Episode 403 Mike Hassell Practical Strategies for Resolving Disputes Transcript

This transcript is from episode 403 with guest Mike Hassell.

Scott DeLuzio: [00:00:00] Thanks for tuning in to the Drive On Podcast where we are focused on giving hope and strength to the entire military community. Whether you’re a veteran, active duty, guard, reserve, or a family member, this podcast will share inspirational stories and resources that are useful to you. I’m your host, Scott DeLuzio, and now let’s get on with the show.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Drive On. I’m your host, Scott DeLuzio, and today we have Mike Hassel joining us. Mike is the author of Deep Tradeoffs, a book that tackles the anxiety and frustration prevalent in our polarized culture. His insights can help us humanize our opponents, manage our subconscious reflexes, and find growth in disagreement.

And today we’ll discuss practical strategies for navigating conflict and fostering understanding, uh, which can be especially valuable for veterans and their families. So, uh, before we get started, welcome to [00:01:00] the show, Mike. I’m really glad to have you here.

Mike Hassell: Thank you. I’m delighted to be here, Scott.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, you bet. Uh, so, um, let, let’s just kind of jump right into it.

Um, so when you’re looking at, in a divided society, like I know a lot of people feel this, uh, you know, we, we look at our society, there’s, you can look at any you. Aspect of society, there’s a us versus them kind of mentality. It’s easy to see other people as adversaries. Um, and veterans, I think especially are aware of this as we oftentimes throughout history, we’ve utilized tactics to dehumanize our opponents with.

Just things like the names that we call them. Uh, in many cases, I think this is necessary in order to do the job that’s required of us. Like it’s, it’s really hard to go out and kill a person, but if you name them something else and they’re less than something else, it makes it easier to go do your job.

Um, unfortunately these tactics find their way off the battlefield [00:02:00] sometimes. So what steps can veterans and their families or anyone really can take to humanize people with opposing views?

Mike Hassell: Well, we seem to have developed this idea that conflict is abnormal and that it shouldn’t have happened and that there’s something wrong. And, um, I think the first step is to understand, to acknowledge that conflict is inevitable, particularly in a free society, but we’re different. And, uh, you know, even in our most intimate moments.

Intimate relationships. We disagree on things. So disagreement and conflict is not the problem. Coercion is the problem where people want to make you do the way I see things ought to be done. And, um, so, you know, that’s worth fighting over, in my opinion, is, is being, uh, dominated. But, uh, if you just disagree, uh, you know, then you can live with all sorts of people that disagree with us.

And, uh, in my work in, in writing the book that I’ve written, what I’ve discovered [00:03:00] is that relationships come before agreement. Not the other way around. You don’t get to agreement first and then have a good relationship. You have a good relationship first and then you find ways to agree. And, and one way of putting that is we’re loved into change, not shoved

into it. Well, I think we’ll get,

Scott DeLuzio: that makes sense. yeah,

Mike Hassell: yeah, we’ll get into our subconscious here probably, um, as we develop this theme, but our subconscious is pretty stubborn and looking for ways to reinforce what we’ve already concluded. And, uh, so, you know, we need to overcome that a little bit. I hope we can dig into that.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, absolutely. Um, you know, and I, and I think a lot of times when, when we’re dealing with these types of issues where there there’s us versus them, uh, I’m right, you’re wrong, you know, and it’s, it’s, we think of it very black and white, um, But a lot of times, like a stressful situation, you mentioned like, you know, personal relationships and, and even [00:04:00] things that, you know, involve finances or other, you know, really, uh, uh, emotional, uh, issues.

They, they can trigger, like you were saying, the subconscious, uh, to Just act reflexively, almost as if, you know, like the doctor who’s tapping on your knee in the, in the doctor’s office to get that reflex. I think your subconscious can, can sort of do that too. Like, how can we be more aware of these reactions that we have and control them, especially in, uh, you know, maybe a high pressure situation.

Mike Hassell: One of my favorite psychologists is a guy named Jonathan Haidt, and he has developed a metaphor for this. He said the brain is sort of like an elephant being ridden by a rider up on top of a little box, right? And the elephant represents the subconscious. The rider represents the conscious, who’s trying to guide this elephant to go where you want it to go.

Sometimes it’s successful, but a lot of times that elephant is going to go where it wants to go. It’s, it’s fanciful, but I think it’s a really [00:05:00] powerful way to understand that there’s this massive part of our brain that we’re unaware of and, um, we can’t function without it. Some people call it the lizard brain.

Um, but it does, it makes us do things instinctively, intuitively, et cetera, that we’re not even fully aware of. You know, among them that Hide describes as confirmation bias. We’re looking for ways to confirm what we already believe is true. Uh, we happen to believe what we wish to be true, not always what is.

We think we’re impartial observers and making objective, uh, assessments, but we’re not, we’re, we’re basically defending our own point of view. And you can see it when we have a discussion with somebody and yes, but comes out or what abouts. You know, they’re all defensive, and, uh, Julia Galef, I think is how you say her last name, talks about this, and she calls the, the soldier or the lawyer mindset, where you’re fighting, right?

You’re, you’re in defensive [00:06:00] adversary mode. The alternative is a scout mindset, where you’d be happy to have your misconceptions overturned, because it might increase your likelihood of surviving, right? So a scout is looking to be disconfirmed to be corrected because it makes him more successful to get rid of his mistakes.

So these are basically mental frameworks that we

need to think about.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah. And that makes sense that that framework that you’re talking about, the scout versus the soldier, the lawyer, you know, the, the difference between being defensive, trying to defend your position, no matter what, at all costs. So this is the Alamo, right? We, in our brain, we have the Alamo and we, we need to defend it. You know, maybe the, on the scout side, maybe there’s something I’m missing and, and they’re looking for that, uh, that, that little piece that might connect the puzzle together. And, and maybe there, there is something more out there. Maybe there’s not, but they’re looking, they’re aware of the fact that maybe they don’t know everything.

They don’t [00:07:00] have all the information, right?

That’s kind of what you’re saying.

