Scenius or Genius?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ernest (00:03):
Hello, and welcome to learn, make, learn, where we
share qualitative andquantitative perspectives on
products to help you makebetter.
My name is Ernest Kim, and I'mjoined by my friend and co host
Joachim Groeger.
Hey Joachim, how's it going?

Joachim (00:18):
Hey Ernest, I am recovering from having lost my
voice, which prevented us fromrecording.
It feels normal again ish, itwas incredibly scratchy last
time.
I didn't want to inflict that onanyone.
Whoever's out there.
I know there's a couple of you,but yeah, scratchy voice would
not have been so fun.
But it sounds like your house isjust taking more of a beating.

(00:41):
I feel like you've been sharingdetails about things crashing
through windows.

Ernest (00:45):
Oh yeah, yeah.
For anyone who follows me onInstagram, you might have seen a
big tree limb landed on one ofour skylights and shattered it.
Fortunately, I think it wasreally well engineered.
It's a not sponsored.
It was a Velux spotlightskylight.
And, It features a safety glass,fortunately.
So none of the glass camethrough because, um, this

(01:08):
particular skylight sits rightabove our bed.
So that would have been reallybad, but, um, uh,, yeah, it all
kind of stayed, it allshattered, but stayed in one
piece So, uh,, we're going tohave to get that repaired, but,
it could have been a lot worse.
Um, Well, jumping ahead now,today our topic is scenius or
genius.
And we'll dive into this, injust a minute, including an

(01:30):
explanation of what a scenius isfor anyone who isn't familiar
with the concept, but let'sstart with some followups to our
previous episode, can restomodculture go mainstream?
Joachim, you have any followupsto share?

Joachim (01:45):
I have a very quick one.
Since neither of us has reallytalked about Dune, but only in
passing or Dune part two, Ishould say, some bits of our
podcast episode on Restomods andresurrecting old technologies.
It just got me thinking aboutstuff in June.
Now, in this June movie, theydon't really hop on a lot about
the different types of skillsets that are in the galaxy.

(02:10):
there's a hint about thenavigators who use spies to
travel through space the better.
GEs obviously a huge part of, ofboth movies, but the men hats in
the book have a slightly biggerrole, and I don't know.
If you've read this, Ernest, ifyou know about the Mentats, but
they are the human beings whoseeyelids go funny when they start

(02:30):
thinking about stuff, right?
So, that's very visible in thefirst movie.
but there's a little backstoryto the whole thing that Frank
Herbert had, built into the loreof Dune.
And there's this notion of theButlerian Jihad.
which was a huge war, and theresult of that was the
prohibition of all quote unquotethinking machines.
And so that's Frank Herbert'sword.

(02:50):
And that means no computers, norobots, no AI of any kind is
allowed to, exist.
You can have You know, there issome technology obviously,
because they're travelingthrough space and so on, but the
only true computational enginesthat can reason and do things
are Mentats.
And so I really liked this ideathat in some weird way, they're

(03:13):
kind of restoring and modifyinghuman brains to fulfill the role
of artificial intelligences.
And so they, they go throughearly training, they're selected
at a young age.
and they.
develop these incredible skills,uh, that are also enhanced, um,
chemically enhanced.
So that gives them thecharacteristic red lips that is

(03:33):
only hinted at again in theVilleneuve, version of the
movie.
If you want to go completely offpiece, check out the Lynch one.
It's a little bit more obviouswith the red lips.
but this notion of the mentat, Ijust liked this idea.
It really resonated with me as akind of restomod thing.
And, It goes back to thisresilient computational machine.

(03:54):
actually someone that you'reconnected with via social media
mentioned, they commented on ourpodcast, one of the episodes
where we're talking aboutresilient product innovation,
and they were linking to thestory about McDonald's having a
massive cloud outage thatbrought down, all the
restaurants basically.
and so I always liked this ideaof the Mentat as a resilient
piece of computation that just.

(04:16):
It needs a human being, ofcourse, but human beings are
pretty resilient.
And so I just wanted to bringthat up as a fun example of what
could we possibly be able to domaybe a few decades down the
line, that would be interesting.
maybe it isn't all aboutgenerative AI.
Maybe it is about, unlockingsome more clever little tricks
that the human mind is capableof doing.

(04:37):
It sounds a little mystical, butI, I like exploring that and,
and living in that funny littlespace for a bit.
So that was also just to stay upto date with Dune part two.
So everyone should see that aswell.
It's brilliant.

Ernest (04:49):
I'm glad you mentioned that.
When I first read the books,that concept of Mentats and just
the idea that there was thisrevolution against thinking
machines, was one of the thingsthat really most impressed me
about Herbert's conception ofthis universe.
and as you mentioned, it's oneof the things that's not really
brought over into the movies andparticularly not in the second

(05:11):
movie.
So that's a great one.
I have a little bit of a longfollow up and I get, I could say
I'm making up a bit for my lackof substantive thinking on the
main topic by sharing a littlebit more of a follow up at the
front end.
In our last episode, I hadmentioned the news that Apple
had canceled its car initiativeknown internally as Project

(05:32):
Titan.
And in the week following thatnews, Mark Gurman and Drake
Bennett at Bloomberg published along piece chronicling Project
Titan's tortured decade longjourney from concept to
cancellation.
And we'll include a link to thepiece in the show notes.
Unfortunately, it's behind thepaywall at Bloomberg.
But if you own an iOS device,the article is ironically enough

(05:53):
available for free via Applenews.
And so we'll provide an Applenews link as well for those
folks who are on iOS devices.
The reason I highlight this isthat I think it's worth a read
for people in the business ofmaking products, primarily as a
cautionary tale that brings tolight warning signs that a
project you're leading orparticipating in could be headed

(06:14):
down the wrong track.
The article is just full of redflags.
Flags and I'll just highlight afew that caught my attention.
First, this quote from early onin the piece, Adrian Perica, the
mergers and acquisitions chiefwho pushed, who had pushed by
Tesla told the Apple car teamthat the company should build
the first bird, not the lastdinosaur.

(06:36):
The lesson here is beware thesnazzy catchphrase that
executives love, but it hasnothing whatsoever to do with
your customers needs or desires.
This is something I've seenhappen firsthand, and it's just
never a good sign.
I don't know if you'veencountered this, Joachim.

