Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hidden Brain

Love 2.0: How to Move On

with Antonio Pascual Leone, Phil Fernback

Published October 20, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Host Shankar Vedantam speaks with psychologist Antonio Pascual Leone about why breakups are so difficult, the emotional mistakes people commonly make when relationships end, and practical therapeutic tools such as structured grief lists, narrative reframing, letter writing, and empty-chair dialogues to help people process loss and create their own sense of closure. In the second half, cognitive scientist Phil Fernback discusses the illusion of knowledge-why we routinely overestimate how much we understand, how this affects domains like politics, medicine, and everyday decision-making, and how to cultivate greater intellectual humility and curiosity in conversations with others.

Topics Covered

Romantic relationships Breakups Grief and loss Therapy Trauma Personal narrative Perspective shift Critical thinking Cognitive biases Misinformation and disinformation

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • People often handle breakups poorly either by rushing into new relationships or by obsessively ruminating on the past, without learning what they truly need or how they want to move forward.
  • Antonio Pascual Leone recommends explicitly listing lost positives, lost negatives, and lost hopes and dreams of a relationship to clarify grief and make hidden losses concrete and easier to release.
  • The stories we repeatedly tell about painful experiences-whether superficial or stuck in a "same old" victim narrative-strongly predict ongoing distress, regardless of the events themselves.
  • Closure does not require cooperation from the other person; imagined dialogues, unsent letters, and empty-chair work can powerfully help people process emotions and redefine what an ending means.
  • Phil Fernback explains that humans routinely overestimate how deeply they understand things, because we live in communities of knowledge and mistake others' expertise and internet access for our own.
  • Strong political or scientific opinions are often held most fervently by people who know the least about the underlying mechanisms, making them resistant to new information.
  • Effective conversations across disagreement require mutual humility and curiosity, not one-sided grilling or attempts to expose the other person's ignorance.
  • A practical way to combat the illusion of knowledge is to regularly try to explain how something works in detail; noticing where your explanation breaks down can help you recalibrate your confidence.
  • Underconfidence can be as limiting as overconfidence; the goal is calibrated intellectual humility, where your sense of knowing roughly matches what you can actually explain.
  • Novel environments and "tourist" situations naturally encourage curiosity because they remove the social pressure to appear knowledgeable and give us permission to ask basic questions.

Podcast Notes

Introduction: Why endings in love are so difficult

Cultural focus on falling in love versus little guidance on breakups

Shankar contrasts abundant songs and manuals about finding love with the scarcity of advice on ending relationships well[0:30]
This episode concludes a month-long series about love by focusing on what happens when rifts are too wide to bridge[0:38]

Series context and shift to the psychology of breakups

Previous episodes examined understanding partners, acceptance, apologies, and letting go of annoyances[1:00]
Current episode will explore mistakes in splitting up and techniques to set the past to rest[1:22]

Guest background: Antonio Pascual Leone and his early experiences with love

Introducing Antonio Pascual Leone and his psychological focus

Antonio is a psychologist at the University of Windsor in Canada who studies emotions around complicated events like breakups and how they shape behavior[3:35]

Antonio's early identity as actor and poet

In late teens and twenties he was torn between studying biology/medicine and going into theater, ultimately choosing theater and later finding psychology as a compromise[4:18]
He wrote what he now calls "mostly quite bad" poetry, identifying strongly with lovesick, unrequited love themes in late adolescence and early adulthood[5:08]

Link Antonio sees between acting and therapy

On stage, actors generate real emotional experiences for audience entertainment[4:33]
In therapy, emotional experiences are also real but oriented toward health care, with corrective emotional experiences that can be curative[4:41]

Antonio's personal breakup story and turning point

Dramatic serenade under ex-girlfriend's balcony

As a young man very enamored with his girlfriend, Antonio responded to the relationship fizzling by "leaning in harder" instead of accepting the end[5:47]
With a friend who was an actor and scriptwriter, he staged a grand gesture: calling her to the balcony, serenading her with singing, reading a poem, and finishing with fireworks in a bucket of sand[6:47]
He now describes it as a "crash and burn" and realizes it was more about performance than about the actual relationship[6:52]

Realization about not attending to his own needs

Looking back, Antonio sees he was not attending to what was happening inside him-his insecurity and questions about what he really needed[6:59]
He notes there was "not a lot of relating" in that episode, which helped catalyze later self-reflection[7:10]

