'm very sad about thatstill.
Uh so how do how do we avoidthat?
How do we ask the good questionsand pay attention to what's
happening in the space around usand take a more social approach
(11:41):
to our building?
SPEAKER_02 (11:42):
Yeah.
What does it even look like tobuild collaboratively?
I mean, going back to thequestion we started with about
where to build the sandcastle, Ithink about when I see kids
building sandcastles, the onesthat seem to be last longer are
the ones they build together.
There's just more hands puttingwork into it.
(12:03):
They seem more energized aboutrebuilding it.
So that's children.
What does it look like foradults to build collaboratively?
SPEAKER_00 (12:11):
I still like building sandcastles, and I'm
I'm with you.
It's more fun when you havesomebody else building it with
you.
SPEAKER_04 (12:16):
It is.
I think, you know, for me, it'sreminding me a bit of abundant
leadership versus scarcityleadership, right?
Abundant is and scarcity is or.
And when you're bringingsomething together, it's
different.
I read this really good articlethis morning in the Boston Globe
about the marijuana industry.
(12:38):
And it went from this, it's agold rush, right?
It's gonna be amazing, and it'snot gonna be like the tech
industry.
We're not gonna be a broculture, and everyone's gonna
win, and we're gonna getminority people in here, and
we're gonna get all this stuff,and life's gonna be amazing, and
we're all gonna be super happy,you know, for the rest of our
lives.
And instead, it is a case studyin what not to do when you're
(12:59):
building an industry from theground up.
There's the local government,the federal government, they're
working in silos.
So, what exactly are theybuilding?
I'm not sure.
There are people entering tobusiness who are not business
people, who do not know theright questions to ask when it
comes to is it worth theinvestment, right?
And what is all those things?
And what's it like to work witha government agency that's
(13:22):
literally making up the rules asit goes along, right?
What does it look like, Dan, toyour point with you know, frozen
yogurt?
There's like 15 dispensarieswithin a one mile radius,
nobody, right?
So they have a billion-dollarinventory problem.
And so when I see that from theground up, you know, Harvard
needs to get its business casepeople onto that, but they
(13:43):
weren't building the sand castletogether.
They were building, some werenot even building castles,
right?
Some were building other things.
And so maybe that's one of thequestions that we ask, whether
it's building or rebuilding, howimportant and is everyone on the
same page of what at least whatthe charter is or the impact, if
(14:07):
not the what, then maybe howthings should be different.
SPEAKER_01 (14:11):
So I came across two really interesting phrases in a
political context that I thinkhave applicability here.
Uh, the phrases were hostilityto criticism and contempt for
disagreement.
And I thought, boy, what a toxicmix to be hostile to criticism
and contemptuous ofdisagreement.
And it's easy to point tocertain political actors and
(14:31):
say, oh my gosh, that describesthem so perfectly.
And yet, how often does thatshow up in our own businesses,
in our own projects and in ourwork?
And to use a question that Iasked in my latest book, Punk,
how do we avoid being that kindof asshole?
You know, it it's it's fine tosay someone else is hostile to
criticism, someone else is iscontemptuous of anybody who
(14:53):
disagrees with them.
How do I maintain somethingother than hostility when I'm
criticized?
How do I maintain openness?
How do I have appreciation fordisagreement rather than
contempt for disagreement?
Yeah, that's that's kind of thethe deep work of of maturing,
right?
The deep work of growing up.
SPEAKER_02 (15:09):
So I'm thinking about what's so the opposite of
hostility to criticism and howthat connects to building.
So if you are open todisagreement and open to
criticism, are you more able tobuild something?
SPEAKER_04 (15:29):
It it makes me wonder.
I think it's important.
And it goes back to what Dan hadmentioned with the nudge, right?
The catalyzation.
And it goes back to why arepeople being hostile?
So, number one, what I like thatDan said is asking yourself the
question about ultimately whatyou can impact immediately.
And that's your own behavior,right?
(15:49):
The things I learned inkindergarten kind of thing.
And one of the things, maybe ispart of that we should be asking
is not just checking our ownopenness about are we open to
criticism, but check our ownopenness about being aware why
someone may be not open to itand ask them some questions, but
(16:09):
really like, is it about askingthem questions to understand,
accept, and maybe do what Iwould do as a marketer, which is
manipulate the crap out of it?
Or is it really because itshould feed into the rebuilding
or a net new build?
Right?
So maybe if this is just a newtoolkit of questions, because I
don't know about you guys, butit feels like everything's up
(16:31):
for grads now in terms of whatwe build and rebuild.