Joachim (06:54):
The pithy little one liner or the fun little image it
flattens the complexity of theproblem that you're dealing
with.
And it just makes you feel like,oh yeah, I, I want that.
Dinosaur's bad.
First bird's good.
what does that even mean?
You know?
Yeah.

Ernest (07:10):
So if you were to find yourself in that sort of a
situation, what could you doabout it?
I think really the only advice Ihave is to, Do what you can to
shift the language around theproject to the language of your
customers, whether it's throughthat jobs to be done framework
that we've discussed previously,or some other tool that you
already use within yourorganization.

(07:30):
If you find yourself in thissituation, do whatever you can
to reframe the goals of theproject around authentic
customer opportunities.
So in this case, it would beabout shifting the narrative
away from internal navel gazing,which is all that A little
piddly statement was and to anopportunity statement rooted in
the voice of the customer.
And this leads to the second redflag I encountered in the piece.

(07:53):
So quoting from the articleagain, while the initial
prototypes operated liketraditional cars, internal
supporters of the projecteventually pursued more radical
redesigns invoking atransportation technology
experience.
They said would give Give peopletime back.
The ultimate plan was a livingroom on wheels where people who
no longer needed to drive theircars could work or entertain

(08:15):
themselves with Apple screensand services instead, unquote.
Now, the article goes on to notethat Doug Field, who had been
hired away from Tesla to leadApple's car project, pushed for
Apple to scale back their selfdriving goals, quote, to level
three, which requires a humandriver to be ready to take over
at a moment's notice, notwatching TV or FaceTiming in a

(08:37):
backward facing seat.
But Field's bosses wanted levelfive.
unquote, where level fiverepresents full autonomy.
And this kind of gets to thewhole Butlerian Jihad and
mentats thing, giving up controlof a, your, your car.
Well here, the goal of givingpeople time back is a true
customer opportunity.

(08:57):
You know, I think there are alot of people who would love to
be able to use their commutetime to do things other than
driving.
I think here you can applyanother framework we've talked
about in past episodes, which isIDEO's three lenses of
innovation or three lenses ofhuman centered design as IDEO
now refers to it.
Put simply, the three lensesframework posits that for an

(09:18):
innovation to be successful, itmust satisfy three criteria.
It must be desirable from ahuman perspective, it must be
economically viable, and it mustbe technologically feasible.
In the case of project Titan,the goal of a fully autonomous
car that would give people timeback was certainly desirable.
Whether it was viable from aneconomic perspective is is an

(09:42):
unanswered question, but when itcame to technological
feasibility, the best experts atApple, including the person
leading the project, were veryclear that the goal of full
autonomy was not feasible, atleast not within the timeframe
within which the company wantedto launch a car.
So as to why executiveleadership at Apple wouldn't
heed the recommendations of theperson leading the project, a

(10:04):
person who by dint of his tenureat Tesla had an intimate
understanding of what was andwasn't possible in the domain of
autonomous driving, the articlestrongly suggests that it was
due in large part to hubris.
So quote, Apple executivesweighing whether to enter the
market, joked with one anotherthat they'd rather take on
Detroit than a fellow techgiant.
Would you rather compete againstSamsung or general motors?

(10:27):
They joked to each other.
The profit margins in cars werefar lower than in consumer
electronics, but Apple wascoming off a stretch during
which it had reshaped.
Not only the music industry, butthe mobile phone market to the
project supporters, the idea ofgetting into automobiles had the
potential to be as one Appleexecutive put it.
One more example of Appleentering a market very late and

(10:48):
vanquishing it.
Unquote.
Now the technical term for thisis getting higher in your own
supply and Apple clearly gotvery high on themselves.
So.
What can you do if you findyourself in this sort of
situation where senior leaderssimply won't heed the
recommendations of the projectteam with respect to the
fundamental questions ofdesirability, viability and

(11:10):
feasibility?
In my experience, the bestoption is to do what Doug Field
did and leave, because at thispoint, it's highly likely that
no amount of persuasion, logicalor otherwise, is going to change
the minds of your leaders.
I know this may sound defeatist,but my advice here is informed

(11:30):
by real world experience.
I just don't think it's worthspending your life trying to
persuade higher ups who aren'tinterested in being persuaded.
All right.
So the final red flag, again,quoting the article for Field,
Mansfield and other leaders onthe team, Cook's indecision was
frustrating.
If Bob Mansfield or Doug Fieldever had a reasonable set of

(11:53):
objectives, they could haveshipped the car, says someone
who was deeply involved in theproject, they'd asked to take
the next step.
And Tim Cook would frequentlysay, get me more data and let me
think about it.
In that setting, it was hard toretain talent.
This phenomenon of the leaderwho wants perfect data before
making a decision is somethingI've also experienced firsthand,

(12:15):
and I found it to just be soulcrushing because there is no
such thing as perfect data.
all this leader is really doingis creating an excuse for their
own indecision.
And the reason it's soulcrushing, at least in my
experience, is that it leavesyou as the product team in
limbo.
And here I'm a big fan of JeffBezos, his 70 percent rule for

(12:37):
decision making.
And as I've said in the past,I'm not a huge fan of Jeff
Bezos, the person, but, I dothink he shared some great
insights over the years when itcomes to leading a business.
His 70 percent rule is somethinghe shared in his 2016 letter to
shareholders.
So I'm going to quote that here.
He said, Quote, most decisionsshould probably be made with

(12:59):
somewhere around 70 percent ofthe information you wish you
had.
If you wait for 90%, in mostcases, you're probably being
slow.
Plus, either way, you need to begood at quickly recognizing and
correcting bad decisions.
If you're good at coursecorrecting, being wrong may be
less costly than you think,whereas being slow is going to

(13:19):
be expensive for sure.
Unquote.
And at an estimated cost of 10billion with nothing to show for
all that investment in time andcapital, Tim Cook's slowness
when it came to decision makingwas certainly very expensive.
So lots to take away from thisBloomberg piece, uh, that's
titled how Apple sank about 1billion a year into a car it

(13:42):
never built.
All right.
Yeah.
It's a pretty amazing.
yeah,

Joachim (13:48):
I was just gonna say Tim Cook's obsession with
wanting to get more data is, asyou had said, you'd also
encountered this type ofthinking.
Yeah.
Same.
This is one of those things thatsounds very scientific where you
say, oh, I'm going to wait forthe data, but it's completely
unscientific because you shouldrealize.
There is no data, you know, alot of these decisions have to
be taken and you, and as theBezos quote highlights, it's

(14:11):
about fixing when you're incrisis and you will hit crisis
in some form.
I think that's also part of theresilience and product design is
resilience and the ability tojust make a mistake and realize
you've made a mistake and thenfix it and keep going and
realize that yeah, we've nowjust spent after the first
billion dollars, you think you'dask a question or two, right?

