Hold on, buddy. Hold on.
I'm Angela Duckworth. I'm Mike Mon.
And you're listening to No Stupid Questions.
Today on the show, what makes a good gathering?
I don't want to have dinner with you for a long time.
My butt hurts. Angela, I was recently reading an amazing book called The Art of Gathering by Priya Parker.
Priya Parker, it sounds like the girlfriend of Spider-Man.
Oh, no, no, that's Peter Parker.
Peter Parker, Spider-Man.
Anyway, I have heard of that book.
A lot of people are reading that book.
Well, I'll tell you where I got it.
So I was with one of my dear friends who I used to work with.
And he and I wanted to get together.
And instead of doing lunch or something like that, he said, hey, I go on a hike every Monday after work.
And I invite one person to join me.
Is there a Monday that you would be willing to join me for a hike?
Interesting. So we went on this hike and we had an amazing conversation.
We caught up. We hadn't seen each other in maybe a year or so.
And when we got down off the mountain, and I said what a delightful experience it was and how most people want to gather for lunch or did end so hard and never happens.
And this was so different.
And he pulls out a wrinkled old copy of Priya Parker's book, The Art of Gathering.
And he said, I've given more copies of this book away than any other book.
And here's my copy. You need to read it.
And he said, I used to get together with groups.
But after I read this, I realized how I wanted to gather to make it more meaningful for me.
And that's when I started doing this Monday night hike with one friend.
I read it and I thought it was phenomenal.
And it got me thinking what makes a good gathering, what makes a sustainable group?
Because so many groups start with good purpose and energy and completely fizzle out within a few weeks, if not.
If not a few minutes. They gather a few times, but don't keep going.
Is it gathering of any kind, like two people on a hike, 20 people at Thanksgiving, 10,000 people at a ginormous rock concert?
Like is it asking the question of any kind of human gathering where there is more than one person?
Yes. And that's what I think is so powerful about the book.
Is that it's largely principle based.
And when it's a principle based book, you can apply those principles to a gathering of two people, to a gathering of 10 or to a gathering of 10,000.
So give me some of the principles.
And then of course, I have lots of thoughts on the psychology of groups.
I mean, some people would argue in my field that almost all of psychology is about the psychology of groups.
Because nobody is all that interested in how you act, think, or feel on a desert island.
So I think I'll have a lot to say, but I'm greeting now for, like, give me one of the principles.
Okay. I want to give you the principles through a bit of a story, if I may.
Yes. So as you know, because you have been a guest in it many times, I've had this book club going for the last seven or so years.
And the people in it have become some of my best friends.
But it's crazy how close we came to not setting it upright.
And when I was reading Parker's book, I thought, wow, we maybe inadvertently followed a lot of the principles that allowed us to sustain.
You were lucky that you happened to adhere to pre-Parker's principles without knowing it.
Absolutely. So here are a few things.
So we were in my, you know, the study or library in my home and my friend Tyson said, hey, have you ever been part of a book club?
I said, no, he said, do you want to be part of one?
I said, yeah, that would be really interesting.
So we sat down and made a list.
We wanted gender parity for sure.
So we had three men, three women, not everybody knew each other.
We sent out texts inviting everyone to come and everyone showed up at my house for this very first book club slash dinner.
Thankfully everybody meshed.
At the end of the first book club, Tyson and I both said we should invite a bunch more people so that we make sure we have at least five or six every book club.
Not everyone's going to be able to come every time.
And Anna and Tanner Potter both said absolutely not.
I was going to say, I'm waiting for what happened next because if I were there, I would say, no, you do not want to have a group where it's like, this is West Point.
You can show up on Monday at five in the morning when we're drilling or maybe you don't show up.
Maybe we'll recruit 25% extra people.
And that way of 25% of people don't show up for our 5 a.m.
March, you know, we'll still have enough.
That's not how a very, very strong group goes.
I think Tyson and I were just thinking, wow, everybody's super busy.
We need to make sure there's at least a core.
