Dr. Maya Shankar
Maya Shankar is a cognitive scientist who served as a Senior Advisor in the Obama White House, where she founded and served as Chair of the White House Behavioral Science…
Join Pushkin+
Gain access to ad-free versions of 20+ podcasts from the Pushkin library along with exclusive bonus episodes and other member benefits.
Psychologist and author Adam Grant talks with Maya about the science of changing peoples’ minds, including our own. Adam also takes some of his own advice and rethinks some of his ideas.
Speaker 1
People generally assume that they're less biased than others, right? This is my favorite bias. It's the, "I'm not biased. Everybody else is biased. I am objective. I see things with perfect neutrality."
Speaker 2
That's Adam Grant. He's a psychologist and author of the book, Think Again. And he's talking here about a surprising feature of our own psychology that prevents us from changing our minds even when we should.
Speaker 1
And I think that the higher your intelligence, the more likely you are to fall victim to that bias. The smarter you are, the more feedback you've gotten throughout your life that you're right. And that gives you an illusion of objectivity.
Speaker 2
I wanted to talk with Adam because he is an expert on the science of changing people's minds. A topic we've been diving into on this season of a slight change of plans. We all have that friend, that family member, that we disagree with on something, and it can feel daunting to engage with them on the topic. So daunting, that oftentimes, we just give up. In this episode we're trying to change that. Adam and I discuss science-based tactics that you can use to approach these conversations differently and hopefully with more success. I'm Maya Shankar and this is A Slight Change of Plans.
It's great to meet you, Adam.
Speaker 1
Great to meet you too. I've been hearing about you for years.
Speaker 2
I'm so excited that you're able to join us for this podcast. I'm just eager to pick your brain today.
Speaker 1
Well, my brain is sitting here waiting to be picked.
Speaker 2
Awesome. We don't like changing our minds. It's uncomfortable, it can create a lot of cognitive dissonance. It takes a lot of hard work and so it's just easier to live our lives in an unreflective mode where we persistently believe what we believe and we double down and we surround ourselves with people who help us double down on those beliefs over time. And one of the things that I loved about the focus of your book is that it opens with ideas of how we can get ourselves to have an more open mind, ourselves to rethink things. So one reason you say that we might not be open to rethinking is because we're overconfident. And you talk in your book about not confusing overconfidence with competence. Do you mind saying a bit more about that?
Speaker 1
Sure. I think when people are lacking knowledge or skill, sometimes they also don't know what knowledge or skill looks like in that domain. So if you nothing, let's say, I always think about a Super Bowl party. You gather a bunch of football fans and there's always one who's screaming at the coach for calling the wrong plays. That is usually the fan who knows the least about football. But it's a fan. It's not somebody who's not at all interested in the game because...
Speaker 2
It's not like me who's just sitting at the food table...
Speaker 1
Perfect.
Speaker 2
Eating the entire time.
Speaker 1
Exactly. Yeah, you know that you nothing.
Speaker 2
I'm not weighing in.
Speaker 1
No, and you shouldn't, right? But if you watched a couple of games and you learned a little bit about football, that's when that tiny bit of knowledge can become a little bit dangerous. Because what starts to happen is, as your knowledge grows, you confuse your rate of learning for how much you've actually learned and your confidence rises faster than your competence. And pretty soon you're trapped on the summit of Mount Stupid where you very little, but you don't know how little you know.
Speaker 2
Yeah, you mention your book, that imposter syndrome gets a bad rap, but actually there might be some silver linings to fueling imposter syndrome. Can you say a bit more about that?
Speaker 1
Yeah. I was struck by this paradox that when you look at where imposter syndrome exists, one of the places it's most prevalent is among high achievers. And I think a lot of people have assumed that they've succeeded in spite of their doubts. And I started to wonder whether their doubts are actually helping to fuel their success. Well, maybe we don't have to turn this into a syndrome. When you call it imposter syndrome, it's like you have some kind of chronic disease that is, it's just debilitating and it's with you at all times.
We ended up having a doctoral student at Wharton, Basima Tewfik, who's now an MIT professor, and she studied how often people doubt themselves. She studied investment professionals and medical professionals and found no consistent costs of having more frequent imposter thoughts and some surprising benefits. The investment professionals, when they felt like imposters more often, they actually made better decisions. The medical professionals who felt like imposters more often, they actually listened to their patients. And what was happening was when people felt those imposter thoughts, their confidence was a little bit below their competence, and that led them to work harder to prove themselves, it led them to work smarter, to learn new things, and it made them much more receptive to listening to other people which filled gaps in their knowledge. And it almost makes me think that instead of trying to have our confidence match our competence perfectly, we are better off slightly underestimating ourselves.
Speaker 2
There's a tension that can emerge here, right? Because I'm thinking about, for example, communities of color who fall prey to stereotype threat. And the fact that boosting confidence in those cases is really productive because, in many ways, they're starting off in an unreasonable position relative to their actual abilities. And so, well, one, I'm just wondering, in those studies that were done, what were the demographics of the group? And two, in terms of prescriptions, where is that appropriate line between humility and confidence, especially because some of these psychological effects can disproportionately hit different communities?
Speaker 1
Yeah, I think that's a really important question. And I think Basima had good data on gender, less on race, but when she looked at gender differences, the odds were greater that women were sort of discouraged or debilitated by very frequent imposter thoughts, and men were much more likely to be motivated by them. And I think that tracks with everything we know about basically the world I live in as a white man, which is, people take for granted that I'm competent. Whereas if you grow up as a woman, and I think this is obviously the case for people of color as well, you know, have to prove your competence every day. And those doubts, because other people are doubting you, are more likely to get internalized over time. And I think you're spot on that we need to work harder to build confidence among people who are not white men. Does that track with your experience?
Speaker 2
Yeah, I think I would frame it as just really complex. I mean, obviously there's no one size fits all approach here, but I do think that there are profound public policy implications, right? Because if we're going on the road with the message of, "Imposter syndrome's good," we might find that that has a disproportionately negative effect on some subsets of the population. Women, people of color, etcetera. And so we just have to be careful about the messaging. I almost want the messaging to be, "Imposter syndrome is good, white men."
Speaker 1
What I think a disclaimer is critical here. I would rewrite that message completely. You don't have to take imposter syndrome as a curse. You can recognize that it's a double-edged sword and you can try to get some of those benefits of doubt to say, "Okay, you know what? The fact that I am questioning myself means I'm not going to get complacent," and I think that's the message that I want to get across.
Speaker 2
Yeah, that makes sense. One of my favorite parts of the book was the fact that a smarter a person is, the faster they recognize patterns, and so the more likely they are to notice and reinforce stereotypes. So you also mentioned that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to struggle with updating your beliefs, to be willing to rethink. So what is the mechanism at play in that latter finding, that would make that so?
Speaker 1
Well, people generally assume that they're less biased than others. This is my favorite bias. It's the, "I'm not biased but everybody else is biased. I am objective. I see things with perfect neutrality." And I think that the higher your intelligence, the more likely you are to fall victim to that bias in the data. And I think there's probably, the jury is still out on what the different mechanisms might be, but I think one of them is that the smarter you are, the more feedback you've gotten throughout your life that you're right. And that gives you an illusion of objectivity. What your consistent right answers or a pluses or genius level are, like, "You are the smartest person I've ever met," feedback is really signaling is that you're good at thinking and learning, not that you're objective in the way that you process information. And I think people miss that distinction.
Speaker 2
Yeah, it's a reflection back to you. So the current mechanisms that I use to analyze information in the world are paying off, because I keep getting the A+. So clearly something's going well here. Yeah. You're getting positive feedback. Interesting. Yeah, it reminds me, I interviewed Megan Phelps Roper, who was part of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is a religious cult, and she eventually ended up leaving in her mid-20s. But I think one thing that compelled her to stay for so long is that she grew up in a family of lawyers. They were all very, very smart, highly educated, and their pride point was constructing these very logical arguments, and I mean logical in the definitional sense of the word. And as a result, I think there was some sort of reinforcing that was happening within the Phelps family. They're using sophisticated patterns and thinking and analysis, but because again, their axioms are batshit crazy, they're reaching the wrong conclusions, but they are, in their minds, doubling down on those conclusions. Do you have thoughts on that?
Speaker 1
Yeah, I think one of the other risks of growing up in a family that is, you're taught from an early age to make your own arguments. And we forget that when you make an argument to persuade someone else, the person you're most likely to persuade is yourself because you trust yourself. You are a highly credible source in your own eyes, and you also came up with the reasons that you found most convincing. And as you explain them, you start to take ownership over them. Part of that is cognitive dissonance. Well, I've said this out loud, I don't want to be a hypocrite. So now it becomes part of my belief system.
Speaker 2
Another reason why we do feel so much agitile when it comes to admitting that we're wrong is that we get deeply attached to quote our past selves who held those beliefs. And we do feel like a departure from that past self, in some way, poses a full on identity threat. So can you say more about the importance of trying to detach yourself from your past self?
Speaker 1
Yeah. There's a growing body of evidence in psychology that people who feel "derailed," that I'm not quite the same person I was two or three years ago, they actually end up getting happier, that there's a little bit of a period of feeling unsettled, but then they realize, "Oh, I'm not going to let my old ideas of who I wanted to be hold me back." And I think one of the easiest ways to get comfortable with rethinking is to detach your current self from your old self.
So there are so many times when I've looked back at my old decisions and opinions and I'm like, "Wow, I should be really embarrassed by that. How could I possibly think that?" And yet, I mostly just laugh at myself because I don't think I'm the same person. Yes, I realize I have fundamentally the same brain and the same body and it's still me, but I think I've grown and evolved in a lot of ways from that version of me. And so I don't feel like what I did, the ideas I had about my future and the opinions I held at 21 are reflective of who I am now at 39, even though some of my values are very similar.
Speaker 2
One interesting flip on this, it's reminding me, so in this interview with Megan Phelps Roper who I was mentioning, I asked her, I said, "When you look back on your life, you have this in the Westboro Baptist Church and then post Westboro Baptist Church, like this total life split moment. Is it jarring to remember that you are that same Megan?" And, so, one thing I found fascinating about her experience is that she makes an intentional effort not to distance herself from that Megan. And the reason for that is she can both acknowledge that she has different views today, but reminding herself of former Megan helps her continue to have empathy towards people who continue to think like old Megan. And in order for her to do the anti-extremist work she does today, she also has to have that posture of understanding and empathy because she needs to remember what it was like to feel persuaded by terrible ideas.
Speaker 1
That is fascinating.
Speaker 2
It kind of blew me away that answer.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I mean the idea that you could still accept that sort of unacceptable version of past you and say, "Yeah, I'm not totally different from that anymore," while still changing your values in your beliefs. I mean, that is a walking proof of, what is it the F. Scott Fitzgerald line that the sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time and retain the ability to function. Like that's it. She has two opposing identities. One, recently abandoned, one relatively recently adopted, that she is keeping in some kind of dynamic tension. I don't think, I can't imagine doing that, honestly. I think that, I mean we all have multiple identities, but to have such conflicting values and beliefs and say, "Yeah, one is me now, one is me before, but it's not that different from me now." The equanimity required to do that I think is extraordinary. Can't imagine it.
Speaker 2
Exactly. Another reason that it's hard for a lot of people to admit that they're wrong is that we tend to strongly attach our opinions to our sense of identity. And you challenge this in the book, you say, you should really be defining your identity in terms of values, not opinions. To me, that's kind of a blurry line. How are you defining the difference between a value and an opinion? And shouldn't we also be open-minded about our value systems? Because obviously we see huge variation in moral values across cultures. In addition to the fact that when we do do that thought experiment of, if I were born in a different century or in a different family or growing up in a different religion, we would have wildly different values. And so, I guess I would want to cultivate a same openness to changes in one's value system. You're willing to change those fundamental beliefs.
Speaker 1
I think that's a good point, and I'm definitely open to rethinking what I wrote in the book. It would be ironic if I weren't, it gets very meta very quickly. But I think I agree with you. I think that I might make one distinction before I agree, which is to say, when I think about values, to me, the core definition of a value is what you think is important. And the definition of a belief or an opinion is what you think is true. And when you do that counterfactual thinking exercise where you imagine, yeah, would I believe different things if I was raised in a different family or in a different country or in a different point in history, you're not necessarily rethinking your values, you're definitely rethinking your beliefs. Right? And...
Speaker 2
Yeah. I think, okay, sorry to...
Speaker 1
Go ahead.
Speaker 2
Interrupt. So I think I disagree with that. I do think that you are changing, potentially, what's important to you through some of these exercises depending on your exposure. So for example, I can imagine, so in the United States, huge sanctity when it comes to life. We care about existence, we care about life. I talk to my Indian relatives and they're far more concerned with quality of life and suffering. So that is what's important to them. And so, over the course of my life, I have evolved and I have started to value what's important to me now is much more about suffering than existence, and that would inform my opinions, but it is my fundamental view about what's important or not.
Speaker 1
Yeah, I think you're right. I think that's less likely to change, though. I think it's slower to change. Because...
Speaker 2
I agree with that.
