I’m trying something new here. I’m going to lead with an opening excerpt from my full essay, then link to the full essay, which is toward the bottom of the newsletter. I wanted to find a way to bubble up more of my signposting and sharing links and recommendations without splitting this into two newsletters. There’s no paywall to read the essay, it’s just a teaser up front then a link to jump to the full essay at the end. Let me know what you think of this structure!

Read the full essay…

This past week I participated in a virtual book club with the Wonder Tools crew. The book was The Coming Wave by Mustafa Suleyman, founder of Deep Mind and current CEO of Microsoft AI. We’ve been reading books about AI throughout the year, and I’m struck by how the different authors articulate a world view based on their particular discipline or expertise, but present it like it’s the singular truth about AI. No, folks, you are all touching different parts of the proverbial elephant. Suleyman is a technologist. A capitalist. And someone who has been made very wealthy by the AI boom, with tremendous upside potential still available to him. There was one thing I really wanted to articulate during our discussion (and was able to): His book relies on assumptions…that the U.S.’s current flavor of capitalism is a given, that U.S. supremacy is an imperative, that rapid technology development is inevitable (and only technologists are qualified to determine how to handle that)…that are just that. Assumptions based on his world view and expertise. Suleyman may be more forthcoming than most tech execs about the real risks ahead (something we heard a lot about in the news this week), but reserving his ideas on what to do about it for the last 15-20% of the book shows exactly how much weight he gives them. It’s a welcome change from the irrational exuberance too many tech leaders display, but it really convinced me that anybody but the current tech leaders should be in charge of committing to and monitoring containment.

Check out Wonder Tools, the very best money I spend on Substack. I’ve been trying to pare back my activity on that platform, and how much revenue I send their way, but Wonder Tool will probably be the last to go!

For those of you who don’t already know, the very first career I pursued was as an actor/singer. It’s what I went to school for, and it’s what I thought would be the only thing I ever wanted to do with my life.

One of the earliest concepts you learn about in acting school is subtext. That for every line you say (or sing) there is an undercurrent of what you’re feeling, thinking, or remembering that makes you say those words out loud. Or in reverse, what you really mean by those words you say.

As an actor knowing your subtext influences how you speak your lines, and the same goes for singing. I would argue it’s even more critical to singing because if you don’t bring some kind of subtext to what you’re singing, especially when lines are repeated, as in a chorus, things can get boring. When I used to vocal coach singers, I’d always say, “there’s a reason you’re saying that same line three times…what’s the reason?”

One of the earliest lessons in subtext I remember seeing was watching my idol, Bernadette Peters sing the Irving Berlin classic, “What’ll I Do,” on TV. She famously sang it on The Tonight Show, letting one lone tear trickle down her face by the end. I was officially intrigued and obsessed.

PS: I could not find video of that particular performance, but I did find video of her singing it on the Oscars in 1983:

The song has very simple and sad lyrics.

Anyone can just think subtext=sad and sing it perfectly well. But an artist like Bernadette Peters has an interior monolog that makes those lyrics specific. Personal. Devastating. I should point out that I don’t have to know exactly what her subtext is. Sometimes it seems obvious, sometimes unclear. And sometimes, as an audience member, I may very well project my subtext into her subtext. It only matters that she knows what the subtext is…and draws on it.

Of course, in real life we have subtext too. The things we don’t say out loud. The reasons we react to something that are really about something else entirely. This can be quite conscious…we lie; we omit; we hide; we withhold; we secure; we use sarcasm as a weapon or as protective armor. Sometimes our experiences bake subtext into personality traits, and only years of therapy can unpack that!

During my original Buffy watch, three worlds collided into the very first #BuffyLifeLesson I ever articulated, namely: If subtext became text, you’d be surprised at how often the way someone behaves…even directly to you…isn’t actually about you.

I described World #1 (Theatre) above, and the idea that underneath what we say (the text), lies the subtext that is driving everything we say and do.

World #2 showed up when watching one of the most seminal episodes of Buffy…Season 3’s “Earshot.” Briefly, in this episode Buffy acquires the ability to hear people’s thoughts. At first it seems kind of cool…she can hear that a boy likes her; she can answer a teacher’s question exactly the way they want; she even hopes it will help her stay one step ahead of her current nemesis. But she begins to be overwhelmed by the cacophony of everyone’s thoughts, everyone’s insecure, troubled, anxious thoughts. The way people speak to themselves in their own heads seems to have this in common, no matter who they appear to be to others…the jock, the smart girl, the teacher. And so much of their inner monolog is worrying about what everyone else is thinking about them. Never realizing the answer is likely, nothing.

When Buffy intercedes to stop one particularly anxious student from doing something dire, this becomes explicit in perhaps my favorite lines from the entire series (added emphasis mine):

Don’t ask me how, but when I saw this episode, I saw very clearly how all of the above related to World #3: The workplace and business. It holds true there as much as anywhere else that people have a subtext you know nothing about. When negotiating. When collaborating. When managing. And that subtext probably has nothing to do with you, even if you’re the one they’re thwarting or blocking or undercutting. It’s likely not you. It’s almost certainly not personal.

If I applied an actor’s lens to a business situation, could I imagine a subtext for others that wasn’t about me? What I have discovered is that imagining their subtext as being entirely about them (not me) first changes my internal reaction to their asks, offers, and pushbacks. And that helps me navigate the discussion from a more open, less defensive place.

This idea about a new way to approach interactions was a revelation to me, because I’m the one who usually says something like, “You say it’s not personal, but I’m the one here in the room. It’s personal to me.” When something is happening to me, yes, I care about me and my experience of it. I care as much as the next person about getting what I want. It does not come naturally to me to achieve some Zen master, “it’s not personal,” equanimity about challenges.

There is a school of thought that business is war. That every negotiation has a winner and a loser. But does it create the foundation for a positive outcome to believe that when you come out on the other side of some agreement, you’re either going to feel like you’re the loser or you must work with one? I have decided it does not.

And you don’t have to care about whatever childhood trauma (hat tip Cordelia Chase) made them that way if you need to protect yourself and your interests. I would just suggest that, in general, you want what you want; other people want what they want, and it is not a signal of deep disrespect when those two wants aren’t exactly the same.

Instead of coming into any conversation guns blazing, single-mindedly focused on your wishlist, try imagining what would both really help your counterpart and be easy for you to give. I promise you if you lead with a give you’ll utterly disarm them. (Also a military/war term. Sigh, hard to escape those, huh? 🤦🏻‍♀️)

I’m right now trying to practice what I preach around a recent disappointing experience. I gave myself the indulgence of deciding there was a negative story all about me that explained the experience, but now I’m in the phase of saying, but what if it wasn’t about me at all? What else could it have been about, and what would that change about how I feel about the experience? I’m a work-in-progress. I’m still trying to transition to a less self-centered assumption about someone else’s subtext. And maybe I’ll never be 100% convinced. But the exercise is worth it. The exercise is helping.

I watched Season 3, episodes 15 (Consequences recap), 16 (Doppelgängland recap), 17 (Enemies recap), and 18 (Earshot recap). The first three aired between February 16 and March 16, 1999. Earshot was originally scheduled to air in April, 1999, only days after the Columbine school shooting. It was delayed until September of that year. In 1999 school shootings could still shock us and change broadcast schedules 😿

The core #BuffyLifeLesson in Consequences is that the longer you try to avoid them, the worse they’ll probably be. Digging out of a hole goes quicker when you share the load and the truth that you need the help.

The core #BuffyLifeLesson in Doppelgängland is that even the people you consider to be “Old Reliable” can reach a point where they want to act out. Especially when extraction, not appreciation feels like the order of the day.

The core #BuffyLifeLesson in Enemies is that just being “the good guys” isn’t appealing enough to people experiencing lack. And yes, that seems pretty relevant to today’s politics.

The core #BuffyLifeLesson in Earshot is explored above: It’s likely not about you. There is relief in that.

I’m here every week, using pop culture (and Buffy the Vampire Slayer right now) as a jumping off point for everything I’m thinking about professional leadership, personal development, political philosophy, and pop culture. I would love you to join me by subscribing. And I would love you to share the link with other nerds like us!