We were wrong. As you pointed out, Anna's Tanner and Anna pointed out very quickly.
They just said, that's not how it works.
We've been a part of other book clubs.
It will fall apart immediately.
People will stop reading the book.
It will be a social club.
People won't feel the pressure to come.
We're not doing that. So we kept it to just the six of us, the next book club, where at my house again sitting around the kitchen table and Tyson, maybe being slow learners once again suggested, who else should we invite because we need to make it bigger.
And thankfully, Anna and Tanner very strongly said, no, we're not doing that.
Now that goes to one of the principles that Priya Parker talks about, which I think is pretty uncomfortable for a lot of people.
That's this idea of exclusivity.
That for a group to work and for a gathering to work, you have to decide who is it for.
But by deciding who is it for, you're also deciding who is it not for.
And we've had so many wonderful people ask if they could join over the years.
And the answer has been, you should start a book club as well.
But this group is close.
But if we opened it up, the group would naturally fall apart.
I completely agree. This is really old paper from 1986.
And it's called Sense of Community.
It's an academic paper published by a clinical psychologist named David McMillan.
And then another psychologist who worked in kind of like community psychology named David Chavis.
And they tried to grapple with this kind of unwieldy question.
What makes a group a group?
And especially what makes a gathering or a group of people feel special, cohesive.
This is meaningful. Obviously, those would be the groups that stick around as opposed to those book clubs or other kinds of gatherings that kind of dissipate like the morning do.
And the first qualification for Sense of Community is membership.
And they define membership as, quote, a feeling that one has invested part of oneself and therefore has a right to belong.
And the very next thing they say is that membership has boundaries.
This means that there are people who belong and people who do not.
The boundaries provide members with the emotional safety necessary for needs and feelings to be exposed and for intimacy to develop.
Yes. So I know this is in a way, I don't want to say paradoxical because every time I use the word paradox, I'm slightly wrong.
But I'll just say this, there's something about the warmth and the inclusivity of a group that makes you feel like exclusivity is not the vibe.
But it's the first thing you need to do to establish the group at all.
Well, and that's what I think is so uncomfortable.
I try to live by the maximum, the more the merrier you want people to always feel invited and included.
And so when it came to forming a cohesive group that has this feeling of membership and you use the word intimacy, I mean, there's something really powerful about the fact that we have gathered once a month for seven years to talk about a book.
And you can't just skate into that level of intimacy that grows deeply over time.
I'm sure people get sick or occasionally like have conflicts, right?
But I'm assuming that attendance has been what close to 100% over this seven year period.
Yeah. And look, during the pandemic, we obviously had to be flexible.
One person moved to New York at one point, two people moved to California at one point.
Most of us are back in Utah again, but we brought zoom in or we figured things out or we flew out to Philadelphia to meet with you one time.
I do remember that. I felt very honored that I got to be the remote host or something.
Did you regret for that?
We did. We did. Of course.
If we're coming to visit you, do you remember some of the books that you have read over these last seven years with your book club?
Like what was the first one?
I don't know. That's a long time ago.
The first book we read was Tribe by Sebastian Younger.
And I actually thought it was an incredible first book because it basically talks about so many of these principles of why we are a tribe and how people gather and become sort of a group.
But very different than the Priya Parker thing.
How appropriate. Very meta.
The second book we ever read is I think maybe the most perfect book ever written.
It's called Bear Town by Friedrich Bachman who is maybe my favorite fiction author.
Wait, what has Friedrich Bachman written?
He wrote a man called Uva.
Oh God. Yes. I love Friedrich Bachman.
Oh my God. I loved a man called Uv.
I don't even care about finishing the rest of the principles for Priya Parker.
And now all I want to talk about is me.
I kind of feel like if I were going to start a book club, I think the first book we would read is a man called Ove.
So I've read that three times at least maybe four.
What? Yeah, I love it. I've read Bear Town.
I think three times. I've read anxious people three times.