Speaker 1
It's deeper seeded, and that's where I think you're spot on that I don't think our values should be set in stone. Sometimes people end up choosing values that are harmful to themselves or others, but I think we should rethink those a little bit less frequently and maybe with stronger reasons. I think that, to me, opinions should just be tentative, period. You should walk around with a set of things that you think are true, and the moment you come across better data and sharper logic, you should say, "All right, maybe I should revisit that." I don't think you should be willing to flip-flop on your values every day or every week. That feels like more of a once a year kind of exercise to reflect on, how is what's important to me changing. And I think that that kind of rethinking ought to be a more deliberate and maybe even slower process.
Speaker 2
I agree with that. I think the cadence along which we revisit our values is going to be far less frequent, as it should be, because, like you said, they're more deeply entrenched in our systems. I guess the reason I care so deeply about this is I think that the values people hold can also be really pernicious if they are the wrong ones. And so compelling people to try to revisit their values on occasion can have transformative effects on society.
Speaker 1
I think you're right on that too. I think I'm less optimistic than you are about how easy it is to compel people to change their values.
Speaker 2
Oh, I didn't say I was optimistic about it.
Speaker 1
Okay. No, but...
Speaker 2
I just care about it.
Speaker 1
I care about it too. It's happening. Well, I care about it too, and I think it's incredibly difficult to even invite people to rethink their values.
Speaker 2
This is why I'm obsessed with the moral reframing research that's coming out. Basically, it says, look, hold the values fixed. Assume those are constant to your earlier point, but present them in a new way. So it's like, okay, you want folks to care about the environment. To liberals, you frame it as like, okay, we can save the environment, we will help the underprivileged among us rise up social equality. And then with conservatives, it's patriotic to save our planet, it can help create new jobs to invest in climate change, etcetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1
Or even...
Speaker 2
I love this stuff.
Speaker 1
We need to protect the purity of God's earth. It's a completely different kind of argument, but it reaches the same ends.
Speaker 2
Okay, so we're on this opening our mind journey. So we're now at the point where we are aware of the benefits of having a more open mind, and you've given us some strategies for how to do that. One thing that can prevent us from admitting that we're wrong is pride, right? We don't like admitting that we're wrong. It's uncomfortable, we sometimes feel that we will lose credibility with other people if we express that we're wrong or express vulnerability. And the research doesn't corroborate that. Can you say more about it?
Speaker 1
Yeah. I mean, you see this, there's a whole literature on scientists saying, "You know what, I made a mistake in my published paper." And it turns out that they're perceived more positively afterward. Going back half a century, there's a lot of research on the pratfall effect showing that if a successful person fails or makes a mistake, people actually like them more. They don't ding them for competence at all, and now they see them as human and relatable and approachable instead of being untouchable. I think one of the things I've realized over time is, that the faster you are to admit when you're wrong, the faster you can move toward being right.
And that's where we all want to land. We'd like to be right more often, and that means you have to be quicker to at least, internally, see those moments when you are wrong. But then if you don't ever admit them out loud, then you're continuing to stigmatize the behavior and saying, "I was wrong," is the equivalent of admitting defeat or showing weakness or signaling a lack of intelligence as opposed to actually signaling that you have confident humility, which is I am secure enough in my expertise and my strengths to be willing to be forthcoming about all the things I got wrong and didn't know. Gosh, I would love to live in a world where that was the norm rather than the exception.
Speaker 2
After the break, Adam and I discussed tactics for changing other people's minds.
So I would love to talk a little bit deeper about how it is that we can change other people's minds. So I'm going to set the scene for you. Okay. We are, we're at the proverbial Thanksgiving dinner, okay? I'm dreading the dinner because the proverbial aunt or uncle is at the table, and every year I have felt enraged by their political beliefs.
Speaker 1
This is not a hypothetical example, is it?
Speaker 2
Yeah, I know. I'm asking on behalf of a friend. So typically, I eat, and then I leave the table because I just don't want to engage. But this year I read how to better rethink, and I'm feeling really emboldened and I'm feeling really motivated, so I'm going to stick it out. I'm going to stay at that table. What are some of the tactics that we can use to navigate the proceeding conversation?
Speaker 1
What are you trying to accomplish?
Speaker 2
I am trying to, one, stay sane, and two, maybe try to make a slight dent in their minds.
Speaker 1
Okay. And do you have an agenda around what you want them to believe or do you just want them to be a little bit more open about what they believe?