Common maladaptive reactions to breakups in popular culture and real life

Rebounding and "pushing out a nail with another nail"

Shankar plays a clip from "Crazy Stupid Love" where a character tries to move on by dating others while still in love with his ex[8:29]
Antonio notes he sees similar behavior in real life: desperate behavioral attempts to move on by replacing one partner with another[9:21]
He cites a Spanish saying, "un clavo saca otro clavo"-one nail pushes out another-describing the idea of replacing the old with the new[9:28]
This tactic may help someone get over a specific person but often prevents learning from the relationship and leads to repeating similar predicaments[9:40]

Ruminating anger and blame as another poor outcome

Shankar plays a clip from "Marriage Story" featuring intense anger during a divorce[10:18]
Antonio hears it as "I hate you for not loving me"-anger that is fundamentally about feeling unloved[10:50]
He points out this anger is blaming and rejecting, focused on what the person doesn't want, without clarity about what he is actually fighting for or what he really needs[11:04]
He notes that there are many ways to have poor outcomes after breakups and that psychotherapy research tends to focus on the finite set of factors behind good outcomes instead[11:36]

Emotional processing after breakup: global distress and the three-lists exercise

Global distress as undifferentiated negative emotion

Antonio describes how people who don't deal with their feelings can get stuck in a blob of undifferentiated negative emotion he calls "global distress"[14:40]

List 1: Saying goodbye to the good things

He suggests taking three pieces of paper and, on the first, listing what you have lost in terms of what you enjoyed about the relationship that will no longer happen[15:08]
• Examples include little in-jokes, shared idiosyncrasies, and the specific qualities of the person that were cherished

List 2: Letting go of the bad things you tolerated

On a second sheet, he advises listing the negative aspects you put up with or tolerated and now no longer have to endure[15:32]
• These can include quirks or behaviors you did not like but accepted as part of the relationship
Creating this list highlights that some "losses" are actually reliefs, balancing the emotional accounting[16:01]

List 3: Grieving hopes and dreams that will never happen

The third paper is for hopes and dreams baked into the relationship that now will never come to pass[16:08]
• Examples are imagined future children or trips that were never actually taken but felt real in the person's internal experience
Antonio calls these "undeclared losses" and says putting up little metaphorical tombstones for them makes them more real and easier to let go[16:47]

How storytelling style predicts distress

Study of written narratives about difficult experiences

Antonio describes a study where people wrote about traumatic or very difficult experiences and researchers analyzed how, not just what, they wrote[17:40]

Two problematic narrative styles: superficial and "same old story"

A superficial story is heavy on plot and characters but avoids deeper emotional experience or meaning[18:04]
A "same old story" narrative includes emotion but stays stuck in a maladaptive loop (e.g., always the victim, "poor me")[18:15]
Regardless of the specific content, these narrative styles were markers that predicted levels of depressive, anxious, and trauma symptoms[18:55]
Antonio emphasizes it is not that writing about trauma reveals trauma history; it's that the way people tell their stories reflects their current emotional organization[19:16]

Emotion as both immediate experience and narrative

He notes emotion operates as immediate feeling but also as a narrative people construct over time[19:28]
Some people cling to an emotional loop and make that state the centerpiece of their identity story[19:38]

Using a breakup as a forge for personal change

A long-term relationship that reached a natural conclusion

Antonio recalls a serious relationship that had run its course and needed reinvention, which did not happen[20:12]
He recognizes a personal theme of not wanting to be the one who ends relationships and notes his partner was the brave one who ended it[20:33]

Defining yourself by how you handle endings

When it became clear the relationship was over, he realized the way he handled the end would define him[21:02]
• He frames this as an existential choice: being the kind of person who is hateful and destructive versus someone who honors what was good
He chose to treat the breakup as an opportunity to honor the relationship, recognizing he had cared for and learned from his partner[21:45]

Clarifying future needs in partnership

Emerging from that ending, Antonio gained clarity that he needed someone ready to put him first and champion him[22:18]
He cites an old definition of love as making another person's needs your own and realized he needed mutual willingness to do that[22:37]
He says that when he later met his future wife, he "knew it was right" and links that clarity to the way he handled the prior breakup[22:58]

Complicated endings, unanswered questions, and the myth of shared closure

When relationships end explosively or with secrecy

Shankar notes that sometimes relationships explode through betrayal or family secrets, leaving children or partners with endless questions[23:39]
Often the person who could answer those questions is dead, vanished, or otherwise inaccessible, leaving survivors feeling stuck in limbo[23:59]

How current grief can stir up older identity questions

Antonio explains that grief can be complicated when present losses trigger deeper, older questions about self-worth and identity[26:49]

Example: Woman whose partner cheated and who turned anger inward

A woman discovered she was being cheated on and repeatedly called herself "such a fool" for not seeing it[26:58]
Her distress was not only about losing the partner but also about her shaken confidence in being adequate, lovable, and someone worth committing to[27:51]

Antonio's own painful breakup comment

As a teenager, during a breakup, he was fixated on asking "why" the relationship was ending, which he now sees as a rhetorical protest rather than a true question[27:38]
His ex told him, "you're just not good at getting stuff done," hitting a soft spot because he was already doubting his assertiveness and ability to be the person he wanted to be[29:00]
He describes this as a kind of mercy killing for the relationship but says it left a wound to his sense of self more than to the loss of the person[29:37]

Betrayal, closure, and why you don't need the other person to heal

The Descendants example: betrayal and inability to get answers

Shankar plays a clip from "The Descendants" where a man talks angrily to his comatose wife who has cheated on him[30:28]
Antonio notes this is an issue of betrayal; the husband is both angry and deeply hurt, compounded by the fact that she cannot answer him[30:33]

Closure as a personal project rather than a shared one

Many people believe they need the other person for closure-to explain, apologize, or beg forgiveness[32:15]
Antonio argues unfinished business ultimately belongs to the individual: you cannot change historical facts, but you can change what they mean and how you feel about them[32:36]
He stresses that the meaning you assign to events and what you decide to do with them matters more than reconstructing exactly what happened[32:58]

When the other person is a perpetrator and real dialogue is impossible

In cases of abuse, the perpetrator typically denies or dismisses the abuse, making real conversations futile[33:22]
Antonio tells clients that in such cases, not having the person present can actually be more useful for processing their own experience[33:54]
He says that while the relationship was a shared project, "me getting over the relationship is no longer a shared project"[34:12]

Imagined vs real dialogues and how they help different goals

Study with suicidal adolescents and unfinished business with parents

Antonio describes a study where suicidal adolescents with painful rifts with parents were assigned either to family therapy (real dialogues) or individual therapy (imagined dialogues)[35:00]

Different outcomes for relationship repair vs personal resolution

Real dialogues with parents were better for improving the relationship quality but did not necessarily resolve the adolescents' internal unfinished business[34:46]
Imagined dialogues led to better emotional processing and personal working-through, even though they did not involve the actual parent[35:12]
Antonio concludes that even when the other person is alive, they cannot process your emotions for you; you still have to do your own work[36:19]

Practical tools: Unsent letters and empty-chair dialogues

Writing letters or emails you never send

Antonio suggests writing emails or letters to the other person without sending them, as a way to clarify boundary violations, losses, and what you are defending[36:52]
He notes people often want to teach or punish the other person, but must ask themselves whether re-educating the other is really the goal[37:09]
Writing forces you to create a coherent story of what you're feeling and why, which is more effective than just thinking about your difficulties[37:41]
• He points out that daydreams about emotional difficulties are typically incomplete and unclear, whereas formal exercises demand clarity

Empty-chair technique to evoke emotion and clarity

Antonio uses an empty-chair exercise where clients imagine the other person sitting there and speak directly to them[38:44]
He says naming the person and saying emotionally loaded phrases ("I love you," "I forgive you," "I'll never forgive you") in this imagined setting is very evocative[39:45]
The exercise helps activate emotion, clarify what one feels, and say things that would never be possible in real life[40:00]

Switching chairs to imaginatively inhabit the other person

In a further step, he has clients change chairs and answer from the other's perspective: what would they say if they truly heard you?[40:19]
Although fabricated, these imagined responses are full of the client's deeper understandings, projections, and expectations about the other person[40:52]

Example: Client with critical, harsh father

He recounts a client whose father constantly criticized and "taught lessons" with a heavy hand, which had been very traumatic[41:14]
In the empty-chair work, the client first told his father what he didn't understand about the impact of this behavior[41:51]
Then, switching chairs, he imagined his father admitting regret, fear, and anxiety, saying he was "nasty" but anxious for his son[42:36]
This did not excuse the abuse but helped the client assign a different meaning and ultimately choose to forgive his father while maintaining protective distance, including shielding his daughter from him[43:04]

Antonio's grief for his aunt and using his own methods

His aunt's role in his life

Antonio had little extended family but was very close to an aunt who was the oldest in the family and had named him after her husband[44:07]
She and her husband were like grandparents to him, especially as his grandparents had died before he knew them[44:36]
She was a brilliant, prize-winning researcher in endocrinology and a vivacious, sharp-witted role model[44:57]

Her decline and death and the difficulty of saying goodbye

She died at 91 after beginning to lose herself to dementia in the last year or two of her life[45:35]
Antonio recalls visiting her in Spain and realizing she "wasn't there anymore" even as she sat across from him, making it hard to say goodbye[45:56]
He cleaned out her apartment as part of the grieving process, going through her belongings while recognizing she would not know but he would[46:27]
He feels he is not finished with this grief and wants to honor the relationship further[46:45]

Creating continuity through family and place

Antonio plans a sabbatical in Spain and wants to show his eight- and ten-year-old children some of the places she showed him[48:13]
He notes his kids are about the age when he remembers feeling very close to her, creating a sense of continuity across generations[47:56]

Empty-chair exercise with his aunt

Shankar invites him to do what he asks clients to do: sit in the imagined role of his aunt and respond to his dedication of his book and feelings about her[48:57]
Imagining her voice, he says she would tell him she is proud of him and of how he honored people in their family[48:00]
When he imagines this, he says it makes him feel good and happy rather than merely proud[49:23]
He expresses excitement about bringing his children to Spain and creating continuity with her memory[49:41]

Listener invitation for breakup questions

Request for audience voice memos on breakups

Shankar invites listeners to send voice memos with questions and stories about breakups, losses that feel stuck, or techniques that helped them move on[49:23]
He gives the email address and asks them to use the subject line "breakups" and limit submissions to two or three minutes[51:06]

Introduction to the illusion of knowledge with Phil Fernback

Humans as a smart species but limited individuals

Shankar notes humans have achieved feats like harnessing electricity, eradicating diseases, and flying to the moon, mostly through experts' work[52:06]
He points out that most people cannot design a spaceship or vaccine, or even explain how a light bulb or toilet works[52:35]

Phil Fernback and the core idea of the illusion of understanding

Shankar introduces cognitive scientist Phil Fernback of the University of Colorado Boulder, co-author of "The Knowledge Illusion"[53:10]
Phil defines the illusion of explanatory depth as the tendency to feel we understand things in far more depth and complexity than we actually do[53:31]

Why our brains overestimate what we know

Experimental demonstration of the illusion

In typical studies, participants first rate how well they think they understand an object or process[54:09]
They are then asked to explain in detail how it actually works, and commonly realize their understanding is much shallower than they thought[54:09]
Phil notes that people often initially feel they have something like an annotated diagram in their heads, but then struggle to produce more than a vague description[55:07]

Why being generalists, not specialists, is adaptive

Phil argues cognition evolved to help us act adaptively, not to store vast detailed databases about everything[54:37]
He explains that environments vary in surface details; what we need is to extract general principles that transfer across situations[55:41]
He uses the example of foragers learning a few rules about which plants are safe or dangerous rather than mastering botany[56:33]

Communities of knowledge and mistaken ownership of others' expertise

Phil says we live in communities of knowledge where expertise is distributed across many individuals[56:07]
We often nod along when others discuss complex issues, and the fact that someone in our community understands something gives us a feeling that we understand it too[56:15]
He notes this is especially visible in politics, where people feel they grasp complex policies because they are embedded in groups that talk confidently about them[57:04]

The Google and AI effects

Shankar likens this to a "Google effect," where easy access to answers via search makes people feel they themselves know the material[57:24]
Phil agrees that having all of human knowledge in our pockets gives a strong feeling of understanding; people who use the internet to answer questions then do worse than expected when tested without it[57:44]
He notes emerging research on how using AI tools affects confidence and says he's excited to see where that work goes[58:15]

Expertise, humility, and the illusion of knowledge

Why experts often feel they know less

Phil affirms a listener's intuition that as people gain expertise, they often become more aware of how much they do not know[58:53]
He says learning more reveals the complexity and boundaries of a domain, leading to greater humility[59:11]