I've read a man. I always say a man called Ove because that is the Swedish pronunciation.
Oh, did not know that. But I realized in the US, most people refer to it as a man called Ove.
And there are two movies based on that book.
One is Swedish version and one in American version.
The American version, they changed it to a man called Otto.
Because I think they were like, we can't keep dealing with Ove.
It's too complicated. But it was beautiful about how we started book club.
One, we had some common rules, which is read the book and show up.
And two, we very quickly established a common language, if you will, by virtue of the intimacy.
And one of the reasons it was so powerful, Bear Town as an early book in the book club hits on almost every major societal issue of our time.
It's about a hockey club in Sweden where it's everything in this small town.
And goes into issues of parenting, immigration, homosexuality, sexual assault, on and on and on.
And in the way that only Friedrich Bachmann can, paints this amazing picture and helps you understand life in a really different way.
I will say in the seven years of all these books, no book has come up more frequently in subsequent discussions, whether we're reading science fiction or poetry or about race relations or really boring nonfiction book about passion and perseverance or an amazing book called grit.
Somehow, not that it comes up every time, I'm not overstating it, but it comes up more frequently than any other book.
And I think it's been really powerful to establish sort of common language.
And that's the exclusivity that I think Parker's talking about.
That's the reason that this intimacy can develop.
It's like you have a lexicon, like you all talked about it.
So you can refer back to that conversation or elements of that novel, I guess, right?
That you all know that you all know what you're talking about.
Exactly. So it's that level of shared experience and then add to that every other book and it becomes this massive list of ingredients.
But one of the most uncomfortable situations that Priya Parker brings up in her book, there's a group of friends that used to get together like once a year for a weekend.
And one year, one member of the group who was in the military only had this same weekend that he could get together with his girlfriend.
And so he said, can I bring her?
Which I would as a compassionate, I'm going to use a word normal human be like, oh, that makes sense.
You're only on leave this one weekend.
You only get to see her this weekend.
That's the only time it works.
She's your significant other.
Let's just let her come and be there.
Well the group got together and they decided ultimately know she can't come.
Interesting because of principle number one exclusivity.
Yes. But and here's why though, this is what I thought was super interesting.
One member of the group and Parker doesn't tell you this up front.
So you're just thinking, man, these guys are jerks.
This is terrible. Work with your friends a little here.
Be a little flexible, man.
Yes. Thank you. You sound so hip.
But then she goes on to say that one member of the group was gay but not openly gay.
And that this weekend was the only time that all of these members of the group felt that they could be fully and truly themselves.
And by introducing an outsider, the kind of purpose of the group.
And this is one of the other principles she has.
The purpose of the group would be forfeited because they couldn't be their full and true selves.
Now, interesting. Some may still not like that.
But I think that's part of her point of like you have to have what she calls a disputable purpose that people can't argue with.
Why are we gathering together?
What's the purpose of it?
And then holding fast to that principle that allows you to then make these decisions as to who can or can't come even when they're maybe extenuating circumstances.
And when you and I might say, hey, be a little flexible, dude.
I think this again goes back to this paper that I mentioned this 1986 paper where these psychologists say, we're just going to try to in one essay, like write down like what makes a group a group.
We already talked about emotional safety and boundaries.
But one part of this article, which I found really interesting, they say that, you know, really this need for emotional safety to be able to be vulnerable in this intimate society that you have created, like it's a very primitive human urge.
And it really goes back to survival.
And this article makes the example of gangs.
Gangs are a group that provide physical protection.
And most of us don't need a gang to provide physical protection.
But maybe all of us need a group to provide emotional protection to this, you know, soft inner part of ourselves that we don't want to.
And it may be an unhealthy thing to expose ourselves in that way to everyone.
So I really like that story.
And I'm guessing that the moral of the story isn't some hard and fast, like, well, therefore you should always let the girlfriend in or you should never let the girlfriend in.
But more of this point that you are bringing up, which is that you have established norms or rules.
You also have an agreement to exclusivity.
You also have this, I love that expression, disputable purpose, right?
That like, there was some like democratic dialogue.
And then you, you know, more or less as a group decided what to do.
But the process was the thing that you got right.
Exactly. So Angela and I would love to hear your thoughts on what makes for a good gathering or a sustainable group.
Start a voice memo in a quiet place with your mouth close to the phone and email it to NSQ at Freakonomics.com and maybe we'll play it on a future episode of the show.
And if you like the show and want to support it, the best thing you can do is tell a friend about it.
You can also spread the word on social media or leave a review in your podcast app.
Still to come on no stupid questions.
How do you politely escape an awkward conversation at a party?
Let's go into the other room and like have some cheese or whatever.
Now, back to Mike and Angela's conversation about gatherings.
On this topic of rules that we're talking about right now, Priya Parker gave a TED Talk in 2019 and one of the things she talked about were pop up rules.
What are those? We've been talking about kind of sustainable groups over time.
But she also talks about even if you're just having a dinner party or getting together for a baby shower or something like that.
She said it's really helpful to establish some pop up rules because in our society today, a lot of people are coming together across generations, across cultures, across many different experiences and the norms of the group that you're part of may not be as obvious and clear.
She said one of the things that can be really helpful is just setting pop up rules.
When people show up, they kind of know exactly what's going to be happening or what's expected of them at this dinner party or at this event or something like that.
So does she suggest having a handout?
She suggests a bunch of different things and she uses the term generous authority often for the host.
This idea of don't be so uptight that nothing can change.
But you need to have some authority to establish what's happening and make sure that everything is done in an equal way.
And so often putting pop up rules on the invitation are super helpful.
Are we putting our phones away when you come in and we have an expectation that you won't have your phone?
Oh, I love that pop up rule.
You know, one pop up rule or one rule.
If I got to be a generous authority, we always say let's get together for dinner at 7 p.m.
We say the start time. But we never say the end time, right?
It seems a little bit, I don't know, uncouth or maybe impolite.
But I would love for someone to say we're having dinner from 7 to 830.
And by the way, if you ever have dinner with me, I don't want to have dinner with you for a long time.
My butt hurts. I just don't like dinner parties that stretch on at Infiniteium.
And I think it's that uncertainty.
So I love this idea of making the implicit explicit.
And I have these really good friends, Barb and Phil, and they are like me.
They are into the express lane social interaction.
And they're the only friends I can say, hey, let's have dinner on Thursday night at 7 to 8.
And they know that when it's 8, that I want to get up.
Because there's social science research on this.
I'm thinking of research that Dan Gilbert and others have done on conversations and how very often there is this game that we play with the other person, which is how are we going to end this conversation?
Do you want to end it? I'm kind of feeling like I want to end it now.
Maybe you don't want to end it.
And why do we do all that like Kubuki theater when we can just say at the moment of the invitation before it gets awkward, right?
Because I think one of the reasons why we're hesitant to end the dinner party, to turn off the lights, to show people the door is that it feels to us like a signal that actually this was kind of meh.
And now I want to go to bed.
You don't want to signal that.
You just want to say like, I have a cranky piriformis muscle and I need to not be sitting at this dinner party anymore, which is why I have a pain in the butt.
But anyway, it's just the literal and scientific way of saying I literally have a pain in my butt.
It's actually seeing like multiple physical therapists.
But anyway, I had this distaste for interminable dinner parties.
Yes. And to your point, Parker talks in the book about this interesting concept that some people in a group dinner may want to leave earlier and some may want to stay later.
And so long as the host is okay with either one of the things that she recommends is at some point, let's say after an hour, you've eaten the dinner, then it's okay.
Now we're going to leave the kitchen and we'll move into the living room.
And that gives a very natural break.
Those who want to stay can stay, but those who are ready to leave have the opportunity because everyone's standing up and they don't feel rude exiting.
Oh my gosh. This is inspired.
I don't know if she says this, but it also allows people to do a little musical chairs.
Do you ever feel that way where like you got trapped?
You kind of are like looking over at the other end of the table and you're like, oh, it would be so nice to talk to that person, but you're stuck there.
Appetizer through dessert.
So like this kind of like, well, let's go into the other room and have some cheese or whatever.
You can sit down with other people.
Yes. We've all been there.
I will say that as a general rule in my home, I only do square or round tables in order for everyone to be involved in the conversation.
Interesting. So square or round table and small enough also, right?
That anybody could be in conversation with anybody else.
Absolutely. Okay. I don't know who said this.
For all I know, Priya Parker said this, but I remember it really well.
And I am not the first to say it.
It was advice on dinner parties and it was like no more than six, no fewer than five.
Like if you're going to have a dinner party, have between five and six people.
See that's when I'm not going to abide by.
I think that's way too small.
Wait, but how do you have a round table that's how many people sit at your round table?
Is it like the nights of the round table with King Arthur?
Like how big is this thing?
The table that I have is eight square intimate.
So there's like two people on each side of the square on each side.
Okay. Okay. That's not impossible.
My parents have a beautiful round table that can seat up to 12, but it's still close enough that it's one conversation at the table.
I think anything beyond 12 is too much.
10 is probably better. Does have really big table, Mike, but it works.
Table that seats 12 in the round.
Yes. Well, don't be surprised if Lancelot shows up.
And what an honor for us to have Lancelot of table.
Yes. That would be really fun.
You could have a really interesting conversation.
Well, I think the general idea though of the geometry of our gatherings, like our physical relationship to other people is important, right?
Like is it going to be a round table or is it going to be a long table?
And it seems like a trivial decision, but I think so much depends on how you have seated people delighting, but all of that choreography, I sometimes feel like, you know, as a behavioral scientist, what people do in this world that I live in of like nudges and psychological interventions.
It's a lot like being a set designer on a movie set.
You are the generous authority.
And a lot of behavior change is these physical changes.
Sure. So I love this art of gathering.
But I also just love the tactical application of this through things like, okay, moving to another room, et cetera.
Honestly, so much of what she's trying to say, I think, is just prepare.
We did the Aaron and Aaron 36 questions that lead to understanding many moons ago.
The 36 questions to make you fall in love.
I mean, that's the New York Times.
Yeah, I know, but I rebrand it because I just think New York Times made it clickable.
Yeah, exactly. That was not what Aaron and Aaron wanted to do.
But anyway, yes, the questions that move you toward intimacy and vulnerability.
One of those questions is something like, before you make a phone call, do you practice what you're going to say?
And I love that question because as I've thought about that, I don't think it means like overthink or be crazy.
But do you prepare most of the time I have the experience, people run into a meeting, not really thought about the meeting or they come to a dinner party, not having thought about the dinner party or we go into a negotiation and all the studies I did on negotiation and all the negotiations have actually done.
It really is just about preparation, thinking through what does the other party want?
What do we want? How can we come to a mutually beneficial thing?
It's preparation and empathy, right?
Yes, fair point. Because it's both.
But some people do neither.
For sure. I'm not entirely admit that way too often in my life, I have tried to get by on the fact that I think well on my feet, I can speak rather fluidly and I didn't prepare enough for certain things.
What Parker is telling us is be deliberate, be intentional, think through it.
I'll give you an example of a dear friend of mine, Diljeet Taylor, throws this big Duwally party every year and it starts with the invitation.
If I got a text from Diljeet saying, hey, here's the party, show up at this time, it feels more casual.
She mails out an invitation like a wedding invitation and says that she and her husband were inviting you to this Duwally party.
It will be at this time and this place.
Traditional attire is not requested but recommended.
Please RSVP by this time.
And then I realize when I get an invitation like that in the mail versus just a text, then it feels much more substantive.
I realize that my RSVP means something.
Meaning it's not just like, oh, I'll show up if I can.
It's set the tone very differently because of how you extend the invitation.
Right. Now, I will just say this.
I want to argue against myself and against this briefly.
And I don't know who said to take.
Take my side, which is both.
I actually agree with all of this.
Obviously, I am passionate about Parker's book.
I think it's really valuable and I've loved everything.
At the same time, at some point, it also can't inhibit your ability to gather at all.
Because I do think that at some point we get so caught up in the, oh, did I do the invitation right?
Right. Did I set the group norms?
Is there a disputal purpose?
Blah blah blah. Did I get an end time to the dinner?
And sometimes it's just like, dude, we're all just trying to survive.
I just want to see some friends once in a while.
And if we text and everybody's free because they have babysitters or not and we can just get together, it's enough to be in the same room.
So I guess what I would also just say to myself is, yeah, these are goals and they're really, really good goals.
And they help with gatherings.
And I understand where it's coming from.
I also am cautioning myself.
Don't get so caught up in it that you don't gather at all because you're worried about not getting it all right.
Okay. I have not yet read the art of gathering, but if I take the art in the title seriously, you know, maybe your friend and maybe Priaparka herself, the Oracle, maybe they are like the Leonardo da Vinci's.
So they have taken this art of gathering to its highest apogee.
And then they write a book or at least Priaparka writes a book and you're like, oh my gosh, thank you because I can now start on this journey and get better faster than I would if I just made my own mistakes.
But maybe you start out with finger painting.
You're like, you know, get your hands into some paint.
Try not to get it on the carpet, but you have to start somewhere.
So you know, if the art of gathering really is an art, some of us are going to be really far down the path and they're amazing.
But I agree with you not getting together, which I think is the number one problem in our society right now.
I know that sounds a little bold, but I really think not getting together with each other in person and talking.
Maybe the underlying root of so many problems that I'm seeing in very different dimensions.
And so yeah, there's the art of gathering, but it starts with gathering.
So you're right. I'm going to agree with the Mike who says we also don't want to get too caught up in this and not gather, but I'm also going to say the other Mike is right too.
You're both right. This is such a relief.
This is maybe the one time where you've been right twice while arguing against myself.
That's pretty spectacular.
A new definition of win-win.
Look, I think that it's so important that we gather.
And I do think that there is a hunger, CNN had an article by a reporter in the Daniel Mayerson called Gen Z and millennials are putting their own spin on book clubs.
But it talked about how book club event listings grew 24% in the US in 2023.
Wait, what do you mean by listings?
What is a listing on Eventbride or something?
It's a community thing where lots of people can come.
It's not just an exclusive.
My friends are getting together.
Oh, okay, okay, got it. And I think because a lot of other gatherings are maybe falling apart and other ways of getting together, people are looking for exactly what you're talking about, which is this connectivity.
And so he lists some really interesting kind of book clubs.
There are book clubs that are basically dating events disguised as book clubs.
It's like, hey, everybody read this book, but this is really a way to come potentially meet a partner.
There are book clubs held at breweries.
There are group runs. So it's exercise plus book club.
And I'm with you. I think so many of our societal problems can be solved by getting together more.
You know, there's that old axiom.
It's hard to hate up close.
And the more we meet and mingle and find connection with people who are different than we are, the more we'll find that we're actually not that different in the end.
I'll tell you something, Jason said to me just the other day, maybe it was two days ago.
And I don't know where this came from.
It was kind of one of those like out of the blue remarks.
He said, you know, if I were single again, I kind of wanted to know where he was going there.
I was like, yes. You're like, hold on, buddy.
Hold on. And you were saying he was like, if I were single again, I think I would want to meet people who listen to No Stupid Questions.
Wow. And I was like, what do you mean?
He's like, your listeners, because sometimes I see people on the street and then they tell me they listen to our conversations.
And then we often get into a conversation of our own.
He was like, they're smart.
They're curious. They're open-minded.
They're generally empathic people.
That's why they like to listen about human behavior and psychology and emotion.
I don't know. I just think it would not be the worst dating pool to be in.