Speaker 2
Okay, so let's say this hypothetical person has such deeply entrenched beliefs, I want them to even be open to the idea of rethinking.
Speaker 1
And what's an issue that you want them to be open to rethinking about?
Speaker 2
Oh, gosh. Gosh, there's so many today. Let's say immigration reform.
Speaker 1
Okay. I'm assuming this uncle is anti-immigration and you're more pro?
Speaker 2
Yeah. I mean, the irony here is that it's a little bit of a hypothetical for me, given that I'm from a family of immigrants, but yes, let's say the average uncle is anti-immigration.
Speaker 1
Okay. I think tactically where I would start is with motivational interviewing principles. To recognize that you can't force your uncle to change his mind, but you could help him find his own motivation to change his mind. I think one of the things I've noticed consistently is I just give a barrage of data points and facts and reasons, and the other person either attacks, defends, or withdraws. And one of the things I've seen in research on expert negotiators comparing them to average negotiators, is the experts have a higher question to statement ratio. Which is also something you see incidentally in productive charge conversations as opposed to conversations that just go off the rails. What are some questions that I could ask you that might lead you to question some of your own beliefs? How did you come to that opinion? Tell me more about what your sources are, I'd love to understand them better.
Speaker 2
Yeah. So it's really important that we ask questions and not make statements. And another one that I love, my husband and I were talking about this yesterday, is asking people what evidence they would need in order to change their minds. And the reason I ask this is that it presupposes that the person ought to be willing to change their minds in the face of evidence. And that's something that we can sometimes not always be even open to in the first place. So, yeah, I absolutely love that one. And it really gets people to dig into why it is they believe the thing in the first place.
Speaker 1
Yeah, It's my go-to question whenever I'm in an argument and somebody is not, usually it's I presented some data already and then the other person rejects the data. My instinct is then to just give them more data. And instead, I'm again trying to go into scientist mode and be curious and say, "Okay, well, it seems like you're not buying the argument I made. What evidence would change your mind?" And it's very rare that anybody says, "Nothing." And once they start to walk through the evidence, I know what kind of data they find convincing. We're also agreeing on the standards of conversation, right? That, okay, we're going to talk about what qualifies as rigorous evidence, and we can possibly find some consensus on that even if we disagree about how to interpret the evidence.
Speaker 2
One thing that resonated with me reading when reading the book is how often people can disagree with an argument, not because they actually disagree with it, but because they feel in some way like they're being controlled, that they're being told what to do. So how can we get around this?
Speaker 1
Well, one of the places where I've run into this a lot actually, is in office hours with my students. I've changed my approach dramatically. What I do now is if you come into office hours and you say, "Hey, I'm thinking about this banking job," first thing I want to do is I'm going to ask you, "Why are you here. What's your goal? Do you just want my stamp of approval on your decision, because you already have it. Or maybe you're here because you want me to point out blind spots in your thinking and invite you to do a little bit of rethinking, what is it?"
And whatever they say, that gives me a guide to figure out how I can best help them. And at that point, they don't feel controlled anymore, and I don't have an agenda anymore. I'm trying to align what their goals are with the way that I respond to their questions. And life change... I mean, honestly, life changing in my office hours conversations, because I've had so many tug of war sort of battles. I'm like, "No, I think you're making a decision you're going to regret, and I want to save you from it." And now it's like, "Hey, you just asked me to tell you what you might be missing." And then once I have your permission, I'm not trying to influence you anymore. I'm just sharing with you what I've learned.
Speaker 2
Yeah, you're recruiting their own agency and we know that people are...
Speaker 1
Oh, that's such a good way to describe it.
Speaker 2
Yeah. It's like, people love being in the driver's seat, even with these driverless cars, even if the steering wheel doesn't work, it doesn't matter. They just want it there. They want to feel like they're in control.
Speaker 1
Recruiting their own agency, that is a powerful way to describe it. And I think once they get to exercise it, sometimes they become more open to the advice at the end. So they almost never used to ask me, "Which job should I take?" And when I start the conversation by asking them what their goals are and how can I best help them, they almost always at the end of the conversation say, "Well, it's been helpful to hear some of the things that I've overlooked," or "I appreciated the insight on the decision process, but what I really want to know is, which job do you think will make me happier?" Or, "Which one will do you think will help me succeed?" And I think my responsibility in that moment is to say, "I don't know. That is your choice."