Mike Hassell: I am, but there’s an important corollary that expands on this, which is that, um, we need to relax our ideas of right and wrong. That if something is right, something that contradicts it must be wrong, then we’ve got to fight it off. Uh, what I’ve discovered, I’m trained as an engineer, okay, a scientist, and in science we’re trained I was told that there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s the law of non contradiction, all of this stuff in Western logic, right?

I had an aha moment mid career, I was about 40, and I was working on a publishing project on the great ideas of history, we were talking about moral problems, and it just occurred to me that these are not problems like I was trained to solve. There’s no formula, there’s no algorithm, there’s no structured process to get to an answer that’s the right answer.

Instead, these are separately valid truths that are in conflict. You know, the duty not to harm and the duty to respect someone’s autonomy. If you’re talking about euthanasia, Those two things are in play. If we’re talking about abortion, those two [00:08:00] things are in play. They’re both important ideals, um, and they can’t be both fully realized in that situation.

So the point is there’s two rights, and the context will have to guide us on which right, what right prevails. So basically I’m saying we get away from the right and wrong idea, and that we’ve got to establish right and then fight over it. Rather, we can maybe see somebody else’s right that is just different from ours and in conflict

with it.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, I can, I can see that. And in some of the examples that you mentioned, um, you know, I, I can understand why somebody might, uh, you know, choose like, you know, euthanasia is one of the things that, that you, you mentioned, uh, you know, I can wrap my head around it. I may not agree, like that’s the way to go.

Um, but. I can understand maybe the decision making process that someone might have came to that decision that this is right for me. Um, you know, versus, you know, like I might say, well, [00:09:00] it’s not right for me, even given the same set of circumstances, I might, I might not think it’s the right, uh, situation. Um, You know, but maybe coming just to an understanding that it’s okay to disagree, you know, agree to disagree kind of thing.

Mike Hassell: And there may be good values behind a position that directly conflicts with ours. They’re both right, they’re right in different ways, and we have to choose, we have to balance, and of course we’re going to come to different, different conclusions. Let me give you an example. Um, truth. Most of us think that truth is one of our highest priorities, right?

But we routinely violate that. It’s not. It’s not. You know, um, we would often lie in order to prevent harm. If some harm was going to come to our family, we would lie to prevent it, right? We will lie to provide joy. We tell our kids about Santa Claus and Easter Bunny and things like that. They’re lies.

They’re intentional deceptions, right? They’re not truthful. But there’s a good reason to do it. [00:10:00] Right? And most of us do because we see that good reason as prevailing over the need to be truthful when our kids need their imagination fit. Um, and so, you know, another one is survival. You know, your audience ought to understand that as much as anything.

If you need to lie in order to survive, there’s a good reason to do that. Most people will choose it. So, we say truth is our highest value. I’ve given you three examples where it

often fails.

Scott DeLuzio: Right. And, you know, talking about survival, you know, if, if your spouse comes over and says, you know, does, does this new outfit make me look fat, you’re definitely going to lie, you know, just for survival purposes, let alone, you know, um,

Mike Hassell: I was saying, I was going to answer that question. Yeah,

you’re

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, that’s, that’s where you, uh, you know, I’ll plead the fifth and not answer that question.

Mike Hassell: but you’re right, sometimes, sometimes that option is not available, and so you do

lie.[00:11:00]

Scott DeLuzio: right. Exactly. And so, so yeah, so there, there’s, there’s conflicting things even within your own self, right? You, you have that, like, yes, I want to, I want to be a truthful person. I always want to tell the truth. But I can justify when there’s times that lying is okay. Um, you know, in, in the, like those situations you just mentioned are great examples, but I’m sure there’s dozens of others that, that you can come up with.

Um, that if, you know, I don’t know if, if you, um, if you stick to a very rigid black and white definition of truth is good and it should only be the truth and you should never lie and you should never, whatever, well, there are times and. You’re going to have to bend that. And, and, you know, uh, so there’s that inner struggle, I think sometimes that we have, um, you know, a lot of times veterans have these strong values that we, that we have that conflict, um, you know, a religious person might have the bow shall not kill.

Right. But a lot of us [00:12:00] have killed people, you know, in, in the military. And, and, and so now you have that conflict. It’s like, well, I had to, otherwise I, I would be killed. And so like. Where, where do I, um, you know, where do I look at that way? You know, treat others as you wish to be treated. Um, but. A lot of times we’ve kicked in someone’s door and busted in their door.

Like, I wouldn’t want that to happen to me. Um, you know, you protect women and children, yet a lot of times we’ve had to cause harm to a woman or a child. And, you know, so now we have these internal conflicts. How do we manage that to maintain some sort of balance in our lives?

Mike Hassell: Well, I mean you have competing, uh, uh, values, like duty. You know, it’s your duty to do that. Right? Uh, and so, uh, this is where conscience comes in. I’m, I’m kind of a libertarian in my attitudes, political attitudes, because I think people need to have their conscience respected to make their own judgments in a situation about what’s right for them.

So this is one of the ways of getting to respect is to acknowledge there’s not a right [00:13:00] answer that we’re going to contest and somebody’s going to win. It’s not a science experiment, right? Where we’re impartially evaluating evidence. This is rivalrous values that we have to manage and balance. You know, another, another good way I like to look at this is if I ask you, what’s the meaning of life?

We might be here till tomorrow trying to arrive at an answer, but if I say, where do you find meaning in life? Oh, well, then you’ve got answers for that. I’ve got answers for that. They may be very different, but they’re both right, right? So it’s not that there’s one meaning in life. The former way of phrasing the question suggests that it’s just not true.

Scott DeLuzio: Right. And, you know, Yeah. And there may not even be just one meaning in life for any one person, either. They may have many multiple things that bring meaning to their life. Um, and, uh, you ask one person [00:14:00] versus the next, they are going to have different answers, like you said. So, so there’s a lot of, um, you know, when you said that, I was like, Oh, that’s a loaded question.

Cause there’s, there’s a whole lot of answers that could come from that. Um, and, uh, But you’re right. None of them are wrong. I mean, you could be wrong if you’re intentionally lying that, you know, that, yeah, in that way. Sure. It could be wrong. But in, in cases where you’re asking someone, they’re given a truthful answer, um, you know, meaning might come from, you know, uh, you know, raising a strong family or it may come from their career or it may come from, you know, volunteering and helping people.

