Unlock Your Potential | Huberman Lab Podcast | Dr. Adam Grant | Podcast Summary | The Pod Slice
This is the artificial intelligence voice of Dr. Andrew Huberman narrating this pod slice summary of the Huberman Lab Podcast.
During their podcast session, Dr. Andrew Huberman and Dr. Adam Grant start off with a keen exploration of the psychology of procrastination. Dr. Grant, a professor of organizational psychology at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, neatly unpacks the phenomenon, contradicting misconceptions that procrastination equates to idleness or a lack of discipline. He declares that procrastination is often an attempt to avoid a negative emotion associated with a task.
On a personal level, he reveals that he procrastinates on tasks he finds boring, with other common sources of procrastination being fear, anxiety, and confusion. Dr. Huberman shares that he thrives under the pressure induced by deadlines, which he prefers to be imposed by others. He likens deadlines to his game time, creating a sense of internal arousal and excitement for the task at hand. Interestingly, he views procrastination not as a weakness but as a strategy to trigger the exhilaration of focused work.
Dr. Grant distinguishes between procrastination and delay, defining the former as “delaying despite an expected cost”. If one sees potential benefits from the delay, then it is not procrastination, just simply delay. This distinction resonates with Dr. Huberman’s approach to his tasks, where his process often begins well ahead of the actual physical process, with him thinking about these things constantly.
Both hosts present the excitement of the process – the unleashed curiosity, the rush of discovery – as benefits that emerge from their style of work, regardless of whether this encapsulates procrastination or adaptation of deadlines as a psychological tool for performance.
Interestingly, Dr. Adam shares a doctoral student’s perspective who claimed that she tends to have her brightest ideas during her periods of procrastination. This anecdotal insight was supported by data collected from a Korean company where employees who sometimes procrastinated demonstrated higher levels of creativity as rated by their supervisors compared to those who rarely procrastinated. This reveals a potentially intriguing relationship between procrastination and creativity.
During this enlightening segment of the podcast, Drs. Andrew Huberman and Adam Grant delve into the link between procrastination and creativity. One unexpected revelation appears in a study that indicates the peak of creativity occurs midway within a procrastinating period. Dr. Grant supports this with an experimental setup involving YouTube videos tempting people into procrastination. The results suggest that by moderately succumbing to these distractions, people ended up conjuring more creative ideas.
These beneficial effects take place because of two reasons. First, when one promptly plunges into the task, they often end up sticking with their initial ideas, missing out on the chance to develop better ones. Second, chronic procrastinators delay so much that when they finally begin, they rush ahead with the easiest idea rather than patiently evolving the most novel one. On the contrary, moderate procrastinators with enough time to mull over the ideas, conjure up innovative solutions. Based on this finding, Dr. Grant now incorporates this ‘moderate procrastination’ method into his work routine, letting ideas incubate rather than committing to them right away.
Furthermore, Dr. Huberman shifts the discussion to the concept of intrinsic motivation. Dr. Grant explains that to make procrastination beneficial for creativity, one needs to be genuinely interested in the task at hand. If you’re invested, the mind remains active on this topic in the background, progressing ideas and forming unexpected connections. If the mind finds it uninteresting, it will avoid these connections. Thus, uncovering ability to provoke curiosity about a topic becomes key. This technique allows individuals to unearth the intrigue within tasks, crystallizes the learning process, and morphs it into an act of genuine interest.
However, Dr. Grant notes that not all tasks can stir inherent curiosity. Here, instead of focusing on the process’s appeal, one could focus on the meaningful results that the task achieves. This sense of purpose, although not as potent as genuine curiosity, can serve as a surrogate to motivate action and combat procrastination on tasks perceived less appealing.
Finally, they revolve around the idea that lying about enjoying a task to someone else, convincing them about the task’s merit, also ends up persuading oneself about it, gradually fostering genuine interest and intrinsic motivation.
In this ongoing discussion, Dr. Grant and Dr. Huberman talk about the effects of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on performance and overall happiness. Dr. Grant introduces an essential point about children learning to do tasks for extrinsic rewards. For example, a child might do chores for an allowance, which grants them the freedom to spend money on what they desire. While this real-world system is used by many adults who work for a paycheck, Dr. Grant gingerly questions whether the situation provides a diminished landscape of happiness.
However, data suggests that using extrinsic rewards increases productivity. They incentivize quantity over quality, pushing individuals to complete tasks faster without necessarily doing them more thoroughly. Yet Dr. Grant warns how relying on extrinsic rewards can unwittingly undermine intrinsic motivation by shifting focus on the outcome over the process.
To avoid this, one needs to maintain autonomy in completing tasks. When the rewards aren’t presented in a controlling manner, individuals often react differently, paving the way for engagement and substantial performance. This approach works effectively when the rewards serve as a symbol of appreciation rather than a carrot dangled to control behavior.
Underscoring the value of focusing on the task at hand, rather than the outcome, Dr. Grant suggests that individuals perform better and even learn to appreciate the process more when they are “physically and mentally present.” The idea of losing themselves in the task, thereby experiencing a level of concentration and persistence that ultimately leads to working harder, smarter, and thinking more clearly.
Lastly, Dr. Huberman brings up the topic of social media and how it often interrupts rewarding experiences. Due to the instant gratification associated with sharing experiences online right away, individuals might be missing out on the reward of being present. This constant shift from intrinsically into extrinsically rewarding experiences concerns Dr. Huberman, who personally experiences this struggle, especially in the context of sharing knowledge instantly versus systematically over time. Dr. Grant echoes this sentiment, acknowledging the struggle between improving the world and simply enjoying it, particularly in the age of immediacy afforded by social media and smartphones.
Navigating this intriguing discourse, Dr. Grant and Dr. Huberman discuss strategies to maximize productivity and creativity. They express interest in the philosophy of ‘quiet time’ introduced by Leslie Perlo, wherein she suggests a blackout of any interruptions during certain periods. The ‘quiet time’ periods focus on the main task at hand, increasing productivity by a considerable amount.
They further dive into examining personal working rhythms, the topic of chronotypes, and the association between energy phases and productivity cycles. Intriguingly, they reveal that individuals may perform better during certain times of the day based on these rhythms. Morning people, often driven by increased energy levels, may engage in more creative work during the early hours of the day, leaning towards more analytical tasks as the day progresses. Different times of the day could stimulate different types of thinking, which can significantly affect productivity.
Additionally, they delve into anecdotal experiences about classroom timings and student receptivity, hinting at the role of circadian rhythms in cognitive performance. They stress the influence of transitioning states like sleep and wakefulness, suggesting that they could stimulate divergent thinking by activating unconstrained neural networks. Borrowing strategies from highly creative individuals, the experts also mull over how deliberately activating or calming the mind or body influences the creative process.
They elaborate on this idea by proposing a fascinating correlation. If a person naturally sustains a constantly active mind, then quieting it might lead to more innovative ideas and vice versa. Acknowledging the challenge in judging one’s ideas, they theorize that finding quietness (of either the mind or body) enhances discernment between promising and lackluster ideas.
Lastly, this discourse highlights the importance of capitalizing on the unique strengths of individuals as a means to maximize productivity and creativity. By recognizing these variances and fostering an environment that supports these different strengths, individuals can lead a more efficient and creative life.
Throughout this portion of the podcast, Dr. Grant and Dr. Huberman pivot their conversation towards the topic of feedback and criticism. Dr. Grant examines the best methods for eliciting useful feedback, using his own experiences as examples. He suggests that asking for feedback might not always be the best strategy, as it can lead to people either sugar-coating their perspectives or being overly critical.
Instead, he proposes asking for advice, suggesting this subtle shift can lead to more actionable feedback. This allows individuals to orient the responses and feedback they receive towards the future rather than obsessing over past errors.
Rather than merely accepting a critical feedback score, Dr. Grant introduced the concept of a ‘second score’. He allows himself to be graded on how well he took the feedback (the first score), reframing the process to focus on constructive utilization of the criticism.
A personal anecdote showcased this concept, when he found himself lecturing a class of Air Force generals and Colonels, vastly more experienced than he is. Acknowledging his initial feedback was less than favorable, Dr. Grant used that information to adjust his approach for the next session, resulting in considerable improvements in his feedback scores.
Dr. Huberman concurred by sharing his experience submitting a scientific paper for review. Despite initial disheartening feedback, it later got accepted and published in a prestigious journal. This led him to realize that opinions can be highly variable and sometimes outright wrong, and the actual value of your work can be entirely different from what one individual might think.
The hosts further delve into dissecting feedback, stressing that the focus should not be on whether it’s negative or positive, but rather on whether it focuses on the ‘task’ or the ‘self.’ This adds more value to the feedback and allows for more concrete strategies for improvement.
This part of the conversation suggests that reframing the feedback process, focusing on engagement rather than avoiding discomfort, can lead to significant improvements in the ability to accept, analyze, and utilize the criticism to enhance personal and professional growth.
In this intensive discussion, Dr. Grant and Dr. Huberman focus on mindsets, specifically the ‘growth mindset’. They touch on the importance of perceiving both personal abilities and the potential of a job as malleable, shifting from a fixed to a growth mindset.
Dr. Grant shares the research he conducted with Justin Berg and Amy Resnesin, examining how adopting a growth mindset impacts workplace satisfaction and performance. The study concluded that teaching employees to view their skills and job as malleable, significantly enhances their happiness for at least six months, without a drop in their productivity.
Dr. Huberman resonates with this, pointing out that it seems more about adopting ‘growth mindsets’ – encompassing not just personal skills but also work, a perspective Dr. Grant agrees to, stating that the environment plays a huge role in harnessing the benefits of a growth mindset.
The topic then shifts to ADHD, discussing the relationship between deep interest in a particular area and performance in other less interesting tasks. This includes the research that suggests that extreme interest or passion for a specific task or subject, might lead to a negative impact on other less interesting assignments, essentially translating to poorer performance.
Dr. Grant validates this correlation, using contrast effects in psychology as an analogy. He explains that if someone savours a delicious meal, their least favourite food might taste even worse than before. This led him to rethink his task sequencing, instead of starting with the most exciting task, he now initiates his day with a moderately interesting task.
The conversation not only emphasizes the importance of the growth mindset but extends towards the effective application of the mindset in real-life scenarios. It suggests practical strategies, backed by research, on harnessing the best of this approach to enhance both personal growth and job satisfaction.
The conversation between Dr. Huberman and Dr. Grant continues to examine approaches towards the impact of positive and negative experiences on our mindset, decision making, and task performance. The concept of negative experiences is brought forward, specifically those dreaded ‘bad days’, providing strategies such as reframing and distraction in order to regulate emotions and think positively.
Dr. Grant talks about his own experiences and his coach’s words, asking if they made themselves or someone else better that day, and if the answer was yes, then it was not a bad day. This reframing emphasizes focusing on improvement rather than being perfect. It also includes considering one’s impact on other people as an alternative measure of success, effectively diminishing the disappointment.
The discussion then turns towards the practicalities of modern life and how they affect satisfaction levels, such as the pros and cons of smartphones and task lists. Dr. Grant offers his personal strategies, including using a “to-don’t” list to add boundaries to potentially detrimental habits such as smartphone overuse, highlighting the role of modern technologies in our lives.
The conversation transitions into the importance of recording ideas when they occur since they may be impossible to recall later, leading towards the exploration of unconscious biases. Dr. Grant touches upon the idea that people often perceive themselves as more objective than others, leading to what he labels as ‘I’m not biased’ bias, which serves as a potential blind spot in one’s decision making and judgement process. These blind spots can sometimes limit individuals. However, Dr. Grant suggests that recognizing and overcoming them can also present opportunities for personal growth and better decision making.
An intriguing section of this engaging conversation delves into exploring the concept of ‘blindsight,’ a phenomenon whereby people trust their abilities too much, perceive themselves as objective, and disregard their inherent biases – a bias which Dr. Grant refers to as the ‘I’m not biased’ bias. This cognitive lapse often leads to blind spots in one’s judgment and decision-making process, with implications reflecting even in one’s representation of their strengths and weaknesses.
Dr. Grant brings forth the ‘reflected best self-portrait’ in this context – a methodology he personally values for the illumination it can bring to people’s often unnoticed strengths. He relates an example of asking 10 to 20 people, such as family members or colleagues, to recount a moment when you were at your best. This collection of stories about your personal strengths can often reveal enlightening patterns about your potential and the situations that ignite them.
Taking the exercise further, Dr. Grant shares a personal anecdote about his inversion of this exercise. He selected a group of individuals and wrote stories to each about a time when they were at their best. This alternate practice revealed areas Dr. Grant could bring his identified strength – helping other people see their strengths – into his daily life more effectively. It gave him insight into how to direct his efforts to magnify his impact.
Continuing with the exploration of cognitive approaches, they discuss three mental modes that many people often function within – the preacher, prosecutor, and politician. While these modes can be advantageous in certain roles, their common denominator is that they often prevent you from questioning your own assumptions and beliefs. Dr. Grant proposes the alternative of ‘thinking like a scientist,’ which involves fostering a humility to acknowledge what you don’t know and nurturing a curiosity to seek out new knowledge.
This scientific thinking, they agree, allows for more effective decision making, facilitates the testing of assumptions, and encourages personal growth. Rather than being overly invested in the need to be right, this mode shifts the focus towards a quest to get it right, encouraging a more open, receptive learning and growth mindset. This, they both argue, is a healthier way to approach thinking about daily habits, behaviors, and decision-making processes.
In a captivating part of their conversation, Dr. Andrew Huberman and Dr. Adam Grant dig into the process of scientific thinking and how it can help overcome cognitive biases and blind spots. Dr. Grant suggests that adopting a scientific mindset involves setting aside overconfidence in personal perceptions and focusing on disproving hypotheses, which is quite different from the traditional practice where most people look for validation of their existing beliefs.
At the heart of their dialogue, they delve into the dynamics of social media and how it amplifies cognitive biases. This touches on the concept of ‘confirmation bias,’ where individuals tend to seek information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and disregard information that contradicts them. This tendency is heightened on social media, where individuals can easily curate their feeds to echo their views – an act which often leads to a lack of diverse and challenging perspectives.
Dr. Grant suggests that one way to counteract this is by deliberately following people whose conclusions differ from ours but who share a respect for thoughtful reasoning and analysis, as this can provide insights that stretch our thinking. Moreover, Dr. Huberman and Dr. Grant discuss how ‘follows’ on social media are often misinterpreted as endorsements, when they could be attempts at understanding differing perspectives.
They also delve into the intricacies of presenting scientific information on social media. The key challenge lies in striking the right balance between providing comprehensive context and giving actionable takeaways, without oversimplifying or misrepresenting complex scientific data. They recognize the need to outline their approach to questioning and analyzing studies, ensuring their followers understand the rigorous filters and scrutiny applied before sharing any research findings.
Furthermore, they explore the concept of ‘authenticity,’ a commonly valued trait that, if not balanced with empathy and boundaries, can lead to selfish or disrespectful behavior. Dr. Grant offers a nuanced perspective, arguing that authenticity should not necessarily mean expressing every thought or emotion, but rather acting in accordance with our principles, even if it contradicts momentary impulses. He introduces the idea of ‘sincerity’ as an alternative, urging individuals to reflect the person they aim to be as opposed to focusing on outward expression of personal thoughts and feelings.
In their riveting discussion, Dr. Andrew Huberman and Dr. Adam Grant involve the role of personal developments and potential growth. They propose that the path to realizing one’s potential is often strewn with obstacles and challenges, and this journey of overcoming these hurdles is often more rewarding than the destination itself.
Dr. Grant shares the concept of the motivational power related to the progress you make. He notes that your greatest accomplishments are not necessarily in areas where you began with significant innate talent, but rather in areas where you’ve triumphed over difficulties. This viewpoint suggests that it’s not always about the end performance metric; the sensation of walking towards progress can be a significant motivator.
Dr. Grant further explains three character skills that facilitate unexpected growth and help realize one’s potential. These are being a creature of discomfort, being a sponge, and being an imperfectionist. By creature of discomfort, he refers to adopting a mindset comfortable with uncertainties and unpleasant situations, a quality that fosters resilience and adaptability.
On being a sponge, he suggests a continuous passion for learning, characterized by sponging up new knowledge and, importantly, filtering out less useful content. This trait cultivates critical thinking and ongoing self-upgrade.
Then, the concept of imperfectionist comes to the frontline. Being an imperfectionist doesn’t mean settling for sub-par results or less than what one is capable of. Instead, it entails understanding when to aim for excellence and when to settle for good enough. This quality prevents paralysis by analysis and fosters a growth mindset by promoting learning from mistakes.
Dr. Huberman’s story resonates closely with these concepts. His struggle in a course on neural development during his senior year sparked an extensive interest and experience in the field, which turned it into one of his favorite subjects to teach and learn about today. This personal experience underscores Dr. Grant’s theory of relishing friction points for growth, as the process of advancement often nurtures deeper mastery and enjoyment.
In their dynamic exchange, Dr. Grant unveils the concept of a “failure budget,” promoting an environment that acknowledges risk-taking, experimentation, and growth. Here, he explains that if someone succeeds in 100% of their projects, they may be setting their sights too low. He envisages a moderate approach, suggesting that whereas a 90% success rate indicates a productive year, a flawless record might signify insufficient challenge.
Dr. Grant offers a candid recollection of his own venture into podcasting. Despite his acknowledged fears, it became a risk that encouraged him to step out of his comfort zone and, in fact, allowed him to derive learning from the experience. Dr. Grant defines this, not as courting failure, but rather as creating an acceptable zone of failure, hence motivating risk-taking and fostering growth.
He shares plans for a novel project that might spark a bit of anxiety but has the potential to be exciting. With an idea to initiate a podcast series involving tag team debates on controversial topics, Dr. Grant imagines a place where sharp disagreements bloom into insightful and complex conversations, moving beyond individual confrontations.
Interaction between groups of people rather than one-on-one discussions can create a richer dialogue, offering various perspectives, and possibly leading to pragmatic solutions, as Dr. Grant suggests. Manifestly, one such controversial discussion could involve policies for Trans athletes in sports – a current hot topic with diverse, often contentious views.
However, Dr. Grant’s intent is not to instigate controversy but to uncover layers of complexity in such discussions. His belief is that these open debates can lead to an elevated level of understanding and, ultimately, to thoughtful policy suggestions.
In response to such hard-hitting subjects, Dr. Huberman acknowledges Dr. Grant’s aim to genuinely tackle substantial issues, like the consideration of rewriting the Constitution. It’s clear that Dr. Grant is not interested in shying away from these significant challenges, but rather relishes the opportunity to dive deep into powerful and provocative discussions.
In what can be described as a fascinating exploration, Dr. Huberman and Dr. Grant delve into the real essence of beliefs, challenging conventional wisdom, understanding self, and more. While Dr. Grant emphasizes the interconnection of interest, surprise, and clarity in science communication, he also highlights the role of self-relevance, which may not necessarily be actionable but can offer a rich worldview.
An idea proposed by sociologist Murray Davis suggests that ideas remain alive not because they are true, but because they are interesting, and a great part of this interest is rooted in surprise. Dr. Grant discusses several ways to invert conventional wisdom and instigate interest, making the learning process intriguing rather than offensive.
Both agree on the immense impact of content that promotes self-reflection. Dr Huberman, drawing from his discussion with Dr. Keith Campbell, cites the redefining of narcissism as profound envy arising from a deep deficit in pleasure, which resulted in a rethinking of previous perspectives towards narcissists.
The discussion transitions into the realm of magic and misdirection, where Dr. Grant, a former magician, likens magic to science communication. He explains that the surprise element in performing a magic trick is similar to effectively communicating a scientific fact that contradicts conventional understanding. This element has the potential to intrigue people more than the obvious truth.
In the area of self-relevance, they discuss how giving people language to articulate what they feel could engender interest and excitement. Using a specific Japanese word to describe the sadness one feels after getting a bad haircut serves as a perfect example of sharing a universal experience, making people feel less alone and suffer less. Consequently, a cognitive shift occurs, leading to a deeper understanding of oneself and others.
Culminating this deep dive of thought-provoking exploration, the hosts note that crafting science communication with surprise, interest, self-relevance and clarity can significantly expand our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. They emphasize the strong correlation between “naming emotions” to manage them effectively, contributing to mental health.
In this stimulating section, Dr. Grant shares some profound insights surrounding the experience of “languishing” and how naming our emotional states can lead to greater understanding and self-recognition. This concept stems from research he referenced by sociologist Corey Keyes on “languishing,” a state of stagnation or emptiness that is not quite depression but is far from flourishing. It’s an absence of well-being, not devoid of hope or energy, but not reaching peak functioning either. Dr. Grant comments on how impactful the naming of this state was for many people, illuminating a shared experience.
Resonating with and expanding on Dr. Grant’s discourse, Dr. Huberman observes how the act of “naming” emotions can be an effective strategy to regulate them. Correlating it with cognitive neuroscience, he asserts that understanding the neurological underpinnings of our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors could lead people to believe and understand them more.
Interestingly, Dr. Grant also highlights the intriguing link between magic and science, underscoring how the surprise element in both can captivate audiences and challenge their preconceived notions. Both concur that this same strategy can be employed in science communication to foster interest and explain complex scientific concepts.
The conversation takes a more personal turn as they delve into the subject of parenting and children’s potential. Dr. Grant shares that one of his key takeaways from writing his book “Hidden Potential” was how important it is for children to feel like they matter and can make a difference. He illustrates this with a touching anecdote about seeking advice from his daughter and how it boosted her confidence. According to Dr. Grant, kids want to feel they have something to contribute, and when they offer guidance, it shows them they have value to add, fuelling their confidence and motivation.
Dr. Huberman agrees, asserting that children, like adults, want to feel they matter. He notes how this shifts the usual narrative from emphasizing performance metrics to acknowledging that a child’s insight and advice can be valuable and impactful. This exchange casts a warm, personal light on the universal quest for understanding ourselves and finding value in our experiences.
In this part of the conversation, both Dr. Huberman and Dr. Grant delve deeper into the concept of realizing one’s potential. Discussing this, Dr. Grant emphasizes the importance of reaching beyond our comfort zones and tuning into our deeper desires. He brings up the idea of a ‘tag team podcast’—an idea he’d had as a response to the often ‘intractable Battle of loggerheads’ seen in various discourses. Dr. Grant indicates that the notion of there being an ‘unsolvable problem’ challenges his core values.
Moving forward, Dr. Huberman commends Dr. Grant on his diverse efforts in educating people not only in academic spheres but also via his active social media presence, his TED Talks, and his numerous books. Dr. Huberman observes that Dr. Grant’s work is valuable because it always sparks learning and progress in those who engage with it—likening him to one of the ‘exceedingly rare’ individuals who consistently provide valuable knowledge.
Dr. Grant reciprocates the sentiment, admiring Dr. Huberman for his significant contributions in making scientific knowledge more comprehensible, engaging, and relevant to the public. They both affirm their shared mission of promoting scientific literacy and express interest in potential collaborations in the future.
To engage with his audience, Dr. Huberman encourages them to connect with him on various platforms, including subscribing to their YouTube channel, podcast subscriptions on Spotify and Apple, and following on various social media platforms. He also introduces his monthly Neural Network newsletter that provides podcast summaries and educational toolkits on science-based topics such as neuroplasticity, dopamine management, sleep enhancement, physical performance, and more.
Throughout the dialogue, both Dr. Huberman and Dr. Grant continue to express gratitude for each other’s work and the productive conversation they shared. These sentiments illustrate a mutual respect grounded in their shared commitment to making complex scientific concepts accessible, understandable, and useful for a broad audience.