Speaker 2
Yes, that is great. And yeah, like you said, leads to better outcomes in your office hours. So I think we all feel anxious about the next generation and how divisive things feel and how much people do dig in their heels. One of the other ideas that I thought was so great was to invite kids to do multiple drafts of things, to not strive for that, for perfection, and also to see that there are many versions of this thing that can exist in the world. And I was reflecting on that last night, like as a kid practicing the violin, there was no such thing as a final product. And in many ways, I think that helped me cultivate this mindset of growth and the fact that things can always sound different than what it sounded like in my head. And I think that was actually very positive in terms of the way that I looked at honing a craft in general.
Speaker 1
So interesting. Same, although mine was not artistic, it was athletic. And that's exactly what this idea of sitting down with our kids, it was eye-opening. Instead of just praising the first drawing that they did on a given day. I remember saying to our fourth grader, "Hey, that's really interesting. Have you tried a second draft?" And she got excited about all the things she could rethink. She ended up voluntarily doing five drafts and was that much prouder of the fifth one than she would've been to the first. And it was a good both lesson, and probably reminder for me that kids are not so fragile that they need to be told that everything they do is great. And sometimes you can highlight the potential in them in whatever they've produced or created, and then encourage them to think again and reach that potential.
Speaker 2
All right. I have one final question for you, Adam. I imagine you get lots of emails from people who've read your books. Can you share any best change stories that you might've read?
Speaker 1
Yeah. I actually got a great email last week. Hold on, let me pull it up because it was so powerful that I need to realign from it. Okay. And he said, "I'm reaching out 'cause I wanted to tell you about something that happened to me yesterday that I think you might appreciate." He said... It was my first outdoor weekend of the year. I was in a hammock finishing Think Again. And right after I finished it, a kind of 20, 21 year old guy was just kind of hanging out outdoors. And we struck up a conversation and he was just expressing all these fears about vaccines. He said, the young man immediately voiced his concerns about the vaccines and how he's heard some pretty scary things about what they can do to us. This is where I paused. I literally just finished reading Think Again, not an hour before.
And now I have someone in front of me who has his defenses down, who is clearly expressing doubts about the vaccines. I decide to put your book to the test. I told the young man that I agree, it's very confusing knowing which information I'm vaccines to trust while also trying to stay safe and not get our loved ones sick. And I asked him how he plans to make an informed decision. He paused, clearly not being used to that question, and said he'd use sources he trusts.
I asked him how he knows which sources to trust, which is harder and harder in this day and age. And he paused again and said, "Yeah, it is hard." And then said he might call his primary care physician and ask for medical advice. And I said, "I would do the same." He said, "The story doesn't end there." We struck up a conversation, we became friends, and I'm grateful that I responded to his stance on vaccines in a way that, not only possibly opened his mind, but more importantly made him feel seen and heard. And this safety allowed him to open up. And I thought that was so cool to see that in action.
Speaker 2
That was beautiful. Yeah, what an impact. I love that so much. All right. Thank you so much, Adam. I'm so glad we got a chance to discuss.
Speaker 1
Oh, I feel like we barely scratched the surface. You are so smart and such a clear thinker and communicator, and ask some almost impossibly difficult questions that I'm going to be thinking about for the next few weeks.
Maya Shankar
Hey, thanks for listening. Next week, I talk with Elna Baker, a woman who believed that if she could just become thin, she could live her dream life. And she did it. She lost close to 100 pounds in five and a half months, but what she didn't expect is that she'd lose herself in the process.
Speaker 3
I was like, "Oh, this is the trade-off, right? You can get what you want, but you have to give up other parts of yourself. And how bad do you want this?"
Maya Shankar
A Slight Change of Plans is created, an executive produced by me, Maya Shankar. Big thanks to everyone at Pushkin Industries, including our Producer, Mo LaBorde, Associate Producers, David Zha and Julia Goodman, Executive Producers Mia Lobel and Justine Lang, Senior Editor Jen Guerra and Sound Design and Mix Engineers, Ben Tolliday and Jason Gambrell. Thanks also to Luis Guerra who wrote our theme song, and Ginger Smith, who helped arrange the vocals. Incidental music from Epidemic sound. And of course, a very special thanks to Jimmy Lee. You can follow A Slight Change of Plans on Instagram @doctormayashnkar.
Speaker 1
It was fun to think out loud, but also I'm like, "Oh, this is why I always like to be the interviewer," because I have questions I'm going to ask back to you.
Maya Shankar
Next time we'll trade spots. How about that?
Speaker 1
To be continued.
Speaker 2
The real me.
The Host