Limits of generalizing humility across domains

Phil cautions that people do not always generalize this caution across domains; someone may be humble about one topic but overconfident about another the next day[1:00:06]

Consequences of the knowledge illusion in real life

Risks in financial decisions and societal choices

Phil notes that overconfidence in understanding financial markets can lead individuals to take on risky bets and harm their financial well-being[1:04:14]
On a societal level, strong but poorly informed beliefs about policies and social issues drive decisions about laws, government structure, and even going to war[1:04:53]

Doctors confronting "WebMD" patients

Shankar relays a doctor's experience of patients arriving with self-diagnoses from the internet and treating her like a vending machine for predetermined medications[1:05:32]
Phil says he studied this "WebMD effect" where people Google symptoms for a few minutes and then enter the clinic highly confident about their diagnosis[1:05:59]
He notes that medicine is highly complex, and laypeople's brief internet research cannot substitute for a physician's training[1:06:11]

Illusion of knowledge in politics and science attitudes

Strong opinions among the least informed

Phil's research shows that people with very strong counter-consensus views (e.g., anti-vaccination, opposition to GMOs) often know the least about the underlying science[1:06:43]
He suggests that their passionate views rest on a strong feeling of understanding, which makes them resistant to new information because they feel they have already mastered the issue[1:07:15]

Having better conversations across disagreement

Avoiding interrogations when probing others' views

A listener named Rob asks how to ask questions about others' views without making them feel grilled, given that Phil's research often humbles participants[1:07:20]
Phil says the goal in conversation is not to make others feel stupid but to set ground rules where both acknowledge they don't fully know and agree to interrogate both positions[1:08:31]
He contrasts this with the Socratic method, which assumes a teacher who knows the answer; in most real-world debates, neither party has all the answers[1:08:37]

When facts clash and some positions are unreasonable

A listener named Kate asks how to converse when the other side's "facts" seem nonsensical[1:09:53]
Phil notes that facts and statistics often have complex background assumptions, so deep discussion is needed to unpack what a "fact" really means[1:10:03]
He adds that if someone is utterly unreasonable and unwilling to engage at that level, they may not be a good partner for political discussion[1:10:55]

Talking with flat-earthers without trying to "win"

Phil recounts attending a flat-earth conference; although the core belief is preposterous, attendees base it on a network of community facts[1:11:40]
He admits he himself lacks expertise on many specific empirical details (like exact eclipse appearance) and so did not try to prove them wrong[1:12:32]
Instead, he aimed to understand why they believe as they do, focusing on eliciting the nuance and structure of their position rather than converting them[1:12:53]

Overconfidence, underconfidence, and calibrated humility

Underconfidence as the opposite problem

Rob also asks about people who struggle daily with how little they understand and feel chronically underconfident[1:15:36]
Phil says the goal is intellectual humility-aligning perceived understanding with actual understanding-not simply lowering confidence[1:16:12]
He notes that underconfidence is harmful because people who exude confidence are often favored as leaders, while the underconfident are overlooked[1:16:06]

Recognizing that others' confidence isn't proof of greater knowledge

Phil advises underconfident people to remember the world is complex and many confident-seeming people may not actually know much more than they do[1:16:39]
Being comfortable not knowing everything, while still taking positions and acting, is key[1:17:02]

The challenge of calibrating confidence

Listener Monica asks how to right-size our sense of what we know so we avoid both overconfidence and imposter syndrome[1:18:11]
Phil notes the paradox that our flawed minds must judge their own judgments, but says the aim is wisdom: doing the best we can given constraints[1:18:38]
He argues it's impractical to research every issue to PhD level, but also unwise to form strong opinions after minimal exposure; we should aim for the middle ground[1:18:17]

Building habits to check and calibrate understanding

Practically confronting the illusion of knowledge

Listener Nevio asks if there are systems or frameworks to prevent falling for the illusion of knowledge in everyday life[1:18:55]
Phil doubts we can stop the illusion from arising but says we can experience it and then mentally calibrate afterward[1:18:36]
He personally makes a habit of trying to explain things when he feels strongly about them, then noting where his explanation breaks down and adjusting his confidence[1:19:47]
He says even after years studying the topic, he still falls for the illusion but has become more habitually reflective and humble[1:20:28]