(14:33):
But I guess not.
That's a really interesting,interesting, interesting summary
of the whole situation.

Ernest (14:39):
I, and I have to admit, I, as someone who's been a long
time Apple fan, it really didconcern me reading the article
because there were so many signsthat I've seen at other
companies.
Uh, that are early warning signsof a company that is kind of at
the beginning stages of adownward trajectory.
I hope that's not the case, but,it's worrisome when, companies

(15:03):
is so unable to do what they'resupposed to do.
core purpose is meant to be,which is making products.
But as you've said in the past,a system is what it does.
Right.
Um, and, uh, it's apples.
It looks like it's become asystem that's actually not very
good at making products, so Iknow that was a long one.
So that's it for the follow upsfor today.
Let's get to our, our maintopic, scenius or genius?

(15:26):
Joachim, can you set this up forus?

Joachim (15:28):
Yep.
I would love to, this topic cameto me because I, I stumbled on
this great YouTube video whereBrian Eno and Yannis Varoufakis
had a conversation.
Yannis Varoufakis is well knownamongst economists, I guess, as
being the Greek finance ministerduring one of the most crazy
financial crises that Greeceever faced and Europe ever

(15:51):
faced.
He was just kind of a rebel whodidn't follow orthodoxy.
Eventually he was forced outbecause he was such a vocal
opponent and, didn't mince hiswords he's now a public speaker,
writes a lot of things, and hehad this discussion with Brian
Eno.
He seems to be a friend of BrianEno's, and Brian Eno is, of
course, pretty famous.

(16:12):
I think people know who BrianEno is at this point, but if you
don't, he's a pioneer.
He has been around for such along time.
As a musician, he is responsiblefor the creation of ambient
music.
He also was one of the earlyinnovators in generative music.
generative music is differentfrom what we call what we think
about generative AI.
This is about actually writingexplicit rules, and with a

(16:35):
little dose of randomness tocreate cool music.
So he's one of those pioneers.
And as a music producer, he'sworked with all the greats.
He worked with U2, PeterGabriel.
he also appeared on DavidBowie's Berlin Trilogy albums.
but he's also this reallyinteresting thinker.
And in this conversation withYanis Varoufakis, he brings back

(16:57):
this notion of seniors.
And he said that the band, youknow, the rock band is generally
the best representation of howamazing things come together.
So bands generally are composedof individuals who are in their
own way, excellent at what theydo.
They're specialists, right?
By virtue of the fact thatthey're focused on a single

(17:17):
instrument.
And usually there is one personwho's louder than everyone else
in the traditional rock format.
That is the front person,usually the singer and
everyone's ego is in constantconflict.
But the band is kind of a miniseniors in Brian Eno's thinking.
he talks about the fact thatthey bring together the
chemistry of all of thesepeople.

(17:39):
And for him, he means chemistry,not in the way that we talk
about in this loosey goosey wayof, Oh, we really get along.
He really means it in thischemical way.
he talks about steel.
Steel being composed, of course,of iron and the addition of
carbon, the two things combinedto create something far more
powerful and strong than iron.

(18:00):
And that's how he thinks ofbands, strong egos coming
together under the umbrella of aband.
And yes, there is one voice thatkind of sits above everyone else
by virtue of being the frontperson, but there's some magic
in that collective.
This word that he used, seniors,it sounds so it's a slightly

(18:21):
clunky phrase, but I'm going tojust work on trying to get it,
out there.
I really want people to use itmore and more, but it's his
counterpoint to genius.
At a festival, he actuallydescribes a little bit more
detail when he was studying art,what seniors actually means to
him.
So to quote him,, from a 2009, Afestival in Sydney called the
Luminous Festival.

(18:42):
he says the following.
Like all art students, I wasencouraged to believe that there
were a few great figures likePicasso and Kandinsky, Rembrandt
and Giotto, and so on, who sortof appeared out of nowhere and
produced artistic revolutions.
As I looked at art more andmore, I discovered that that
really wasn't a true picture.
What really happened was thatthere were sometimes very
fertile scenes involving lotsand lots of people.

(19:03):
Some of them artists, some ofthem collectors, some of them
curators, thinkers, theorists.
People who were fashionable andknew what the hip things were.
All sorts of people who createda kind of ecology of talent and
out of that ecology arose somewonderful work.
So I came up with this wordseniors, the intelligence of a
whole operation or group ofpeople.
I think that's a more useful wayto think about culture.

(19:24):
Let's forget the idea of geniusfor a little while.
Let's think about the wholeecology of ideas that give rise
to good new thoughts and goodnew work.
So, by my description, you canactually already hear that I'm
very, very biased towards thisidea of the collective,
intelligence that emerges.
Sorry, I'm going to keep pushingon the fact that I think that
collectives generate far morepowerful outcomes than singular

(19:47):
individuals.
And I strongly believe that theevidence is, is, is there.
in favor of our seniors types,because every example of a
singular person showing up andpushing something forwards is
actually building always on theshoulders of another person.
in product innovation, one of myfavorite examples is actually
Dieter Rams.
So we're going to talk aboutApple tangentially again, right?