It may sense a duty. I don’t know. Whatever it is, they have their, their, what is meaningful to them. You can’t say, well, no, you’re wrong. Like it’s meaningful, but that’s kind of the bottom line, right?

Mike Hassell: kind of developing this theory that every value has a rival and a competitor, a replacement. Now that’s a broad statement, you know, and I’m not, I’m not sure that I have the [00:15:00] authority to announce that, but I have, I have listed over 200 values and gone down and found in every case, something that is rival to that, a legitimate, meaningful rival.

And so I would challenge your, your listeners to do the same thing. If they think somebody is really just out to lunch. Trying to understand what value is behind their, their rival interpretation of things. You still can disagree. You might think they’re just completely out to launch, but there’s a possibility you’ll find that there’s some meaning there.

They don’t want people to be hurt. For instance, they’re willing to infringe people’s liberty because they think liberty is going to hurt them. I think they’re wrong to infringe people’s liberty, but they’re not motivated by uh, diminishing liberty, perhaps, but maybe in reducing harm.

Scott DeLuzio: That’s true. Yeah. And it’s a, it’s a means to an end, uh, to, to prevent harm to somebody else. So, you know, just, uh, um, you know, an example of someone, you know, as, as, uh, you know, maybe an elderly family member gets, they’re getting [00:16:00] older, maybe their, their reflexes aren’t as quick or their eyesight’s going and things like that, you might want to, you know, suggest that they, you They take their license away, you know, the driver’s license, right?

Uh, it’s not that you want to be mean and be like, Oh, you can’t do this anymore. Um, you know, be just to be spiteful or, you know, whatever it it’s for safety. It’s cause either they’re going to hurt themselves or they’re gonna hurt somebody else, um, damaged property, things along those lines. And, and those are the values is, is you want to be protective in that way.

And so the, There’s going to be conflict when you, when you go to someone who’s been driving for, you know, however many years and, uh, you know, for decades. And then all of a sudden you’re like, Hey, you can’t do that anymore. Uh, they’re gonna be like, well, the hell I can’t. You know,

Mike Hassell: I was smiling as I hear you talk because it brings to mind, uh, a couple years ago, my father died and my dad, my brother was, was taken care of because he lived in the same city and dad had developed a fall risk and it was a good chance he was going to bounce his head. And so he wanted to get up out of [00:17:00] bed.

And Greg wouldn’t let him. He kept pushing him back in bed and my dad really got angry, you know, and I would too, I don’t want somebody making me stay in bed, he didn’t want him to fall and die, okay, uh, but, uh, my dad was so frustrated by one of the last things he said to Greg after that was, you know, you turned out to be a real prick, didn’t you?

So he was trying to care for him. And he was harming him, right? I think he still thinks he was doing the right thing, but that’s just a good example of, of rivalrous

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, exactly. And, and I’m sure we could sit here, come up with dozens of other types of examples like that. But I think, um, you know, it’s. In any sort of conflict, when you have one side who is, uh, you know, feeling like they’re being harmed or slighted or, um, you know, their rights or their liberties, whatever the word you want to call it, uh, are being infringed, um, you have to ask, okay, well, [00:18:00] why?

You know, is this person really a prick, like you said? Are they, are they really that bad of a person or do they have some other motivation, um, you know? In your dad’s case, like, okay, well I’ve fallen several times and I, I can, I can see how that could be a problem. Like, let me put myself in their shoes.

How would this be a problem?

Mike Hassell: There’s a nuance to this too, because it’s probably unnoticed, but what my dad did in that comment was he changed a problem into a, uh, a conflict, a personal conflict. It was about you, right? It’s what you’re like. It’s not about whether I fall. It’s what you’re like. And this is a common, uh, it’s what you’re like.

Problem in disagreements where people escalate by attacking the person. And so when anyone’s getting married, um, and ask me my advice about it, I say, never use the words you always, and never use the words you never, because it displaces the conflict about what’s going on to what you’re [00:19:00] like, what you’re always like, and it’s attack on you.

It’s personal, and it’s a different argument at that point, and it wounds, and sometimes wounds that don’t heal very easily, so, uh, I thought, I heard that once, and I’ve always, I thought it was good enough advice to repeat, never say, you always,

or you never.

Scott DeLuzio: yeah, because those are absolutes. And as I think we just demonstrated in the last, you know, 20 minutes or so that we’ve been talking, uh, that these absolutes, they have conflicting values. There, there, there are people who want to keep you in bed for your safety, but You are seeing, or somebody else is seeing it as, uh, you know, uh, keeping me.

Locked away or something, uh, you know, whatever their, their thought process is. So there’s, there, there are no absolutes in this. And when you use an absolute type word, like you always, you never, um, you know, then, then that becomes very rigid, like that I’m thinking like, I, I like to just mentally [00:20:00] visualize things like this too, and I think of it as like a.

Um, like a stick between two people and it just, it becomes very rigid as opposed to something more flexible, like a, like a rope or a rubber band or something like that, that can kind of pull people back together. Um, and, and that rigidity, if that’s the right word is, is kind of keeping people from coming to an understanding and understanding, like what.

Is that other person’s motivations, right?

Mike Hassell: Yeah, I’ve been married 43 years, and, uh, you know, if my wife and I get into a spat about something, it’s pretty easy for me to step back and say, I know her pretty well, you know, and this may not even be about me or what I did or what I said is bothering her. She’s, she’s worried about something that she’s not telling me about, you know, something else that’s going on.

And, uh, that’s a good example of how just stepping back and saying the relationships, what important here, whether I win this little battle or not. It’s not

so.

Scott DeLuzio: Right, exactly. But I think [00:21:00] coming to some sort of conclusion that everybody could be, um, maybe happy is not the right word for this, but, but that people can live with, you know, if there is a conflict like that, like, like, okay, well, maybe, maybe your dad in that, that situation, maybe. Maybe he shouldn’t get out of bed, uh, by himself, right?

And maybe if he needs help, he just has to ask for help. And then can we live with that, that as a, uh, solution to this problem, that type of thing, you know what I mean?

