Intelligence is widely distributed. There are a lot of smart people. And so if you think about what actually differentiates those who do well, it's often the complements to intelligence — things like work ethic, integrity, the ability to get along with others, and emotional stability.
Intelligence is not sufficient for success. The world is full of intelligent people who don't succeed, and the reason is that intelligence has complements — things like drive, emotional stability, the ability to work with others, and good judgment — and those complements are often more important than intelligence itself.
Intelligence is probably not the limiting factor for most intelligent people. If you're smart enough to be in the game, the question is really about the other stuff — your ability to stay humble, to keep learning, to manage your own psychology.
Intelligence is probably the most overrated trait in investing. The thing that actually matters is whether you can sit with uncertainty, whether you can be wrong for a long time and still hold your position, and whether you have the emotional stability to not panic when things go against you.
Intelligence is probably not the binding constraint on investment performance. The binding constraint is much more likely to be things like emotional stability, patience, the ability to hold an unpopular view, or the willingness to be wrong for a long time before being right.
Intelligence is probably not the limiting factor for most intelligent people. The limiting factor is more likely things like courage, or open-mindedness, or patience, or emotional balance — the complements to intelligence.
Relationship skills and relational intelligence, even in the workplace, has always been considered soft skills. And soft skills used to be seen as feminine skills. And feminine skills are often highly regarded in principle and disregarded in reality.
And the feedback is that when I'm not at my best, I come across as arrogant, condescending, self-righteous and a know-it-all -- which is a really nice combination and a great way to make friends, if you're interested.
We think that other people can see what we're feeling on our faces — and often, that's true. But we may overestimate this. We think we're an open book when in fact we may be a closed one. Our feelings, no matter how intense, are often invisible to others.
We assume that other people know how we feel about them. But study after study finds that we are much worse at conveying our feelings than we think. The gap between what we feel and what others actually perceive is often enormous.
We assume that people can read our minds — that the people we love know how much we love them, that our friends understand we care for them, that our colleagues know how much we value them. But studies show that in reality, the people closest to us often have little idea of how we truly feel about them.
We often assume that the people we love know how much we care about them. But research suggests that our feelings are far less visible to others than we think — that there's a persistent gap between the love we feel on the inside and the love that actually gets communicated and received.
Most of us think that being a good partner means being loving and kind and attentive. And those things matter. But researcher Shelly Gable has found that how you respond to your partner's good news may matter just as much as how you respond to their bad news — maybe even more.
Most of us think about fairness in terms of outputs — who did more chores, who earned more money, who sacrificed more for the relationship. But researchers have found that what really matters to people is not the division of labor itself, but whether they feel seen and appreciated for what they contribute.
Most people think that being a good partner means being loving, supportive, and kind. But researcher Shelly Gable has found that how we respond to our partner's good news may matter even more than how we respond to their bad news.
Emotions are not just feelings — they're a form of information processing. When you feel anxious before a presentation, for example, that anxiety is telling you something about the situation, something you've detected, possibly without being fully conscious of it.
Most of us have been taught to think of emotions as the enemy of good thinking — that to reason well, we need to push our feelings aside and rely on cold, hard logic. But the psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett says this view is exactly backwards. Emotions, she argues, aren't a distraction from thinking. They're a fundamental part of how we think.
Most people assume that feelings are the enemy of clear thinking — that in order to make good decisions, we need to suppress our emotions and rely on cold logic. But the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio discovered something surprising: people who lose the ability to feel emotions due to brain damage don't become more rational. They become less capable of making good decisions.
We often think of emotions as the enemy of clear thinking — the force that causes us to act impulsively, or to make decisions we later regret. But psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett says this view is mistaken. Emotions, she argues, are not obstacles to rational thought — they are a necessary ingredient of it.
Most of us think of our feelings as secondary to reasoning — as things that cloud the mind and lead us astray. But research suggests that emotions don't just color our experiences; they actually give us access to information and insights that we would otherwise miss.
Some people are remarkably good at reading the emotional temperature of a situation. They can pick up on what others are feeling, manage their own emotions, and respond skillfully.
We often think of feelings as the enemy of clear thinking — as forces that muddy the waters of rational analysis. But emotions, it turns out, are not the opposite of thought. They are a form of thought.
Emotions are not just feelings — they're a form of information. When you have a feeling, you're actually getting a signal about what's relevant, what's important, and what you might be missing. Suppressing that information comes at a cognitive cost.
Most of us have been taught to think of emotions as noise in the system — interference that distorts the signal of pure reason. But what if we've had it exactly backwards? What if emotions aren't obstacles to good thinking, but essential ingredients of it?
We tend to think that the best decisions are made when we're calm and dispassionate — when we manage to push aside our feelings and focus on the facts. But neuroscientist Antonio Damasio discovered something remarkable: people who lose the ability to feel emotions due to brain damage also lose the ability to make good decisions.
Emotions are not just feelings — they're information. They tell you what you care about, what matters to you, what you should attend to in the environment. If you strip away your emotions, you don't become a better reasoner; you become a worse one.
Most of us intuitively feel that our inner experiences are beyond the reach of others. But psychologists have found that when we actually test this idea, our emotions, thoughts, and feelings are often far more transparent to others than we imagine — and that other people's inner lives are far more similar to our own than we tend to assume.
In the customer service business is is tough but in the end you know you can have a real influence on people um on you know the experience you ultimately provide and how you choose to react to the situation.
The thing that this story offered me, that brought me into this next chapter of my life as a mother was tenderness, you know? And that was a word and a feeling that I think I didn't know was what I was looking for.