(20:10):
So Dieter Rams is of course, theindustrial designer, the head of
the design studio at Braun.
and he joined them in thefifties.
Now we always think of Braunproducts as being Dieter Rams
but I think what's really.
Interesting about the Braunexample is actually tucked under
that whole Dieter Rams as theleader of this design studio is

(20:31):
actually this whole group ofpeople.
And Dieter Rams was always atpains in the early days of Braun
to point out it's not just me.
Yeah.
I'm sitting in front of you.
I am the voice right now forthis group.
However, It is the work of acollective that makes this stuff
come up.
So he was very intent on gettingthat message across.
and we'll link to this articlebecause I found it super

(20:53):
interesting.
It's about the Braun designdepartment.
And in particular, it looks at asingle product.
And it's evolution over time inthe hands of this design group.
And they start with the 1955 300special razor, which was an
electric razor designed byArthur Braun, who was the son of
the founder, Braun, BodoFuterer, Fritz Eichler and

(21:15):
Dieter Rams.
So these are, four names thatare associated with this
product.
The product does not have thefull quintessential Braun design
language there, but there areechoes of it coming through.
And then this electric razor isiterated on.
By multiple people, Gerd Mulleris added into the mix.
He does two of them, onetogether with Rams, one by
himself, a technologicalinnovation leads to, the ability

(21:38):
to actually change the foil thatsits on top of the electric
razor.
so that changed the design, GerdMuller and Hans Gugelot load
were responsible for thatdesign.
And then Dieter Rams gets thrownback into the mix, he together
with Florian Seiffert, RobertOberheim, they design the next
iteration and so on and soforth.
I mean, it's absolutelyridiculous to think of Braun as

(21:58):
a single company with a singlevisionary designer like Dieter
Rams is absolutely incorrect.
They're literally feeding offeach other and they're passing
these designs to each other.
And you can see them processingeach other's ideas.
Another brief excursion, coffeemachines.
There's a beautiful coffeemachine, which is the KSM, and
Reinhold Weiss.
I'm not just showing off that Ican pronounce these names

(22:19):
properly because I speak German,guys, but I just, I can't help
myself right now, it's getting abit much, but But Reinhard Weiss
designed this wonderful coffeegrinder, in such colors that
were so fun, and Dieter Ramsthen takes that and iterates on
it and comes up with a newdesign, and it's just such a
wonderful, Evolution that youcan see of these people coming

(22:42):
together and you just know fromthe outputs that there's so many
discussions happening here.
So I really like that on productdesign version of that.
I'm going to do another one hereon scenius that I think part
ofceniuors.
And Brian, you know, hints at itis sometimes it's not even the
person who's actively engagedwith the project that gives you

(23:02):
scenius and the power of, of acollective.
Sometimes it's someone who sitsapart and just has good taste,
you know?
A different example is BellLabs.
Bell Labs, of course, was theresearch group, that AT& T were
able to finance because theywere a huge monopoly.
And that laboratory isunbelievable.

(23:23):
the innovation that we havetoday is 100 percent due to the
possibilities that Bell Labswere exploring in those early
days.
And the number of things thatcame out of that place are just
ridiculous.
Essentially the information age,the theory of how we actually
think about data as binary.
The idea of a bit, a binarydigit that came from Bell Labs,

(23:45):
it's Claude Shannon's work.
I mean, the list is, is long.
But one of the interestingthings that comes out, from Bell
Labs is, there are a lot ofpeople that, Really didn't have
their name on the patents, butwithout them, the patent would
never have come about.
and so this is quoting from abook called the idea factory
bell labs and the great age ofAmerican innovation by John

(24:05):
Gertner.
He describes a funny moment thatthe lawyers inside of bell labs
were confronting.
This is about.
A person called Harry Nyquist,who was a theoretical guy.
But here's the story.
Quote, some lawyers in thepatent department at Bell Labs
decided to study whether therewas an organizing principle that
could explain why certainindividuals at the labs were

(24:27):
more productive than others.
They discerned only one commonthread.
Workers with the most patentsoften shared lunch or breakfast
with a Bell Labs electricalengineer named Harry Nyquist.
It wasn't the case that Nyquistgave them specific ideas.
Rather, as one scientistrecalled, he drew people out.
He got them thinking.
More than anything, Nyquistasked good questions.

(24:50):
Now that's pretty, that's prettyspecial.
You could now start seeing howimportant those conversations
are with people that are not inyour field and you have to
explain your problem and whatyou're stuck on.
And sometimes they just saysomething that's wild and shakes
you out of your situation.
And then something amazing comesout of that.
So I find that also aninteresting piece to add to what

(25:11):
makes a seniors.
There are of course downsides toscenes and having groups coming
together.
I think the worst bits are justthis idea of herding and the
groupthink.
Groupthink is the enemy of allof this stuff, but it's
something that could emerge in asenior's type situation, right?
So Anyway, I'm a big believer inthis.

(25:34):
I believe that seniors plus flatDecision making hierarchies,
more egalitarian structures canreally lead to a lot of
interesting things.
And I've experienced this a lotin my own work when I was a
researcher as well.
The best moments were the oneswhere we all felt like we were
on the same level.
We're all exploring the samequestion at the same time.
Some of us have got differenttools.

(25:55):
Some of us have got decades moreexperience and have made many
bigger contributions to thesubject matter area.
But in those moments where we'reactually trying to figure
something out, we're Pretty muchall in the same footing.
before I go on too long, itwould be really nice to have
your perspective, Ernest, on allof these things we've operated
in similar arenas and we've beenin innovation groups, what do

(26:18):
you see coming, from this, thisdiscussion?
Are you more of a, you know,Hey, maybe we need one strong
voice and a senior, or is it allseniors?
Is it all genius?
Where do you land on thatspectrum?

Ernest (26:29):
I'm glad you posed it like that because I do think in,
after hearing your perspectiveon this, that our, points of
view are more a difference ofdegree than of kind.
If even that in that, having.
Played music in the past andbeen part of bands.
I absolutely recognize, um, theexperience that Brian, was

(26:52):
describing and the value of aseniors that, that kind of vibe
that you develop with a group.
And, um, I would say that in my.
Um, the work experiences that Imost enjoyed, uh, kind of can
think of specific situations atWieden and Kennedy, and then

(27:12):
also at Nike, um, the times whenyou could feel that I guess
seniors, develop amongst a teamof people were the most exciting
times and the times when wegenerated the best work, So, I

(27:32):
guess, as you put it, myperspective would be that you,
you need both, at least fromwhat I've seen, I yes, you, to,
especially to achieve things at,bigger scales, you definitely
need people who are going tooffer different perspectives and
different domain expertise.

(27:52):
But I do still think that youalso need someone who's going to
be that spark who.
Keeps the core of the idea aliveand moving forward.
and that example I think aboutis something I said a few
episodes back, that Netflixdocumentary about the greatest

(28:15):
night in pop and, the recordingof we are the world.
And in that case, it was both,Lionel Richie, as well as Quincy
Jones, who was the producer forthe session, who had the vision
for this song and, in this roomfull of creative people had the
kind of like conviction, Iguess, or, that spark that,, was

(28:39):
able to galvanize all thesepeople towards one purpose.
And I, I think that not all thetime, but in many cases that it
typically is that that comesfrom a, a single person, at
least from what I've seen, theclarity of vision, you mentioned
that herding phenomenon.