Mike Hassell: Or you may just settle for the risk and say, let him go. And if he falls, it’s okay. You know, it’s near the end anyway. He’d been on hospice for a year and nobody wants to see that happen, but maybe it would have been the best

thing.

Scott DeLuzio: You know, and, and I guess that’s just another one of those internal struggle, internal conflict, things that you, you kind of have to weigh that for yourself. Like, are you okay with coming home or not coming home, but because you’d probably be there, but you’re coming into the room with a Where he was and just, you know, seeing that he hit his head [00:22:00] and that caused that, would you be, would you be able to live with that?

And maybe explaining that too, to, to your father would have been something like, I don’t know that I could live with seeing you hitting your head after falling, um, you know, knowing that I could have done something to help prevent it. Um, and maybe your dad could have said, well, listen, I know I’m towards the end and I kind of just don’t care if I fall and I hurt myself, that’s on me.

You don’t, I’m taking that. That burden away from you, you know, and there could have been that conversation, but, but, you know, when you jump to you’re a prick, well, now I, now I’m kind of standoffish and I’m like, I don’t really want to have that conversation even in open up because all of a sudden I’m a prick, you know?

Mike Hassell: Now you’re back to this point that nobody has shoved into chains. You know, hostility and contempt, uh, is not going to change anybody’s mind. They’ll, they’ll fight you even if they’re

wrong.

Scott DeLuzio: right. That’s true. That is true. Um, so. To that topic, let’s talk about some ways that you can, you can maybe diffuse the [00:23:00] tension in these heated disagreements, whether it’s personal relationships or even like as a broader social thing. Like there’s a lot of conflict with protests and, and things like that that are going on.

Like, are there things that people can do to help kind of dissolve some of this conflict or, or, or people kind of just set in their ways and like, we want this, we want conflict, you know, and maybe there there’s a, you know, reasoning that they’re, they’re like that as well.

Mike Hassell: Well, you know, we can start again with this idea that people are not their political opinions. They’re not bags of enzymes with political opinions. They’re people. And, uh, if we stop just at that step and see why are they behaving like this, you know, that leads to things like questions. Instead of telling and shouting and, uh, demanding.

Um, you know, things like asking advice, asking for help. Generally people respond well to that because it’s a gesture of respect. Um, if you don’t want their help or their advice, you can pretend to, you know, in the Senate, they say, my good friend [00:24:00] on the other side, they hate each other, but they, they put a level of, of, uh, tact and, and manners over it that just kind of makes it civilized conflict.

Right. Uh, and I think that’s, that’s a good idea. Everybody wants to be. Uh, heard and valued and respected. So let people have their say. Why do you possibly, how can you come to this kind of conclusion? I don’t understand it. And, uh, maybe they’ll tell you, um, but quibbling, you know, and, and arguing and niggling and all that is, is basically telling people you’re not respected, you’re not wanted, you know?

And so, and so, uh, that extends then to sort of arguing words. You know, can’t, don’t, not, won’t, but, um, or reasoning words, although, however, those really indicate a lack of emotional receptiveness. You know, you can use words like Tell me more, uh, help me understand that. If you say why, [00:25:00] that sounds like an accusation, okay?

It may sound like a question, but consider if, if, if, uh, you and I were having a debate and I said, why, Scott? Well, then it can sound, it can be understood as an

attack. So

Scott DeLuzio: and you get more defensive with that type of question, I think, in that way, right?

Mike Hassell: people ask and like to be asked for their advice. And I think there’s research that says people actually think people are smarter who ask them for advice. They like that and they have more regard and respect for the person who asked for the advice. So it is a potential opening. Um, and again, people have subconscious things going on and they don’t, not, not aware of it.

And, uh, so maybe we just take that into account and, you know, take our time, you know, establish a friendship first, come back later and maybe find some common ground and then let it develop, especially with a neighbor or somebody that you’ve got to continue to deal with over and over. If it’s a one time encounter, you may just [00:26:00] not bother.

Scott DeLuzio: that’s right. Yeah. Yeah. Um, you know, and one of the things that we do in, in business, um, in, in, in, as far as problem solving, just trying to figure out, get to the root cause of whatever the, the problem is that that’s going on is, um, the concept called the five whys. And I know you said why it could be a, um, you know, kind of a, uh, uh, you know, maybe, uh, maybe an aggressive question in, in a, Personal relationship type of thing.

But, but the concept I think, um, is, is important to bring up here, um, because you ask why, uh, something is the way it is. And then there’s an answer to that. And then you ask, why is it that way? And then by the time that you get to about the fifth, why, the reason why they call it the five wise, by the time you get to about the fifth, why you’ve, you’ve pretty much figured out the, the root cause of whatever the problem is.

And, and by, by doing that, um, Now you can [00:27:00] address whatever the root cause is, as opposed to some other symptom of that root cause, if that makes sense, right?

Mike Hassell: yeah, it makes sense. And I would note that it’s sort of a scientific way of thinking. I recognize that being trained as an engineer, this is what we’re taught. What is the cause, right? And what’s the cause of the cause? And so there’s an infinite regression of causes back to the original cause, you know, all of that stuff that comes from Greek philosophy.

And, you know, what I would say, it’s a good way of analyzing a problem that’s a scientific problem. It may not be the greatest way to relate to somebody else. Because they’re not on the same page. They may be a more feeling person, not so much a thinking person, and, uh, they, they discern this as you mixing around with their innards rather than respecting

them and, and trying to come to some

Scott DeLuzio: that, yeah, that makes sense. And yeah, I don’t think I’m suggesting that every problem it needs that level of, uh, digging into and getting into their deepest, darkest, [00:28:00] innermost, uh, you know, issues that are going on with them. However, the, I think the, the, Point that I was trying to get across, uh, is there, there is with most problems, there’s going to be some root cause of this problem.

And there may be causes, there may be plural, several things going on that, that maybe are festering over time and they’re bubbling up and they’re creating this problem. When, when you get down to the root cause of whatever the problem is, then you can start Affecting some sort of change as opposed to just talking about the superficial things, uh, uh, not superficial, the symptoms of, of the root root cause, then, then you’re not really addressing it.