SPEAKER_01 (16:35):
Yeah, and yes, absolutely.
And so if if nobody is allowedto disagree with me, what do I
miss?
Don't I miss alternativeperspectives?
I miss other data points, I missanything that doesn't reinforce
my own biases and preferences.
If nobody is allowed tocriticize me, what do I miss?
What do what do I leave on thetable or what do I overlook?
I probably overlook stuff that Ishould have some awareness of,
(16:58):
whether I agree with thecriticism or the disagreements
or not, but just that experienceof having those disagreements
and having those conversations.
How does that help us buildbetter?
I think it does.
And by exposing us to things,you know, aspects of the of the
thing that we might haveoverlooked otherwise.
SPEAKER_02 (17:16):
You know, these these questions have made me
really like I think about what'sthe root of these sources of
disagreement?
Where does where does it go backto?
And and I know it goes back somuch farther than this, but it
feels like we really started tosee it during COVID, right?
I mean, I was thinking about howfidelity and beliefs, including
(17:36):
in things like science, thatalways seemed like so
unquestionable, how could youquestion science?
Became something that you couldcriticize and that that you
could just say, you know what, Idon't believe in that.
And I'm just wondering like,what would it look like to
rebuild science and how we thinkabout science?
(17:59):
Could we make scientificprocesses more transparent and
accessible?
SPEAKER_01 (18:03):
Yeah, and I think you're asking a really important
question here when we thinkabout critiques of science or
critiques of results.
You know, one thing that droveme crazy with people is the
science keeps changing.
The science was actually notchanging.
New data was coming in, but thescience was still science,
there's still the scientificmethod.
So it does make me wonder how dowe make sure that the criticisms
(18:25):
we offer and the criticisms thatwe receive and accept are our
good faith criticisms, our validcriticisms, are criticisms in
line with a scientific approachand not the uninformed bad faith
actor type approach to criticismand disagreement.
And so learning to tell thedifference between those two,
how do how do we how do we makesure we're we're telling the
(18:46):
difference between those two?
How do we make sure we aregiving credence to the good
faith argument and not givingtoo much credence to the the bad
faith argument?
SPEAKER_04 (18:54):
I wonder if the the questions then, right, become
has this person been down thispath?
Has this person made thesedecisions or lived with these
decisions?
Because there are opinions andthen there's informed responses.
And look at the business you twoare in around innovation.
(19:16):
It's part of who you are.
If you simply just took a courseand wanted to teach my team and
I about innovation and thequestion we asked, I probably
wouldn't hire you.
So I think, right, we wantpeople.
So I'm a I executive coach forwomen, right?
All my executive coaches havebeen women because our paths are
(19:36):
in the things that we talk aboutare highly relatable.
So, you know, do we set thattable?
Because you can't back to thesandcastle analogy, right?
You've got to have other peoplebecause other people have not
just the hard skills and all ofthat, but they to Dan's point
have different ways of thinkingfor blind spots.
Hopefully they're you knowdifferently minded, like valued.
(19:57):
But maybe we start thinkingabout building, rebuilding,
whatever the answer to whateverquestion that might be, bringing
those people in sooner who arebeing very thoughtful and
intentional, right?
Is it one of the things weshould do is really think about,
you know, here's where I am,here's where where I think this
(20:19):
thing needs to be.
And therefore, let's assemble ateam that represents not only
different knowledge, butdifferent ways of thinking, but
they already know that eithersome part of the topic or or
something not.
Like, Dan, you talked aboutengineering school, and that's a
lot of planning and tech, andyou need that because you don't
want bridges to fall down orbuildings.
(20:41):
But what about the people piece?
Shouldn't that be phase one?
SPEAKER_01 (20:45):
For sure.
Yeah, go ahead, Lynn.
SPEAKER_02 (20:47):
Well, Patty, you're making me think again, back to
the this educational question,and something that you said
earlier made me realize is someof this questioning that people
are feeling at risk because theydon't know that much.
Uh I think there's so muchanxiety in our in our world
right now because people arefeeling less than uh
(21:09):
undereducated, not as educatedas someone else.
And so, what if we couldreenvision education, uh, for
example, to foster scientificliteracy as a civic capacity
rather than just specializedknowledge?
SPEAKER_03 (21:26):
Okay, I wish people could see us on video because
Dan and I, I think our headsjust blew up.
SPEAKER_01 (21:32):
Lynn, you're a poet, and that was brilliant.