(29:00):
I think that absent that reallyclear vision, you do, at least
I've seen that you do tend toget this sort of herding.
And, um, so that's why I guess Ifeel like you need a balance of
the two.
the thing that comes to mind, Idon't know if there's a word for
this, but there's a diagram thatgets used a lot in, product

(29:21):
management and strategicplanning of the double diamond,
where you have, two diamondsside by side.
And, you start at a point.
and the idea is that you startat a point where you have, fewer
things you're looking at, but Ithink you could also say that
it's a point where you havefewer people and perhaps even
just one person.
And then as that idea getsestablished, you start to bring

(29:42):
in more people and maybe thedomain, that you're looking at
can broaden, but then you reacha point where you decide, okay,
we're going to do this.
thing, take this path.
And so then you get, thatdiamond narrows down again.
And then once you get into thecommercialization phase, you've
got to go through that sameprocess of starting narrow,

(30:02):
going broader as you explore afew different potential design
directions, and then you narrowdown to one solution.
So.
In that diagram, you have thatcombination of those individual
points where I think you do needthat clarity of vision, which
oftentimes I feel comes fromthat person who has that strong

(30:23):
vision.
And then over the course of theproject, you get more people
coming in and then at certainpoints, some, those folks drop
off and then again, as you getinto, other phases of the
project.
So.
I guess I'm just saying, I thinkthat, in my experience, you do
need that combination.
it's very difficult to doanything big on your own.
So you know, obviously you need,to collaborate, but I, at least

(30:45):
in my experience, it is reallyimportant to have that spark
that comes from, an individualperson's passion.
And honestly, though, I'm, partof me wonders whether.
My perspective here is just meand my contrarians streak.
I have this tendency to kind ofpush back whenever I feel like,

(31:07):
there is a bit of a herdmentality.
And, I actually, Preparation forthis.
I just did a Google search forlone genius and the only results
that came back were the myth ofthe lone genius.
I even changed my search to thebenefits of lone genius.
And still the only results thatcame back with the myth of the
lone genius.
So, clearly there's this.

(31:28):
perspective now that's very muchshifted away from the lone
genius idea and towards the ideathat that's a myth.
And I do think that thistendency that we have had in the
past to lionize that individualis bogus.
but I do think we've gone a bittoo far in suggesting that,

(31:48):
there's no place for that.
individual, whatever you want tocall it, genius or whatever,
that individual person whoreally acts as, as, Essential
spark to, whether it's music orcreating products.
I do think that there's a rolefor that.

(32:09):
I came across this article, thisblog post that I, I enjoyed it
kind of helped to catalyze mythinking around this.
Um,, we'll, share a link to itin the show notes, but it was
titled the myth of the myth ofthe lone genius.
And it was written by a personwho writes under the name Rogers
Bacon.
I thought their perspectivemaybe an oversimplification, but

(32:31):
interesting.
Basically, they said that, um,,we should want exceptional
people to believe they can doexceptional things on their own
if they work hard enough at it.
If everyone internalizes themyth of the lone genius to such
a degree that they no longereven try to become lone
geniuses, then the myth willbecome a reality.
And I think that's anintentional overstatement, but I

(32:52):
think there's some truth tothat.
Um, you had brought up theexample of the mentats and Dune
earlier, I think.
It kind of reminds me of thepretty much disappearance of the
citizen scientist, a hundredyears ago, I think it was much
more common that you'd haveeveryday citizens who would

(33:13):
develop an interest in aspecific area and would
contribute, significant work.
Into, learning in that area, andI think we've really lost that.
As now people have been told,that's the domain of experts.
You can't, you have nothing toadd here because you're not an
expert.
And I think that's a loss forsociety.

(33:35):
maybe this is overblown a littlebit, but I do think that there's
some truth to it is that we, ifwe all start to believe that
there's no such thing as a lonegenius, then, it'll become a
self fulfilling prophecy.
That'll be true.
So I still, hold a candle forthis idea that there's a place
for the lone genius.
Um, and the, um, myrecommendation for the week this

(33:56):
week, I'll kind of come back toa different example of that as
well.
But, sorry, it's a little bit ofa meandering perspective on
this, but, um, that's my take onit is, but, I don't know.
Do you have any reaction,Joachim?

Joachim (34:09):
I think what's coming to me right now is.
A refinement of what I thinkCines really is.
I'm sure, you know, probablyunderstands this.
but you're right, Ernest.
There's so many levels thatyou're right on, which is, you
use the word spark and the kindof initial spark, the idea that

(34:30):
something has to come fromsomewhere.
And I think maybe the way torefine the idea of seniors is as
opposed to it being just acollective thing and everyone
just shows up and that justdoesn't happen, right?
It has to be an initial spark.
And that initial spark is themagic thing.
And the magic thing is that itcould come from anywhere.
It could be anyone thatcontributes to that initial

(34:51):
spark.
So if you wanted to really writedown the protocol for seniors,
it should be a collective whereanyone can be that initial
spark.
And when that initial sparkemerges, you all Join in on that
journey and try to throweverything at it to get, to get
it to emerge, to be somethingmore powerful.
When I talked about thespectrum, it feels like maybe

(35:12):
that's the spectrum is thatthere is the spark, you move
from a phase of that initialspark and.
Everyone who gets excited aboutthat can join that effort or
they can pursue another groupthing, but we're all operating
together in a single scene andwe can feed off each other that
way.
and you're right.
There is also a certain degreeof delusion.

(35:33):
Self delusion is necessary.
I say this a lot, you know, it'sreally funny.
It's only when you mentionedthis blog thing that I realized
that I say this a lot, which isyou have to delude yourself a
little bit.
You have to imagine that you'regoing to crack everything.
You're going to figure this out.
Because then you're going tostart thinking about a problem
deeply, and you're going tostart applying yourself to that
problem, and then hopefully youcan operate in an environment

(35:57):
where you can bring that veryprecious initial spark, show it
to other people.
And if you are in a healthyseniors, they will say, okay,
yeah, I can see.
It's not really what I'm into.
I don't really get it.
Yeah.
But I think I can see how Icould help.
I think that's part of it,right?
It's the ability to move from,delusional initiator to

(36:19):
supportive, co conspirator inthe project.
And I think that maybe that'swhat makes up a good member of a
seniors is that they're able tomove seamlessly between latching
onto someone's idea or being theperson that starts the wagon
going.
You mentioned music.
I really think music is maybethe smartest analogy to have in
your mind when you're trying tobuild seniors in a corporation

(36:42):
or in your group.
Someone has to come up with thatfirst riff, right?
Someone has to have an idea ofwhich people to bring in.
My favorite one actually is,It's a, it's a cliche to talk
about Miles Davis, but MilesDavis had so many phases in his
career.
But to me, the most interestingalbum that he ever did that I
think is still probably one ofmy favorite, uh, quote unquote,

(37:03):
jazz albums still up for debate,whether it's a jazz album, but
it's in a silent way.
Have you, have you listened tothat one, Ernest, at

Ernest (37:10):
I don't think so.