So I love the very idea of gathering.
We are in a deficit of in-person gathering.
I love the idea of raising it to a fine art.
And honestly, if one of the principles of gatherings is exclusivity, I can't think of a better place to begin than NSQ listeners themselves.
I could not agree more. I was at our recent Qualtrics conference and had the opportunity to meet a whole bunch of amazing NSQ listeners.
And I was really grateful to be able to gather with them.
And my main thought was we've got a figure at a time in the future where we can gather our listeners all in one place.
And so maybe that's our art of gathering.
I think we're going to need a table that seats more than eight.
I think so. And now here's a fact check of today's conversation.
Mike suggests that Swedish writer Friedrich Bachmann's 2012 novel, A Man Called Uwe, was adjusted to a man called Otto in the American movie adaptation because of the American tendency to mispronounce the protagonist's name.
In fact, the movie transplants the events of the book from a Swedish village to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where the Scandinavian name Uwe would be out of place.
Also, Angela recalls a piece of advice about the ideal number of attendees for a dinner party.
No more than six, no fewer than five, but she can't remember where she heard the recommendation.
While we couldn't locate the origin of this specific quote, in her 1949 collection of essays and alphabet four gourmets, food writer MFK Fisher writes that the ideal dinner party should consist of six people.
Although Fisher writes, no two of them should be so much in love as to bore the others.
However, if you want everyone to be involved in the conversation, fewer invitees might be better.
The 2019 paper published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior concluded that people find it difficult to sustain a single casual conversation that involves more than four speakers.
That's it for the fact check.
Before we wrap today's show, let's hear some thoughts about last week's episode on what it means to be cool.
Hi, this is Lynn in Central Florida.
I remember in high school focusing on Tara, who was the epitome of cool, fun's level cool, and just really analyzing what made her so.
And what I came to the conclusion was she was just very comfortable in her own skin.
If she tripped over her feet, she didn't look for an invisible bump in the rug.
She just owned who she was and was authentically and proudly herself.
I've really tried to model that throughout my life.
Just being truly yourself, I think, really is the epitome of cool.
Thanks so much for the show.
Hello, Angela and Mike.
As a listener, old enough to have seen James Dean in rebel without a cause when it first came out, I've always known that the epitome of cool is wearing sunglasses at night.
As seen among iconic musicians like Miles Davis or Lighten and Hopkins or Bob Dylan.
I've tried numerous times to affect this look, but I've always failed.
I can't see anything with sunglasses at night.
I might as well walk around with a sleep mask on.
So I've learned from this that cool is not so easy to come by.
Either you got it or you ain't.
That was, respectively, listener Lynn McDemy and Bill Blank.
Thanks to them and to everyone who shared their stories with us.
And remember, we'd love to hear your thoughts on what makes a good gathering.
And the voice memo to NSQ at Freakonomics.com.
And you might hear your voice on the show.
Coming up next week on No Stupid Questions, which is more important, sympathy or empathy.
I don't really know how much a person can truly empathize with another person.
Empathize, not sympathize, but empathize.
That's next week on No Stupid Questions.
No Stupid Questions is part of the Freakonomics Radio Network, which also includes Freakonomics Radio, People I Mostly Admire, and The Economics of Everyday Things.
All our shows are produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.
The senior producer of the show is me, Rebecca Lee Douglas, and Lear Faudage is our production associate.
This episode was mixed by Greg Ripon, with help from Jeremy Johnston, Melly Osborne, and Jasmine Klinger.
We had research assistants from Daniel Moritz-Frappson.
Our theme song was composed by Luis Garra.
You can follow us on Twitter, at NSQ, underscore show, and on Facebook, at NSQ Show.
If you have a question for a future episode, please email it to NSQ at Freakonomics.com.
To learn more or to read episode transcripts, visit Freakonomics.com slash NSQ.
Thanks for listening. It's always Mike's fault.
Bad, Michael. The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.
Stitcher.