Uh, and, and that’s, I think what I’m, I’m trying to more get at and, um, you know, how you go about that. That’s going to, obviously each relationship’s going to be a little bit different in, in how you, you, uh, dig into that. Um, maybe,

Mike Hassell: Yeah,

Scott DeLuzio: there’s different ways, you know, but, but

you just got to figure that out.

Mike Hassell: yeah, great example of what you’re [00:29:00] describing is, you know, this, this sort of stereotypical idea that a problem traces back to being abused by your parents, or, you know, trying to make your parents love you or something like that. That’s the ultimate cause and you keep digging back and, you know, the current debate we’re having is, is really, argument that we’re having is really caused by this symptom from long ago.

Those things are very real. Um, and, you know, the, I guess that’s the business of psychologists to, to find it out, but it’s tricky space for, you know, interaction, acting with people and trying to find out, you know, what’s wrong with you, uh, you know, may, can backfire. So, uh, again, people want to be respected and sympathized with, you know, maybe there’s room in what you’re describing for, um, sympathizing and, and, um, relating based on, on what you find.

Scott DeLuzio: Sure, sure. Yeah, I can, I can see that. Um, I, I’m curious about like, [00:30:00] you know, just building connections between people, um, to kind of get a, uh, maybe come to a common understanding, like shared experiences that they may have gone through. Um, you know, can we, is there a way that we can utilize, uh, these experiences amongst, uh, you know, groups of people to Benefit from the, these, these shared experiences, these moments that were, were kind of together in it together kind of thing.

But, um, you know, maybe there’s still some sort of conflict going on.

Mike Hassell: It’s a great question. And, um, you know, the things that come to mind are, um, when people experience some wonder or awe, you know, like you see an eclipse together, you see a beautiful sunset together or something like that. It tends to, to, uh, put you in the same boat. You’re both experiencing this thing that transcends you both, you know, a conversation about your children.

You know, if you and I are having a disagreement and, uh, you know, instead I [00:31:00] ask you about your children, we have a son’s the same age or, you know, some similarity, then there’s common ground there, even if it’s not politics, it’s something between us that we can relate to one another. Um, and so, you know, laughter is another one.

Lightening it up and just backing off the confrontation and finding a way to laugh together. You know, everybody likes to laugh, I think.

Uh, And, and so gratitude, you know, is another one. Instead of demanding and declaring rights and, and, uh, entitlements and things like that, uh, shifting to what you’re grateful for, uh, can, can, uh, relent a little bit on the demands that you place on somebody.

So finding those kinds of occasions. I had a business career and I don’t golf because I have a tendency to lower back problems, but I came to understand golf as a great way to get outside. Be in the weather with somebody you want to be with or you need to be with, like a customer or a [00:32:00] vendor or a banker or whatever.

Uh, and it’s the same kind of principle. You’re getting away from business and, uh, you’re seeing that person in a different way. You’re enjoying something together. Maybe you really, uh, are competitive or not competitive or you can talk about the things that you both like. And, you know, I’ve heard of business deals being done where somebody just decided they like somebody and they want to do a deal with that guy.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah. And those types of things are great for, you know, building those relationships. Um, you know, just another example, uh, a military example. Um, when I was in training to go over to Afghanistan, um, one night our, Uh, our platoon decided to take out our vehicles and, and do some, uh, nighttime driving with some of our younger guys to get them trained up on, you know, driving the, the, the bigger vehicles and everything like that, kind of get them all trained up.

But we did, we went off road and we were in Louisiana and it was swampy and we got all of our trucks stuck. [00:33:00] In the mud. And it was, it was supposed to be something we’re going to be out for, I don’t know, 45 minutes, an hour or something like that. Uh, we went out a little after like around dinnertime at night, maybe six, seven o’clock at night.

Um, and, uh, we were supposed to be back, you know, eight o’clock or something like that. Um, turned out we weren’t back until about lunchtime the next day. Uh, because it took that long. Right. Um, but one of the things, as much as that sucked, like we were outside, we were covered in mud, we were wet, we were cold.

We, it was just miserable. And we, it was in the time we hated it, but looking back and I’ve talked to several guys that I was with that night, um, looking back, we’re like, if that night hadn’t happened, we would not have been as close together as a, as a platoon. As we ended up being, um, it was that shared suffering.

We, you know, it sucked. I’m not suggesting people go out and do something that intentionally is going to suck, but we were in that situation together. And we, when we came closer together because we figured out ways to work together and, and just [00:34:00] how the group dynamics started working, uh, it just really helped each other out, you know?

Mike Hassell: When my wife and I were first married, three months later, I went to business school and we ran out of money because she didn’t get a job in a recession that was expected. And so we used up the savings we had. We’re living on credit cards. And the finance people would not redo my loans until she had an income and they could figure everything around that expected number.

So, you know, we were buying chickens and eating roast chicken and then having chicken salad and then having chicken soup from the loans and making three or four meals out of a chicken. It was not great, right? But it was a share. Experience. We were both determined that we were going to have a good marriage.

I was going to get my MBA. Uh, we were going to get through this together and that shared challenge, I think, strengthened our marriage rather than challenged

it.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, absolutely. And some people take it as a challenge and they, you know, They may crumble under the pressure, uh, in, in, but [00:35:00] in, in cases like yours, um, you know, you, you came closer together and you, you figured. You figured it out, right? Just the same way we, we had to figure out how to get these, these massive trucks out of the mud that were, that were stuck up to the doors in mud.

And we, we had to figure something out with the tools that we had available, which were not many. Um, and you had to figure out how to put food on the table, uh, while going to school and while having all this stuff, it was, it was difficult, but you guys figured it out and, and I think part of it too, is you wanted it to work.

Mike Hassell: Right.

Scott DeLuzio: wanted that marriage to work and get stronger. And so you both worked hard at it. And, and here you are all these years later, uh, that, you know, you said what? 43 years later, you’re still together. Still, still working to add it, you know?

Mike Hassell: Right. You know, I’ve heard stories of Union, former Union soldiers and former Confederate soldiers going to reunions, uh, when they were in their 90s or 80s and they had affection for one [00:36:00] another, you know, as they were as much adversary as they were during the war. They now look back on this as, as a great event that they were both involved in.