Say that again.
Scientific education as a civiccapacity?
SPEAKER_02 (21:40):
Scientific literacy literacy as a civic capacity,
yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (21:44):
Yes, that is oh my gosh.
SPEAKER_04 (21:46):
I think we can end the podcast.
SPEAKER_01 (21:48):
Yeah, thanks for coming, everybody.
That's amazing.
That's amazing.
I love the way you frame that.
The the combination ofscientific literacy as a
data-driven decision mechanism,but as a social capacity with an
empathy built into it.
I think that's the thing that'smissing in so many places is
(22:10):
this lack of empathy.
We we tend to be self-centeredrather than other centered.
And Frank Turner is one of myfavorite punk musicians.
He's got this terrific songcalled Pandemic PTSD, going back
to the COVID discussion earlier.
And one of the lines toward theend of the song, and it just
knocks me out every time, hesays, it might not be you, but
God knows it's us.
And I think that is such abrilliant observation that you
(22:31):
know, any given individual mightnot feel the weight of the of
the pandemic's trauma.
But we as a society, God knows,we as a society feel that weight
of that pandemic trauma.
So, how do we get beyond thatself-centered perspective?
How do we adopt a broaderus-centric perspective?
Is listening to punk rock thesecret to all of this?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
(22:51):
But also what Lynn said, andasking questions about how can
we bring more empathy andscientific literacy into the
work that we do?
How do we, how do we make surethat we are doing our part to
bring those things together?
SPEAKER_04 (23:02):
I love that.
And I think, you know, we can't,and I know we're coming up
against time, you two, but Ican't help but think about the
word that we talked about alittle bit, which is the
fragility of it all.
And, you know, I think when weask those questions, and and
he's right, it is us, we have toalso remember and be able to
(23:22):
hold somewhere that noteverybody is you, not everybody
is us, not everyone wants tobuild or rebuild.
And just because they don't,does that make them a bad
person?
Does that make them against you?
Or are they simply on their ownpath?
And going back to that, youknow, ego-centered, we have to
be willing to accept otherpeople just might not be where
(23:47):
we are.
So I right, we're all there,right?
And I don't know about you guys,but it's more than once a day.
I got some judging going on,right?
For other people who are maybein a different part.
But I think those are things,Dan, that that when I hear you,
we have to add those questionsand ask ourselves about those
biases because we might be partof the problem and not even know
(24:10):
it.
SPEAKER_01 (24:10):
Yeah.
And Patty, you use the wordfragile.
So that reminds me of uh NassimTalav's book, Anti-Fragile.
And he sort of describes aspectrum from fragile on the one
end, so things that break underpressure, like a teacup, to
robust, sort of in the middle ofthe spectrum.
That's things that don't breakunder pressure, like a rubber
ball.
And then if you keep going alongthat spectrum, you get to
anti-fragile, which he admits isan awkward word.
(24:32):
It's kind of an ugly word, butthat describes something that
gets stronger under pressure,like your muscles.
And so I think one of the corequestions in his book is how do
we make things anti-fragile?
SPEAKER_02 (24:43):
I really like the concept of anti-fragile.
I had not heard that until Dan,you just said it.
And then getting back to, Iguess, my my sort of allergic
reaction to resilience thesedays, maybe anti-fragile is just
another way to talk aboutresilience.
And you know, as what now feelslike a former athlete, so much
(25:04):
of working out is about beinganti-fragile, about not breaking
under pressure.
So yeah, I think that's a reallyI don't have a question.
I just am left thinking aboutanti-fragility.
SPEAKER_04 (25:17):
I I love that, and I'm wondering, like, you know,
resilience I've redefined asbeing successful because of, not
despite, but the anti-fragile isso interesting.
And I'm wondering, is thatultimately the goal here with
building and rebuilding?
Are there cases where to that,maybe fragility is also a
(25:37):
virtue?
I mean, an unbreakable teacup,like, is that really a better
thing, right?
Or is the fact that it isbreakable, right?
It is precious.
And no matter what you do withthe glue to put it back
together, it will never be thesame.
Like, couldn't that be beautifuland valuable as well?
unknown (25:57):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (25:57):
And similarly, like, do we need a rubber ball that
keeps getting stronger everytime we bounce it?
I think they made a movie.
I think that was called Flubber.
Or is it enough for the rubberball to just keep bouncing?
And it's just robust tostresses, it neither breaks nor
gets stronger.
SPEAKER_02 (26:11):
Yes, yes.