Joachim (37:11):
Okay.
So it's his, It's atransitionary album from his
modal jazz period to a littlebit more of a fusion sound.
You know, he gets electricguitars on there.
and he brings in Joe Zawinul onkeyboards and Chick Corea is
there as well.
I mean, the mix of people on itis, is amazing.
is unbelievable.
But he had a vision for what hewanted to do on this album.

(37:34):
And I think one of the thingsthat he really wanted was he
wanted this notion of like adrone, and when you hear the
album, it's totally there, buteveryone's contributing to that
drone in different ways.
There are organs, there areroads, there's a guitar, there's
bass, there's the drums.
everyone contributes to thatvision of having this thing.

(37:55):
But then the crazy thing aboutthis album is that once it's
recorded, once all the sessionsare done, the records producer
Tio Macero goes off.
And he then edits the albumtogether.
So it's not one take, put a micin a room.
Everyone plays, here's the head.
Everyone does their solo,repeat, done.

(38:17):
they recorded stuff and thenTMSR comes in.
And after the fact in the studioby himself, he starts splicing
things together.
He starts looping things again.
In fact, the opening track, thefirst couple of minutes repeat
at the end of it.
So it's a sandwich of.
the same recording at thebeginning and at the end and in
the middle there's a kind ofmore trippy section a crazy idea

(38:38):
where does that come from andyou know miles is letting him
get away with this stuff andhe's saying that's cool you know
that gets at the idea that i wastrying to push for and you know
let's go with it it's not a jazzalbum so i think the fact that
Someone like Miles Davis couldsay, I've made jazz albums.
I don't want to make anotherjazz album.
That's that initial spark.
And then they gathered all thesemusicians together.

(39:00):
And, I would recommend firstlistening to the album as it is,
because it's perfect.
but then if you're comfortablewith it and it's locked in your
mind enough, then you can go offand listen to the complete
sessions because that's.
really interesting to just seehow those first sessions
sounded.
they sounded nothing like wherethey were,, in the end.

(39:20):
It was very, I don't want tocall it traditional because it
was already a little bit nontraditional, but there's a
little bit of swing in some ofthose beats and then slowly they
iterate and they strip awaythings and the musicians start
taking a backseat to justcreating, And ambience and
something pretty cool comes outof it.
it's a great album, but I thinkit gets at that idea of what

(39:42):
you're pushing for and it's,which is, I think, and I, I
agree with that, it's acombination of the vision and
everyone coming around that andsaying, yeah, I could get behind
that.
I can see what, and also havingbeen chosen to join that album
says something, right?
It's saying, this is thedirection I want to push into.
So whatever you're feeling fromthis direction, that's what I

(40:04):
want on the record, I'm notgoing to micromanage.
we're creating somethingtogether, but it still has to be
in line with this overalloverarching goal that we're
trying to hit of whatever thisnew sound is.
Definitely would recommend thatalbum.
And I think it's also a greatmusical embodiment of seniors.
I think you're, you're right onthe money with that one, Ernest,
that musics and bands and thismoving from singular vision to

(40:31):
seniors and that seamlessshifting of your perspective is
kind of where the magic lies.
It can't just be groupthink.
I think as you were speaking, Ijust had this nightmare vision
of what it was like, in typicalcorporations where you all just
sit in a room with an emptywhiteboard and they say, okay,
idea time, brainstorm, you know,and you know, this is not, this

(40:53):
isn't good, I've mentioned thisexample in the past, which was
Gore, people, the makers of GoreTex, they run a culture that
moves very much from, initialseed idea.
and then bring the idea to thegroup, bring the idea to the
scene and everyone gets to kindof poke at it and learn more and
contribute if they want to.
And the strength of the numberof people that are contributing

(41:15):
to it is, a measure of how goodthe idea is and how you've been
able to attract people to theconcept.
But that feels very much,there's a single person who is
delusional enough to think thatthey have figured something
deep, deep out.
And they've gone to this roomand they say, here's the idea.
And.
The scene emerges from that.
Someone is pitching, someone hasan idea, and then you can decide
whether you want to go with thator do something else by

(41:37):
yourself.
But the interesting thing thereis, of course, if you decide to
go it alone and no one believesin you, you're going alone.
You're the lone wolf, right?
And so there's a natural waythat you have to ask yourself,
is this a moment where I justreally need to pursue this thing
and there's no need for seniors?
I think even this conversationis like, let's not get too meta,
but there's aspects of how we'veeven come into this
conversation, right?

(41:57):
I presented here and say, look,senior says everything.
And then you're here, Ernest,there's another voice that says,
wait a minute.
I don't buy that.
And then something much morepractical comes out of it where
we actually think about thisidea more deeply and think,
well, actually, yeah, it's,it's, it's a hybrid.
It never is one or the other.
It's, it's moving between thosetwo phases.

(42:19):
The double triangle, what wasthe

Ernest (42:22):
Yeah, double diamond, yeah.

Joachim (42:23):
double diamond.
Yeah, what a great overusedimage, but probably captures the
essence of what we're trying toget at better than, uh, in most
sittings.
But as with all corporate stuffhas been abused so badly that
it's lost its meaning.
So let's try and save it in thiscontext.
I'm glad you brought that back.
we'll make that the drawingmaybe for the thumbnail for the
episode.

Ernest (42:44):
Well, I think the examples you've shared are
really persuasive.
Brawn and then also,, Bell Labs.
I think that's such a greatexample of this.
seniors in action.
And then Gore as well as a morecontemporary example of showing
that, this isn't just somethingthat worked in the past.
It's absolutely something thatcan continue to work today.