They both were loyal to their causes, you know, they both were honorable people and it was over, the conflict was over. You know, was in the background and they had something in common by having participated in that. So, you know, I think that there’s some beauty in

those kinds of stories.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, absolutely. No. And you also, you, you mentioned like happiness and meaning, uh, that, that we were talking about a little bit earlier. Um, You know, there’s folks out there I’m sure who are just having difficulty finding that type of stuff, happiness in their lives or meaning, um, what are some things that people can do to seek out these more positive, uh, experiences in their life?

I’m, I’m not saying go get your truck stuck in the mud and figure that out, but you know, happy things like that, that bring them joy and meaning to their lives.

Mike Hassell: The first trade [00:37:00] off that I deal with in my book is, um, striving and peace. We all say that we’re for peace, right? But we find meaning in striving and accomplishing things. And that’s not peaceful. It’s hard. It’s, you know, it’s a grind. You upset people. You get into people that don’t want you to succeed because it produces their success, etc.

Um, I know from starting lots of new businesses, there’s always somebody’s troves. There’s always somebody’s troves. Toes being trod on. Um, so, you know, you start out with this idea, are we looking to be peaceful? Which means we’re really not going to join the fray. We’re not going to compete. We’re going to let other people make decisions.

You know, it’s the equivalent of a non voter in an election. Somebody else is going to make the choices. Um, but I think there’s a lot of evidence that meaning comes from striving and accomplishing. And, uh, from enduring things that might not be so pleasant for the sake of accomplishing that. And, and, you know, one thing that I came across in [00:38:00] researching this is a book by a hospice worker who asked people who were within, you know, shooting distance of their end, uh, what do they regret?

And the answers were generally things that they had not done. You know, they didn’t have the courage to do, um, but things that would not necessarily have been pleasant. They may have defied what their family wanted them to do, what their parents wanted them to do. So there’s a, uh, theme of living authentically to what you really wanted instead of pretending that you wanted somebody else, what somebody has told you you needed to do.

Um, so we, I developed that a little bit in my book, but the idea is, is Knowing what you want, striving for it. Even if you don’t get it, you can, you can know that you put everything out there and you did your best to do it. There’s peace, peace and satisfaction in that. I failed plenty of times in my entrepreneurial career.

I know failure doesn’t mean unhappiness. It means I

tried and that didn’t work.

Scott DeLuzio: That’s right. Well. Cool. And it’s difficult too [00:39:00] because what you might want and what somebody else might want for you might be conflicting. We were talking about that that earlier, you know, just even with your brother and your father, there’s that conflict there too. Um, now there’s bigger life goals and you know, do you, do you want to get married?

Um, you know, are you getting pressure from family to get married and maybe you don’t want to get married and that type of thing. Uh, you know, maybe there’s, there’s, you know, There’s that kind of thing going on. Um, but at the same time, you also want to have some peace and harmony within your, your family.

And you don’t want to be getting nagged all the time to do this or do that or whatever. And so again, there’s another conflict going on even within yourself. Um, because maybe just using that as an example, maybe you don’t want to get married. You don’t want to be nagged all the time. Oh, when, when are you going to find a nice girl and settle down and that type of thing.

You don’t want to be hearing that all the time either. So how do you figure out your own, like kind of. Inner story that you want [00:40:00] to tell yourself. And like, what is it that you want and what are you okay with, uh, other people being disappointed in, you know, if, does that make sense how I phrase that, I think,

Mike Hassell: I mean, it’s, it’s a, it’s a great and unresolvable question, you know, cause what our, our family, our wives, our children, our parents, our siblings think is important, you know, they’re important to us. And, and, and I would never say we need to disregard that. We listen and try to accommodate it. And, uh, um, and in some cases we can succeed doing that.

And others just say, no, you know, I want it this way. Uh, you know, I think. Deference is often a good strategy, you know, and just say, let’s do it your way. That’s okay. If it’s not really important for where it really gets hard is if it’s really important, I want to go, uh, be better educated, you know, I want to invest in this thing that I think is going to give me opportunities.

No, I think that’s risky. It’s, you know, we have need money for the couch. You know, there’s no right [00:41:00] answer and, uh, you know, skillful people and well meaning people just have to keep at it until they come up with some solution. There is not an answer and there’s not a strategy that’s going to point to a right answer.

It is what, you know, what it is.

Scott DeLuzio: yeah, I think there’s a little bit of that, that balance that has to go on where you kind of have to weigh, I think you alluded to this, you know, how, how important is this thing really? You know, if, if there is that conflict between you and somebody else and it, at the end of the day, it’s not all that important to you, then yeah, maybe you, maybe you give in and, and let them have it for the sake of the relationship.

You, you make that compromise and say, okay, we’ll have it your way. For, for this, this time. Right. But I think in a way too, you kind of, um, you know, there’s the, the concept, you know, love doesn’t keep score, right? You don’t want to, um, be like, okay, well, I, I made this concession for, for this person, so now what’s the next thing that they’re going to do for me and then keep a score because [00:42:00] that’s not going to work out.

That’s going to get messy and it’s, it’s not going to be good.

Mike Hassell: I know I got marriage ended over that. Because he felt like he, every time he came home, he was being told what he had to do. Said, I’m going to come up with things I’m going to make her do if she’s going to do that.

Didn’t end well.

Scott DeLuzio: well.

And there’s a study too, and you might be more familiar with this than me, but, um, there was a study I heard about where they, they took a, um, you know, a group of couples, a husband, wife, or, you know, whatever the, the couples were. Um, and they, they, they gave a list of things and said, how much. Effort do you put in versus your partner?

Is it, is it a 50 50 split? Is it 20 80? Is it, you know, what, what is the split amongst all these things? And in almost all of the cases, everybody thought that whatever effort they put into whatever it is, doing the dishes or the laundry or the lawn or, you know, whatever those, those household chores or, or just, you know, taking the kids to practice or that type of thing.

They always thought that they did more than the other person. It may [00:43:00] not have been by much. They might’ve been a 60 40 split or something like that, but they always felt like they did more. And that that’s impossible. Like if you actually looked at the time, you can, you can actually come up with a definitive

Mike Hassell: Remember.