Is there a cost to makingsomething anti-fragile?
Maybe sometimes, right?
And I'm not talking about justthe financial cost, but the
experiential cost.
Like the unbreakable teacup,Patty.
Maybe that makes tea time lessspecial because it isn't
something that you have to holdlightly in your hands.
SPEAKER_04 (26:30):
Oh, I love that, right?
So, look, sometimes beinganti-fragile, it might be the
goal, right?
Lynn, going back to yourquestions around things like
government institutions, forexample, do we actually want
them to be unbreakable?
Do we want to have theunbreakable teacup there?
Or do we want them to beresilient instead so that
(26:52):
they're standing because, right,or on top of large and small
disruptions?
Like, is that even possible?
I think unbreakable is, I'msorry, anti-fragile, excuse me,
is is resonating better.
And I'm already hearing myselfask different questions because
of it.
But what do you two think?
SPEAKER_01 (27:09):
Ooh, like what are the costs and what are the
dangers of an unbreakablegovernment institution?
If it's shaped in a way thatdoesn't do good things, like
what dangers are we introducingto the to the overall society?
SPEAKER_02 (27:22):
And I'm not sure anti-fragile and unbreakable are
the same.
They are different.
Yeah.
So I think as we rebuild ourgovernment, our democracy, our
institutions, maybe we do itwith a lens towards
anti-fragile, but notunbreakable.
Ooh.
SPEAKER_01 (27:41):
Because anti-fragile, like the exercise,
the athletic when we talk aboutanti-fragile, like the athletic
example you gave, Lynn, there issomething to breaking down and
then coming back stronger asopposed to not breaking down in
the first place.
And I know you had some personaluh experiences you could point
to as well as we come to ourending here.
SPEAKER_02 (28:00):
Right.
So I'll just share those as wecome to a close.
But working on this episodereally got me thinking about the
rebuilding that I've done in mypersonal life and most of it in
the last, gosh, 10 years or so.
I mean, from coming back from aserious head injury that I got
while cycling to being able todo an Iron Man just four years
later.
It's the same four years that Igot divorced, and I I had to
(28:22):
rebuild my life.
And oh my gosh, the questionsthat came up.
So many questions, right?
Is this the right thing?
Who will be my friends?
Will my sons be okay?
How am I gonna run a marathonafter I rode my bike 112 miles?
Just a few of the questions inthat personal rebuilding.
SPEAKER_01 (28:40):
Yeah, that is so much rebuilding on so many
levels.
And I know all that happenedbefore I met you, but I am so
glad to be one of your friendsnow.
And you know, it's just a greatreminder that when we talk about
building and rebuilding, it'snot just about the future, it's
also about looking to our past.
So, you know, what lessons orwhat skills, what resources or
or what friends from ourprevious rebuilding might we
want to bring forward into somefuture building or rebuilding?
SPEAKER_04 (29:04):
And you know, I know this is the listening for
questions podcast, but I amnever gonna question how happy
it is to be building arelationship with the two of
you.
And, you know, that brings me tothe how might, right?
Because Lynn, that was such apersonal story that is so
relatable in so many ways toprobably everyone listening
here.
(29:24):
And we all know this disruptionstarts with the person in the
mirror, and we can't divorce toDan's point.
What questions are we asking andanswering about ourselves first,
right?
In our kind of role in things.
So, how might our personalrebuilding relate to other forms
of rebuilding?
Is that where we start?
Or let's face it, is it allpersonal?
SPEAKER_01 (29:47):
Well, that's our time for today.
We hope today's episode hassparked lots of questions for
you and gotten you thinkingabout rebuilding in ways both
large and small and allmeaningful.
SPEAKER_04 (29:56):
And who might you share those questions with and
Who do you want to build yournext rebuilding project with?
SPEAKER_02 (30:04):
Thank you so much for coming on this journey of
rebuilding and discovery withus.
Be sure to join us next timewhen we'll ask questions about
misinformation anddisinformation.
And is there a difference?
SPEAKER_01 (30:15):
Ooh, what are the questions we should be asking
when we talk aboutmisinformation and
disinformation?
Stay tuned, everybody.
SPEAKER_04 (30:21):
I can't wait for that one.
Today's episode was sponsored bySandcastles because isn't that
how we all learned aboutbuilding and rebuilding?
Our music was composed by JakeCuppernal.
SPEAKER_01 (30:33):
Our cover art was created by Mads Graham.
SPEAKER_04 (30:35):
Catch y'all next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!