What exactly is going on in the brain when we let our opinions or decisions be swayed by others? Why are some people more likely to go along with the crowd than others? Where are we most susceptible to conforming? These are just some of the questions that led me to contact Dr. Vasily Klucharev, possibly the world’s leading neuroscientist studying conformity, or what he would label Social Influence.

If like me, you love to geek out on brain science, you are in for such a treat this week. What Dr. Vasily Klucharev shares is going to change how you think about your decision-making and the decisions made by those around you forever.

Listen in this week to hear the impact of social influence on decision-making and the importance of questioning your opinions and allowing them to be questioned by others. Learn why the more we can understand and unpack social influence, the cleaner our decisions and the more grounded our convictions become, and some powerful ways to think about social influence, conformity, and non-conformity.

To celebrate the launch of this show, I’m giving away a pair of AirPods Pro, a 6-month subscription to Audible, and a $50 Amazon gift card to some lucky listeners who follow, rate, review, and share the show. Click here to find out more about the contest and how to enter, I’ll be announcing the winners on an upcoming episode.

What You’ll Learn From This Episode:

• The only three things you need to focus on to have a successful business.

• Why, to understand our own decisions, we need to understand the decisions of others.

• The importance of knowing the why behind your decisions.

• What conformity and nonconformity are and the difference between the two.

• More about Dr. Klucharev’s ground-breaking experiments and what they revealed.

• The interesting chain of events that led Dr. Klucharev to this line of study.

Listen to the Full Episode:

Featured on the Show:

• Follow, rate, and review the podcast for a chance to win some great gifts. Click here to find out more!

• Click here to sign up for my newsletter and find out how the Connect The Dots Method has helped clients in all stages of their business.

• Dr. Vasily Klucharev: LinkedIn

• Influence, New and Expanded: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

• Digital Freedom Productions

Full Episode Transcript:

What exactly is going on in the brain when we let our opinions or decisions be swayed by the opinions of others? Why are some people more likely to go along with the crowd than others? And, where are we most susceptible to conforming? Those are just a few of the questions that led me to contact Dr. Vasily Klucharev, who's possibly the world's leading neuroscientist studying conformity, or what he would call social influence.

If you're like me, and love to geek out on brain science you are in for such a treat today, because he agreed to an interview. And, what he shares is going to forever change how you think about your decision making, and the decisions made by those around you. So, stick around.

You're listening to The Uncommon Way Business and Life Coaching Podcast, the only podcast that helps you unlock your next level in business and life, by prioritizing your clarity and your own Uncommon Way. You will learn to maximize your mindset, mission, messaging, and strategy in order to create a true legacy. Here's your host, top ranked business coach and reformed over analyzer turned queen of clarity, Jenna Harrison.

Jenna Harrison: Hey, welcome back to The Uncommon Way. I have such a special episode for you. