Diapers Off! (Season One)

We start off by talking about Things that Look Cool at 25 that Don’t Look Good at 45. Among the easy targets: smoking, excessive drink, raucous behaviour and being obnoxious. But what about people who try to “grow up” too fast, and are “prematurely mature?” Does their juvenile side come out later in life? Paul expresses deep gratitude that his biology at forty-one is well-aligned with his current station in life, as a committed, focused man. The tradeoffs of marriage would have been too difficult for him ten years ago. Some men aren’t necessarily heading in the direction of a monogamous, pair-bonded reality: Pete knows some accomplished, charming men who’ve chosen to cohabitate with like-minded heterosexual men rather than move in with girlfriends. Paul questions the sustainability of that model and wonders how it looks at 50 or 60, a bunch of ageing men running around a house share. Do men who get love, support and community from their buddies really have a need for women? Pete brings up the case of ladies in Japan who frequent “host bars” where they engage in deep conversation with attractive and intelligent men. Once the women have been vocally stimulated, they pay the bill and leave – no need for a real man and his awkward needs. Is this the direction of Western society? Returning to Things that Look Cool at 25, Pete regales us with stories of his 20s spent at York House, a fraternity-style living situation in central London. For his part, Paul shares that all the unpredictability and casualness of that situation would never fly now, when as a couple he and his wife are focused on security and, inevitably, private property. To end the episode, the guys touch on shame and judgement. Paul asks the question, “Where does shame come from?” His conclusion is that it comes from judgement, both of ourselves and by others. When we don’t meet our standards for ourselves in any area of life, we feel shameful. Pete’s insight is that for ambitious folks, shame and guilt are ever-present companions: standards are so impossibly high that individual efforts routinely and continually fall short. Finally, Pete asserts that the concept of guilt factors heavily into all Abrahamic faiths: “Catholic guilt comes from God; Jewish guilt comes from your mother.”

In this episode, we join painter Roza Horowitz in her studio at UCL Slade School of Fine Art. In a wide-ranging conversation we explore the artistic process, the dangers of censorship, art as therapy and political correctness. Pete starts off asking how Roza handles criticism of her work, and if she can keep a professional distance between herself and what she creates. As Pete has said before, it’s important in the arts to “meet where the work is,” so the artist doesn’t feel personally attacked when his or her work is critiqued. Roza describes an early theme as “People Who Hurt Me” and how the heavy use of paint, impasto, helped her exorcise personal demons and get them onto the canvas. But now, as a more mature artist, she no longer paints people she knows, so the work is less personal. Discussing the greats – Picasso and Matisse – Horowitz has praise for how they were able “to get to the essence with the minimal. It looks easy, but it is very difficult.” Matisse’s exquisite line drawings come to mind; his ability to convey character with three squiggly lines. Paul asks whether Roza wants her work to be arresting or, instead, accessible, something people hang in their living rooms. No artist wants to be considered anodyne, she explains, but at the same time it serves no purpose if you “stand above the audience” and are understood by only a few. Perhaps the contradiction of the avant garde is that they lead the way, but must bring folks with them, as well, or risk becoming irrelevant. In Hollywood we often see this, with big actors doing one film for commercial reasons, the next one a passion piece that makes no money. Moving onto the craft of painting, we discuss one of Roza’s favourites, Goya. His ability to convey character is exceptional, she explains, and points to his use of the grotesque to reveal a subject’s true intention. The grotesque is often achieved by slight exaggeration of a physical attribute, such as an elongated smile, or individuated teeth. Such painting reminds Paul of the Joker from the Batman series, at turns familiar and menacing. Pete then brings up what is perhaps a key discipline in any art form: knowing when to stop. To put the brush or the pen down takes confidence, when fiddling is so tempting. But that is the bane of the inexperienced artist who overdraws or overwrites (or overcooks) and thereby ruins the meal. “Better to stop early than go too far,” cautions Roza. We discuss some technical methods which Roza is currently using, such as projection and painting alla prima (all at once) before moving on to our final topic: political correctness in art. Shakespeare used the court jester to reveal his true feelings about Queen Elizabeth, thereby saving his head. Likewise, Roza uses humour to reveal commentary in her work that would be unpalatable if served head-on. Peter follows up by asking if we can ever separate an artist’s character from their work, citing Richard Wagner and Eric Gill. Wagner’s anti-semitic beliefs have been well chronicled, and Gill was a renown and decorated British artist whose diary posthumously revealed extreme sexual predilections, including incest and bestiality. Can we ever enjoy works by such men or women without a tinge of disappointment? The three of us discuss.

Episode 54 - Special Interest (Painting & Art) by Paul Janka & Peter McSweeney

How do you build the perfect team? That’s a critical question for organizations – from Fortune 500 companies to a President’s cabinet to the perfect theater troupe. Google sought the answer and used all the data and analytics at its disposal. In today’s episode Peter and Paul review the findings and compare the conclusions of the Google researchers to their own experience. Their starting point is a February 2016 article in the New York Times entitled “What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team.” An immediate takeaway is that the best teams are not comprised of the “best” people – they’re more of a hodgepodge. Syncing with members of your team is critical, as Pete demonstrates with an old acting exercise, a derivative of the Meisner Technique called 1-2-3. Paul attempts it but stumbles. As the men demonstrate, the power of this syncing exercise is unquestionable. As it turns out, the effectiveness of groups comes down to norms, spoken or unspoken rules to which the group adheres. And, crucially, some norms are better for a group’s collective IQ. The Times’ article posits two groups with strong norms: Team A, rigid, efficient, comprised of smart and successful types. Team B is a mixed lot and spends time “warming up” with jokes, gossip, goofing around. It turns out that Team B will outshine by a huge margin because of two key norms: “conversational turn-taking” and empathy. These two norms create “psychological safety” which engenders true creativity, innovation and collaboration. “Psychological Safety” is so important, it supersedes all other group attributes. A safe space, whether in acting class, a tech company or a 12-Step meeting, is a space in which members know they won’t be rejected, embarrassed or punished for sharing, no matter what. This creates mutual respect and interpersonal trust that lets new ideas emerge. Paul shares that when he feels fearful or insecure in a situation he defaults to the most conservative, hackneyed solution to prevent recrimination. An atmosphere of fear will therefore kill fresh perspective. A key insight of the article is that emotional conversations and admission of personal struggles creates “psychological safety” – a difficult prospect for some work environments where emotionalism is considered “unprofessional.”

We start the episode by thanking Michael O. for buying us a cup of great coffee. He says he listens to the podcast now, in his 20’s, to avoid a midlife crisis down the line. Peter and Paul buckle under the weight of such responsibility! We focus this episode on a freshman seminar taught at Harvard called “Reflecting on Your Life” in which 18-year-olds grapple with profound questions of identity: Are your actions in line with your stated goals and principles? Do you want to be a niche player, with expertise, or a generalist, with a broad view? Is it best to develop career interests contemporaneously (i.e. in tandem) or sequentially? Pete thinks that certain minds are predisposed to chaos and creativity, while others are orderly and focused. During the discussion, Pete concludes that the symbiosis between artists and “suits” is necessary and that each role is crucial. But, he bristles when pre-successful artists are labeled “bums” while accomplished artists are regarded as geniuses. Another question posed in the freshman seminar: what to do when your core values are in conflict. Paul has first-hand experience with this: he is married and is planning a family with all the responsibility and stability that requires (e.g. mortgage, children, education), yet he loves the creative life and his many projects, none of which could be classed a “stable career.” How will his situation resolve itself? Finally, the article asks us to confront the scale of our ambitions: are we happy contributing to the local community, or do we have “world-changing” ambition, as Elon Musk has? Is one necessarily better than the other? Do we have an obligation to the world at large? And, how can kids know at eighteen what they want, much less who they are? Pete ties it off nicely by explaining that most of the important decisions in our lives are nothing more than educated guesses: the person we marry, the city we reside in, the career we choose.

Paul opens the show by asking if we have to live life in a certain order. In economics, the Life-Cycle Hypothesis (LCH) explains how individuals borrow from future earnings when young and then accumulate in middle age only to deplete in retirement and old age. So-called “consumption smoothing” strives to explain the standard way people approach life. But is this the best way? “What about the opportunity cost of youth?” asks Pete. Isn't it best to adventure when you’re young and healthy and your knees don’t creak? Young people need confidence in the future if they’re to delay instant gratification. Paul brings up the example of Israel during The Second Intifada during 2000-2005. Aware that life could end at any moment, young Israelis engaged in sex, drugs and consumption, demonstrating their lack of confidence in the future. Halfway through the episode, Pete challenges Paul about his life of dabbling: would he have been happier had he stuck with something? They contemplate regret, but then ask if anyone can consciously acknowledge regret because we never know the outcome of paths not taken. After a tangent in which the guys discuss euthanasia and the bestseller, When Breath Becomes Air, Peter and Paul wrap up by concluding that the safety and longevity nearly guaranteed by wealthy Western countries takes the pressure off folks and allows them to drift, partly explaining the extended adolescence of the millennials. In the second half of the show, we tackle The Reversible Society. What happens to a society wherein commitments can easily be unwound? Paul quips that such “flexibility is great because you don’t have to live with your choices.” This is at odds with all the great examples from history and literature in which individuals labor under the weight of their decisions. For one thing, such flexibility creates individuals with low conviction. As Paul explains, war is the the final bastion of commitment: you can’t really flirt with war, you can’t really sort-of invade a country. In the end, a Reversible Society creates citizens who are careless with their personal decision-making.

Appearance versus Reality is the theme of Episode Fifty! Paul takes a stab at the new reality show on Channel 4 called Naked Attraction. The show format involves a clothed contestant and six naked bodies on stage, hidden from view inside frosted glass silos. The glass lifts and fully nude candidates are revealed, close-up genitalia and all. A critic of the show compared it to slaves on the auction block, the main contestant compelled to dismiss bodies based on physical attributes alone. Aside from the shock factor, the show brings up several interesting sociological questions: Can we get to know someone simply by seeing them naked and vulnerable? Pete makes the astute point that “people who get naked quickly often don’t want to reveal themselves (emotionally)…” Paul observes that he knows many men – and was one, himself, once – who assume physical intimacy equates to emotional intimacy. This is nudity masquerading as intimacy. Men in strip clubs who “fall in love” with naked women, or the intensity of a carnal one-night stand – either can fool a man into thinking he “knows” the woman on the other end. In fact, as Naked Attraction reveals in its finale, physical attraction alone is not a reliable basis for compatibility. To wit: many of the couples, previously quite keen on each other, admit after three weeks that there was little actual interest and that they’ve gone their separate ways. It’s an awkward resolution, to say the least. The men segue onto memory lane, and Paul admits that in his single days in New York, he spent time with a lot of women who were NSFR – Not Suitable For a Relationship. The men acknowledge that people mature, and Paul admits that he wasn’t such a catch in those days, either; he had a lot of growing up to do. Finally, the men discuss “dream jobs” in the context of Appearance versus Reality. Upon hearing that a former classmate is now President of movie production company Plan B, Paul’s immediate thought was “Damn it – I should have stayed in Hollywood. Look what I could have become!” The truth is more nuanced, however. Movie producing, though wrapped in the glamour of Hollywood, involves the same frustrations and challenges as any business: logistics, budgeting, personnel. To think it’s all Bentleys and Bodacious Babes in the South of France is foolish – there’s plenty of gruelling, tedious work involved. Recognising that all jobs have drawbacks is a sign of maturity, which is another way of saying an acceptance of Reality.

This is the Optimization Episode. We start off by reviewing a small piece by David Brooks on the glories of middle age. Brooks makes the claim that middle age is a great departure point for big adventures because, presumably, you’ve done well and accumulated resources. Apparently to many New York Times commenters, a well-resourced midlife cannot be assumed; many have continued to struggle since the Great Recession. This reversal of fortune is interesting, Paul notes, because so many of our popular narratives show the protagonist going from strength-to-strength. There are too few failure stories in our popular imagination, perhaps because they’re uninspiring. But, the truth is many people do not succeed, as the word is commonly understood. One component of wisdom, highlighted in the Brooks article, is compassion - a necessary perspective in a world where not everyone makes it. During the discussion, Pete observes that “knowledge can be read; wisdom has to be lived.” There are plenty of self-help gurus peddling shortcuts to good-living, but Paul remains skeptical. After watching “A Day in the Life of Tim Ferriss” both men have a reaction. Ironically, Pete sounds the more American, explaining “failure as a path to success.” Paul has a cooler response, searching for the old quip that at least “Mussolini made the trains run on time.” Both Peter and Paul agree, however, that “optimization theory” has been hijacked from the corporate world to mixed effect: some things aren’t meant to be productive. It’s particularly disconcerting/hilarious when this type of thinking is applied to relationships, or in the realm of “soft skills.” Pete jests that “The 4-Hour Girlfriend” may not be a best-seller. Paul holds up his family in France who enjoy Parisian life, sail in the South of France and eat exceptional food, all without subscribing to the optimization mania that has gripped the U.S. (and to a lesser degree, England). The guys get serious for a moment discussing contradiction in Hamlet and the themes in Milan Kundera’s Unbearable Lightness of Being (if one travels under tremendous burden, does that make life sweeter?) before returning to their usual convoluted banter. Paul concludes by saying that optimization presupposes an outcome, but from his view many of these so called “gurus” don’t have a credible vision of their future, at least not one he can see.

Pete hijacks the intro with a rendition of “Get Ready to Rumble,” whereupon the guys learn that silver fox Michael Buffer has made $400 million from his signature catchphrase and the $5,000,000 announcing fee he commands for each prize fight. Once Paul wrangles back some semblance of structure to the episode, the men tackle an article entitled Left on the Shelf – a cautionary tale about mid-20’s women in London who can’t find boyfriends. A large part of of the challenge for these young female professionals is choosing a mate from a smaller pool of college-educated men, and that pool looks set to dwindle. Worsening their predicament is the fact that for much of their twenties these women – by their own admission – didn’t prioritize men. Instead, they focused on career and female friends. Paul wonders if the busy-ness of young, urban professionals makes relationships passé, as calendars quickly fill up with dinners out, weekends away and drinks with friends. Living in the midst of such a stimulating environment, who has time or interest in sacrificing for a relationship? The article quotes psychologist Dr. Juliette Puig who says, “Perfectionists and high-achievers can find it particularly hard to find a partner…” The standards such people apply to jobs or personal endeavors fail when applied to relationships, since no one is “perfect.” One woman asserts that, “if I mention a kooky art show I’ve been to and he doesn’t even try to get his head around it, that’s a real turn-off.” Paul sees a problem in this type of demand. Whereas a rigid guy can date a compliant and submissive woman for some time, perhaps tiring of her in the long-run, women face a conflict if they try to emulate this male behavior: compliant men don’t sexually arouse them. Men and women may be equal, but they certainly aren’t the same when it comes to sexual attraction.

The guys brave the elements (kids, motorcycles, sirens, a hobo and a security guard) to bring you the first Podcasting in Public episode, recorded in Trafalgar Square! After a matinee viewing of The Truth at the Wyndham Theatre, Peter and Paul settle down for a discussion of the play’s main themes. The plot involves a love rectangle wherein each character is sleeping with another’s wife or husband, and only as the play progresses do we learn who’s in the know and who isn’t. A farce based on a French play, The Truth is here presented as an English adaption. The first question, “Do Players Have Weak Egos?” is answered in the affirmative by the play. The protagonist wreaks havoc on the lives of all around, while he becomes maddeningly possessive, desperate and insecure when he senses the tables have turned. He can dish it out, but he can’t take it! Pete posits that insecurity drives ambition and that strivers are all attempting to fill a hole. If that’s true, Paul wonders, then perhaps artists are creating culture to compensate for their insecurities – not an ideal state of affairs, it seems. The “Curse of the Oscar” supports this idea, since many Academy Award winners seem to fade after achieving the industry’s highest honor. “Is it Better to Know the Truth?” asks the play. The characters repeatedly justify deceit, claiming that to shield a loved one from hurtful revelations is a selfless act of compassion. Paul describes the last time he saw his grandmother alive, and how that pleasant image of her in the living room is his last, cherished memory. Others, including Pete, have seen family members in a morbid state, and those images have stuck. Maybe we don’t need to know it all. Pete offers an insight in the debate about disclosure of hurtful information: consistency is the watchword; waffling between shielding someone and full revelation is perhaps the most damaging treatment of all. And, finally, we come to “Guilt,” another theme from the play. Is guilt of any sort, and in particular the brand refined by the Catholic Church, a good governor of behavior? It certainly helps some people remain accountable to their actions. The guys wrap up before they can examine the negative, and sometimes twisted, consequences of a guilty conscience.