Domain-specific illusions tied to identity

Shankar wonders if the illusion is stronger for topics we care about and tie to our self-concept, such as politics[1:20:48]
Phil responds that the illusion appears in both trivial and important domains, but for identity-laden issues it may be even stronger, making us more closed to new perspectives[1:21:01]

Curiosity and novel environments

Listener Zach describes bicycle tours where entering new towns sparks mutual curiosity between travelers and locals[1:21:38]
Phil notes children constantly ask "why" but adults stop, partly because their minds shield them from overwhelming complexity[1:21:57]
He agrees that novel environments make unexplained aspects of the world stand out and can reawaken curiosity[1:21:45]
Shankar adds that being a tourist removes the pressure to appear knowledgeable, giving people a "license to be dummies" and ask basic questions[1:23:03]
Phil likes the idea that novelty frees us to ask questions without fear of losing status in our usual roles[1:23:20]

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

Ending a relationship well requires facing your emotions directly and differentiating what you lost, what you no longer have to endure, and which imagined futures will never happen, instead of either rushing into a rebound or endlessly ruminating.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What specific good moments, bad patterns, and unrealized hopes from a past relationship do I need to consciously acknowledge and grieve rather than vaguely miss or resent?
  • • How might making three concrete lists of losses (positives, negatives, and hopes) change the way I'm currently holding on to a breakup or major life transition?
  • • When could I set aside an hour this week to sit down with paper and write out these categories so I can stop carrying a formless ball of distress?
2

The stories you repeatedly tell about painful experiences can trap you in superficial plot summaries or "same old" victim narratives, or they can help you process and integrate what happened in a healthier way.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When I recount a difficult event, do I mostly describe the plot and other people's behavior, or do I ever explore my deeper feelings and meanings?
  • • How might shifting from a "this always happens to me" story to a more specific, evolving narrative change how I feel about a past loss or failure?
  • • What is one painful story I tell often that I could rewrite in my journal with more emotional honesty and less self-blame or self-pity this week?
3

Closure is ultimately a personal project: you don't need the other person's participation to decide what an ending means to you, and tools like unsent letters and imagined dialogues can be powerful ways to work through unfinished business.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in my life am I still waiting for someone else's apology, explanation, or acknowledgment before I allow myself to move on?
  • • How could writing an unsent letter or having an "empty-chair" conversation help me say what I need to say and clarify what boundaries I want going forward?
  • • Which unresolved relationship or conflict could I choose to process on my own terms in the next month, regardless of whether the other person ever engages?
4

We routinely overestimate how much we understand because we live in communities of knowledge and have instant access to information; deliberately trying to explain things in detail is a simple way to expose and recalibrate this illusion.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What is one topic I feel strongly about (political, technical, or personal) that I've never actually tried to explain step by step, as if to a curious beginner?
  • • How might regularly testing myself by explaining mechanisms, not just opinions, change the confidence I place in my own judgments?
  • • What concrete practice (like a weekly "explain it out loud" session or short written explanations) could I adopt to keep my sense of knowing aligned with what I can really articulate?
5

In conversations across disagreement, approaching others with shared curiosity and humility-acknowledging that neither side fully understands-creates far more openness than trying to "grill" or intellectually corner the other person.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When I argue about contentious issues, do I genuinely invite the other person to explore our mutual uncertainties, or do I quietly aim to expose their ignorance?
  • • How could I open my next difficult conversation by stating what I'm unsure about and what I'm trying to understand better, rather than by stating my conclusion?
  • • What simple ground rules (for example, "we both agree we may be wrong on parts of this") could I propose the next time I discuss a divisive issue with a friend or colleague?
6

The goal isn't to be always confident or always doubtful but to cultivate intellectual humility-having your sense of certainty roughly match what you truly know-so that both overconfidence and chronic self-doubt lose their grip.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In which areas of my life do I tend to act with more confidence than my actual understanding warrants, and where do I routinely underestimate my competence?
  • • How might tracking a few of my strong claims over the next month and later checking their accuracy help me fine-tune my sense of when to trust my judgment?
  • • What is one situation coming up where I could consciously aim for a "middle ground" level of confidence-neither bluffing expertise nor paralyzed by imposter syndrome?

Episode Summary - Notes by Rowan

Love 2.0: How to Move On
0:00 0:00