(43:04):
I think I can imagine that itwould be really fun to work in
that kind of environment andfulfilling because you I mean,
it's kind of like being in aband.
You just feel like you can kindof riff off of each other and
can, and are building somethingrather than always starting from

(43:25):
scratch.
Uh, at least that's my sense ofit from the outside.
It sounds like it'd be a reallyexciting environment to work in.

Joachim (43:34):
I agree.
My group at Nike, that was ledby Santosh.
we had a real mixed bag ofpeople in it.
Santosh's, the manager'sbackground was signal
processing.
He'd been at Nike for a longtime.
He'd worked on various projectsthere in hardware.
And then we had, Ian, who is abiomechanics specialist tons of

(43:55):
experience in, sports andmovement.
And we had a biostatistician,Priti, and then me, who's an
economist.
And when Santosh introduced theteam to me, I thought, what the
hell are we going to do?
Everyone had their ownperspectives, their training
shaped that worldview.

(44:16):
You come into that scene and yousay, this is the direction, I
think this makes the most sense.
You're planting a flag andeveryone just looks at it and
goes, is that.
Is that really what we want todo?
And how would you do it?
And having people outside ofyour discipline, asking
questions and not in anaggressive way in a much more,
explain it to me like I'm five,It's a very precious thing.

(44:39):
When you say here's my sandbox,I feel it's a very emotional
thing to say.
Here's the sandbox.
This is what I've been thinkingabout.
And then everyone comes in andthey sit in that sandbox and
there's nothing worse thansomeone kicking everything over.
or like building their own stuffon top of what you've made.
It's like first, if they'rerespectful, there's a kind of,
first a moment of tell me what'sin the sandbox and then I can

(45:00):
see what we should do about it.
And is this the right way to go?

Ernest (45:04):
Right,

Joachim (45:04):
I still hold that, that dynamic and the cross
disciplinary, interdisciplinarynature of that group in high
regard.
I think it was a pretty, apretty cool spot to be in.
And, yeah, I enjoyed it.
So yeah, kudos, Santosh, ifyou're listening.
Um,

Ernest (45:21):
that's awesome.
I think it's great to have aconcrete example, that you can
point to as well.
Well, all right, now that you'veheard our perspectives, we want
to hear from you.
Do you believe a scenius is thebest way to foster innovation or
are you a believer in the lonegenius?
Let us know what you think atlearnmakelearn@gmail.Com.

(45:43):
Now let's move on to ourrecommendations of the week and
I'll get us started.
But, uh,

Joachim (45:48):
Ah, Ernest, I'm so, I can't believe you're doing this.
I'm going to interrupt thenormal flow because to the
listeners, Ernest has writtendown in a document that we share
what his recommendation is.
And I'm, I am, I have no words.
But.

(46:09):
Well done.
Well done for getting there.
Well done for getting therefirst.
Well done.

Ernest (46:15):
I must admit, it was sparked by a conversation we've
had offline via text, Joachimhad brought this up.
So my recommendation is a seriescalled Halt and Catch Fire.
It was an American TV seriesthat debuted in 2016 and ran for
four seasons in the US.
It was on the AMC network, but,it's something that, Joachim had

(46:36):
brought up, I think in thecontext of the, intro and the
music, right?

Joachim (46:40):
Such a great opening credit scene.
Yeah.
And the

Ernest (46:43):
that That inspired me, your text from a little while
back inspired me to start rewatching it again.
It's a series that I loved whenI first encountered it.
And, so I started re watching itand just, you Uh, was wowed
again by how phenomenal it isin, really every way.
Um, Like you're, he was sayingthe intro is phenomenal and it's

(47:04):
beautiful, but also the intromusic is fantastic.
but also the writing and theacting, and the production for a
show that was on basic cable inthe U S it's just has no
business being as good as itwas.
and it was it to the best of myknowledge created by first time
show runners, ChristopherCantwell and Christopher Rogers.

(47:28):
I think maybe a great example ofpeople who just didn't know
better, so they createdsomething amazing, but for
anyone who hasn't seen thisseries, it depicts a
fictionalized insider's view ofthe PC revolution of the
eighties.
And then the early days of theweb.
and each season it's really, Ithink, cleverly structured.
Each season is kind of adifferent sort of epoch in the

(47:49):
evolution of PCs and then intothe web.
and, but it's, follows the samecharacters, so I forget the
names of the characters, but theactors are Lee Pace, who plays
sort of like a Steve Jobs likefigure, at least in the first
season, Scoot McNairy, who'skind of like um, uh,, Steve
Wozniak kind of figure.
Um, he's sort of more of thetrue, Engineer, whereas Pace is

(48:14):
more, he actually calls himselfthe product manager, which is
really interesting, but more ofthe marketing guy and then
Mackenzie Davis, who'sphenomenal and who's very much
sort of the lone geniusprogrammer.
in the first season, she writesthe BIOS for this company's, a
PC clone and then Kerry Bishé,who's the wife of Scoot McNary's

(48:35):
character and who's a fantasticengineer in her own right and
the evolution of her characterover the course of the four
seasons is also veryinteresting.
But um, an amazing series.
If you have any interest intechnology, I think it's just a
phenomenal thing that you'lllove.
What's great about it is that itis set in the real world.

(48:57):
So, you know,, I mentioned LeePace plays this sort of Steve
Jobs like character, but in theworld of the show, Apple and
Steve Jobs exist, and Bill Gatesexists, and they refer to them.
So I thought that was veryinteresting that they didn't try
to pretend that these realfigures didn't exist.
but at the same time, they pullin these, attributes of these

(49:18):
icons in the space, over thecourse of the four the reason I
highlighted wanted to highlightit today is I do think that
there are elements of this, Ithink combination of lone genius
and scenius that you see playingout over the course of really
all of the seasons, but, I'm onthe first rewatching the first

(49:39):
season and you can really seethose dynamics playing out where
there are different points wheredifferent individuals have to
play this genius role.
But Then they bring it back intothe context of the scenius
that's been created it onlythrough the scenius are they
able to ultimately create thisremarkable product that's kind

(50:02):
of greater than the sum of itsparts.
Another reason I love it isbecause, like I mentioned, Lee
Pace mentions that he's theproduct manager and I, this is
something I'd mentioned toJoachim, I think it's the only
thing I've seen that address whyreally smart, talented people

(50:24):
would want to work for someoneas terrible to work for as Steve
Jobs is said to be, Lee Pacereally, I think does a great job
with embodying that person who'sjust incredibly self centered,
and yet at the same time hasthis magnetism and this clarity
of vision that inspires thesevery talented people around him

(50:49):
to do the best work of theirlives.
And a lot of people who'veworked with Jobs have said that
he's in so many ways a terribleperson, but he, they did the
best work of their lives whenthey were working with him.
So, that was, Something that Ihad hoped would be confronted in
the Steve Jobs movie, and Idon't think was at all, but I

(51:10):
think the series, Halt and CatchFire does an incredible job of
capturing that and then reallybuilding on that in subsequent
seasons in interesting ways.
So Halt and Catch Fire.
I think it's phenomenal.
Um,, I purchased it throughiTunes.
I'm not sure if it's.
last time I checked it wasn't,which is a bummer, so I think

(51:32):
you may have to purchase it,but, um,

Joachim (51:34):
It is on I

Ernest (51:37):
Oh, okay.