Scott DeLuzio: You did this much and you did that much. It’s, it’s more about. I feel like I did more, or I feel like I did this, you know, versus whatever. And, and so, um, yeah, I can see how someone would, would feel like, uh, conflicted in that, that sense. Right. Like

Mike Hassell: Yeah,

Scott DeLuzio: I’m going to go up a list for her. Cause I’m always doing all this other stuff.

Like

Mike Hassell: it’s like

Scott DeLuzio: not the best way to think. Right.

Mike Hassell: we’re all above average.

Scott DeLuzio: Right.

Mike Hassell: So, um, you know, comparing perspectives like that I think is really effective. I think another thing we can get out here is the intuitive brain versus the rational brain. Most of us deal with this intuitively. How do we feel? How do we obsess? We, you know, but if you were to step back from that and do [00:44:00] a trade off analysis, which most of us are not going to do, we just consider the possibility, the concept, that You identify the values on each side.

What piece of my value am I willing to give up maybe to accommodate her or his legitimate, um, value that’s in conflict with where could they maybe give up, you know, and kind of piece your way towards some better resolutions. Not so

adversary. but I,

Scott DeLuzio: think

Yeah, I think that’s what I

was trying to get at earlier when I said, find, find something that maybe doesn’t make everybody happy because when there is a conflict, not everyone’s going to be happy, but something that you can live with, right.

Mike Hassell: right, you know, negotiators describe the best alternative to a negotiated solution. There’s a, there’s an acronym for it, but you know, know when to walk away. When the, when the negotiation’s not going to get to a good end, you need to know what your best alternative is. Is it divorce? You know, is it, you know, Ending a friendship?

Is it letting go of the problem and just [00:45:00] doing it their way? You know, thinking through those alternatives is helpful, at least to identify what the alternative is to perpetual fighting.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah. And, and identifying all the potential solutions, like you said, like just, um, you know, do it their way or. You know, uh, uh, divorce or, you know, there’s, there’s solutions to everything. Um, you know, and, and they may not be good solutions, but I, at least identify what, what are all these solutions, you know, maybe with the pros and cons for each of them, um, and then look at them and say, okay, what’s, what’s the best.

Out of this, or what’s going to cause the least amount of harm, uh, in, in a situation or, or might have the best possible outcome. It may not be the greatest, uh, utopia ideal solution. Uh, that if, if you can wave a magic wand, everybody’s happy. It may not be that, but you get something, uh, where, where it’s like, okay, well, both parties can live with this and we will be [00:46:00] okay.

And we can move on from there. Um, as opposed to just being stuck in this. You know, this, this muck or whatever, you

Mike Hassell: in the end, there’s, there’s an acknowledgement of tragedy and fallenness, you know, we all fall short, you know, this, this really begins to be kind of a religious sort of perspective, and I belong to a religious tradition that does talk about that, that we’re all fallen and, and, uh, We’re far from ideal. Uh, and so the second chapter in my book is about the conflict between ideals and reality.

It’s just that very same thing. We can’t expect utopias. Um, and we can’t expect perfection in nearly any aspect of our lives. We have to live with this shortage, this fallenness. And just getting our expectations in line in that regard, I think can be helpful because we all think it could be better. It ought to be better.

And, uh, the great novelist James Baldwin said, you know, we’re caught between is and ought.

And I think that’s a beautiful way of saying it. We all have different [00:47:00] ideas of what ought to be, but those in themselves have conflicts. Some people want more equality and, uh, more, some people want more liberty. And those things are directly at war.

The freer we are, the less equal we are, because we have different talents and opportunities and, uh, um, uh, energy, education, all of those things leads us to different places. So the more equality we have, the less liberty we have. That’s what I’m going to be writing about

in a future book.

Scott DeLuzio: That’s interesting, interesting concepts. And I, I think, uh, you know, when, when we have so, so many different conflicts, even internal conflicts, just within ourselves, um, and then. You multiply that out with all the other people who are important to you in your life. It could be personal relationships or, or business work relationships, those neighbors, um, you know, all of those people, they have their own internal conflicts and there’s a, there’s constant trade offs going on, uh, of how much is really, Is it [00:48:00] worth getting into a fight with my neighbor because his tree is hanging, you know, a foot over my lawn, my, my, uh, property line or something like that.

It’s not that big a deal. I don’t really care. So I’m going to let it go and I’m not going to make a big deal of it. Right. And then, um, you know, you, you just kind of have to constantly, uh, be, be looking at that and saying like, what are, are these things really that big of a deal?

Mike Hassell: yeah,

Scott DeLuzio: And,

Mike Hassell: well,

Scott DeLuzio: help, I think.

Mike Hassell: yeah, this notion of constant trade offs is really what I started when I wanted to write the book, and that’s why I call it Deep Trade offs. But there’s just so many layers to it, you know, going back to our earlier discussion about truth and honesty, you know, the fact is we deceive ourselves about lots of things.

We think we’re doing more of the housework than we are, you know, so your example that you raised earlier is exactly about that. We’ve, we’ve developed these, these assumptions, these opinions, these conclusions, um, that often mislead us. There’s a, there’s a quote that I use from [00:49:00] Friedrich Nietzsche, you know, he was a German philosopher.

He said, convictions are, are greater enemies of truth than lies. Now, that one shook me up because, you know, having gone through religious discussions with my mother about belief and convictions, I thought convictions were hardened forms of belief, right? There’s been enough evidence for me to really jar down on that and believe it.

And what Nietzsche is saying is the stronger our convictions, the less open our minds are to an alternative. And so, you know, we, we are not, We’re all capable of change and improvement, and the idea that we’re not is wrong. I’ve challenged people in my book to, you know, rate their beliefs and confidence level, and 100 percent is a bad answer because it means you’re not capable of improvement, and the only people that are not capable of improvement are either perfect or they’re dead.

So, leave that logic. That’s a logical statement, but I think it’s, [00:50:00] us to admit there’s always ways we can do

better.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah. And being open to other people’s, uh, you know, opinions and beliefs and things, I think also will, will help get you to a, uh, a better, not, not to perfect, you know, cause nobody’s perfect. Um, you’re not going to get to perfection, but you’re going to get better by, uh, by understanding other people and other people may be wrong, but at least understanding where they’re coming from might be What it is that helps you to break through whatever, you know, barrier that is between the two of you,

Mike Hassell: they’re way more likely to see our weaknesses than we are. You know, I read a book about McKinsey consultants years ago and they consultant teams and so based on the principle that people are poor critics of their own, uh, analysis of their own judgments. You can count on an adversary pointing out the weakness in our own positions, right?