Joachim (51:37):
to that channel somehow, you can do it through,
I think some of the bigplatforms.
Then you can watch all seasons

Ernest (51:46):
That's I'm glad you, you saw that.
so I'd say, start with the firstseason and see what you think.
And I think you'll get hooked.
Um, but, uh, so that's myrecommendation that we cover to
you.
Do you have a recommendation?

Joachim (51:57):
I can't, let you get away with that.
It's such a good show.
I, it is such a good show.
My wife and myself, weperiodically will rewatch it and
it has so many elements that arefantastic, it is the, it's the
lone genius succeeding andfailing and being terrible and
being great, it's the seniorscoming together, falling apart,

(52:20):
it's absolutely great, it goesthrough so many phases, and for
such a short run, they reallyjust hit all of the notes, and
The character development isabsolutely just off the charts.
It's so, it's so brilliant.
I didn't realize that this wastheir first show, but I can kind
of see maybe how they pitchedit, because they probably said
it's like Mad Men, but withcomputers because, Lee Pace's

(52:40):
character right at thebeginning, Joe McMillan, is way
too cool for school, and he'sgot a great suit, and he is, of
course, a very handsome man, soit all plays into the Don
Draper, Jon Hamm, dynamic, sothey found the right character
in that to get the show kickedoff, um, But, the show evolves
so much more.
I've read interviews where thecreators have pointed this out,

(53:01):
that they started seeing thesefour actors together.
And the dynamic that emergedfrom that, they just realized
this is a much bigger show thanjust, the character of Joe
McMillan being the head andeveryone kind of being a side
character.
This is more scenius plusgenius, right?
Everyone is.

(53:22):
somehow gifted in theirdirection, and they all have
very strong opinions.
It kind of comes out much morein second season onwards.
The first season is very muchmore of a, let's follow Joe.
But then everyone does theirthing and says, no, no, no, we
listened to Joe.
And as you said, they're leaningon real events and, They're
alluding to innovations that weall experienced if we were

(53:45):
growing up around that time,especially the latest seasons
around World Wide Web and thedevelopment of that just
absolutely.
It's so good.
Yeah.
I, I'm just lending more weightto what you've said, Ernest,
because it is an incrediblyunderappreciated show I really,
man, it's time to re watch it, Ithink.
I'm ready to re watch it again.

Ernest (54:04):
Yeah.

Joachim (54:04):
back into that, yeah.

Ernest (54:06):
Sorry for stealing it from you.
Right.

Joachim (54:11):
together, right?
The, the communal part.
And I'm just adding weight towhat you spearheaded there.
But Yeah, I would very muchrecommend that show.
And stick with it because thefirst season is, I think it
really picks up towards the endof the first season when they,
have to work together and youstart seeing them as characters
and mesh in each other's livesand then work together.

(54:32):
Well, on that note, actually,it's funny.
Yeah.
My, my recommendation issomething, quite focused and
small in some ways, but toucheson these early days of community
and especially community on theweb.
I was watching a documentary byAdam Curtis.
I think I've mentioned him inthe past and this was a
documentary.

(54:52):
I have watched too many of themnow and they're all blurring
into one, but I believe this onecame out in, one of the episodes
of his documentary called AllWatched Over by Machines of
Loving Grace, which is about theearly days of Silicon Valley.
cyber libertarianism, thestrange connections to Ayn Rand
and so on, but he does.
Pull out this really interestingblog post.

(55:12):
And it was written by, the userhandle was humdog and they wrote
this in 1994, and it was calledPandora's box on community in
cyberspace.
So the use of the wordcyberspace kind of ages the
document.
But I just wanted to read onequick paragraph from it.
It's a really interesting takeon things.
and so humdog wrote this.
I have seen many people spilltheir guts online.

(55:35):
And I did so myself until atlast, I began to see that I had
commodified myself.
Commodification means that youturn something into a product,
which has a money value.
I created my interior thoughtsas a means of production for the
corporation that owned the boardI was posting to.
And that commodity was beingsold to other commodity consumer
entities as entertainment.
That means that I sold my soullike a tennis shoe and I derived

(55:57):
no profit from the sale of mysoul.
So I just, it really struck meas a incredible, incredibly
incisive, piece of writing.
This is 1994, so 30 years ago.
we're very much in the game ofsaying this time is different,
but, in so many ways, this timehas kind of happened before, and

(56:19):
so it's heartening anddisheartening at the same time
to, to understand that in someways, this is a repetition of
what's come before, in aslightly modified way, but the
underlying essence of what we'refacing as a problem is still
there.
So, we'll link to that text.
There's a lot more to it, ofcourse, but this was basically

(56:39):
humdog sign off where she'ssaying, I'm done with this
online culture and bulletinboards and all of that.
Yeah, an interesting look at thepast and looking at the present
as well.
So that, that's myrecommendation for this week.

Ernest (56:53):
Oh, that's a great one.
All right.
Well, I think that does it forus.
Thank you so much for joining ushere at learn, make, learn.
As I mentioned, we want to hearfrom you.
So please send any questions orfeedback to
learnmakelearn@gmail.Com andtell your friends about us.
Now our next episode is going tobe a doozy.

(57:14):
We're going to discuss whetherproducts can or should be
political.
Joachim and I haven't talkedthrough this in advance, so I
don't know where he stands onthis and vice versa.
So it should be a livelyconversation.
And we hope you'll join us forthat conversation on the next
Learn, Make, Learn.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Scenius or Genius?