Right, but we don’t do it very well and that’s one of the sources of self deception because we want to tell ourselves how good we are [00:51:00] how brilliant we’ve been and, uh,

maybe not so much.

Scott DeLuzio: That’s true. Yeah, absolutely. So we, we mentioned your book. I want to give you a chance to, uh, talk a little bit about your book, a little bit more, tell people where, where to find it and what they can hope to, to get from it when they read the book. Uh, the book again, Deep Tradeoffs is the name of it. Uh, tell us a little bit more about it and where people can go to find it.

Mike Hassell: It’s available on Amazon. It’s the only place Well, bookstores can get it. They can order it. But usually bookstores don’t stock books of this kind. I have a website called deeptradeoffs. com You can go there and see some quotes and things like that. Also, there’s a place where people can write to me. They, you know, want to engage this if they would like to, um, be connected with me.

So as future things come out, I can let them know. Maybe I might start some discussion groups and things like that. Uh, that website, deeptradoffs. com is a good place. Um, [00:52:00] the book is only four chapters and it deals with three trade offs. And I mentioned Peace and Striving is the first one, Ideals and Reality is the second one, Honesty and Deception is chapter three.

Then the fourth chapter is short, about five or six pages, I think, uh, of about 50 or 60 things, tactics, techniques, uh, we can do to, uh, Address these conflicts. They’re not all my own. They’re mostly there’s, by the way, 315 quotes in about a 200 page book. So it’s just not all about what Mike says. This is about what experts have said.

And actually, it’s organized in a way where you have one against the other, where you can see, you know, uh, we’re in control. You know, I’ve, I’ve just was in a seminar the other day that emphasized how much we’re in control. If we want to succeed, we take responsibility. And I think soldiers probably, uh, are cultivated to have ownership and to make things work.

But then you have Kate Bowler, who was a professor at Duke who, uh, developed colon [00:53:00] cancer in early thirties. She has, uh, I think two young children and she’s very emphatic on the idea that life is not what you, what you plan and what you control. You know, there’s a pandemic, there’s cancer, there’s a broken marriage, you know, that we’re not in control.

So the point is, both of these things need to be true in different regards. It’s yet another trade off. How much do we take responsibility? How much do we, uh, divide responsibility? It’s hard. But anyway, the book carry, you know, there’s a number of those, I’ve identified 30 trade offs that I’d like to eventually write about.

This deals with three of them and then one sort of summary chapter about what to do

about it.

Scott DeLuzio: Well, excellent. So deep trade offs, uh, com and I’ll have a link to that in the show notes and also the link to the book on Amazon. I’ll, I’ll put those links in there for you, uh, for the listeners to, uh, grab a copy of the book and find out more about it. Um, take care. And, uh, uh, so yeah, check out those show [00:54:00] notes for that information.

Um, before we wrap up the episode though, I, I always like to end the episode with a little bit of humor. Um, I do this, um, cause sometimes the topics we talk about, they’re kind of heavy, kind of tough. Um, and, uh, you know, like you said earlier, who doesn’t like to laugh? And so, um, even if the joke sucks and I am terrible at delivering it, you can at least laugh at me and I’m cool with that, that’s fine.

Um, so I’ll, I’ll, I’ll give this quick joke here and hopefully. It, at least someone can crack a smile at it. Um, so four guys are in a hospital waiting room because their wives are having babies. And a nurse goes up to the first one and says, congratulations, you’re the father of twins. And the guy goes, Oh, that’s funny.

Um, I work for the Minnesota twins, so I had twins. That’s great. And then the nurse goes to the second guy. Well, congratulations. You’re the father of triplets. And the guy goes, well, that’s strange. I work for the 3M company. And the nurse goes to the third man, congratulations, you’re the father of [00:55:00] quadruplets.

And he goes, wow, that’s strange. I work for the Four Seasons Hotel. And the last man gets up, he starts banging his head against the wall and everyone’s like, what’s wrong? What’s, what’s going on? He goes, I work for 7Up.

Mike Hassell: I’ve got two that I’d like to share with you.

Scott DeLuzio: Yeah, sure. Please.

Mike Hassell: They’re short. One of them is, uh, is sort of along the lines of what we’ve been discussing, and that is, uh, if you doubt your spouse’s judgments, just remember that you are one of those judgments. Uh, and the other one is, uh, about the difference between, uh, youthful, uh, feeling and energy and mature thinking.

It’s about an old bull and a young bull standing on a ridge surveying the valley below with all the, all the cows, and the young bull runs up and says, Why don’t we run down there and have sex with one of those heifers? And the old bull said, why don’t we just walk down there and have sex with all of them?

So, [00:56:00]

I’ve lost

Scott DeLuzio: good.

Mike Hassell: that youthful energy, you know, I appreciate jokes like that.

Scott DeLuzio: Brings it back. Um, so anyways, thank you again, uh, Mike for taking the time to join us and sharing your, your insights on, uh, all of this, the, um, you know, the, the deep trade offs, right? There’s, there’s trade offs between, um, you know, interpersonal relationships, societal, uh, things, even within ourselves, there’s deep trade offs.

Deep trade offs that we have to contend with. And so I think, um, you know, your insights onto this are great and I’m looking forward to hearing a little bit more if you, if you do put some of these other conflicts into another book, uh, somewhere down the line, maybe we can talk about those and we can, we can get you back on the show, but I really do appreciate it.

I think this is, this has been insightful and hopefully, uh, helps out some people along the way. So, so thanks again.

Mike Hassell: Thank you, Scott, I’ve loved it.

Scott DeLuzio: Thanks for listening to the Drive On Podcast. If you want to support the show, please check out Scott’s book, Surviving Son on Amazon. All of the sales from that book go directly [00:57:00] back into this podcast and work to help veterans in need. You can also follow the Drive On Podcast on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, and wherever you listen to podcasts.

Leave a Comment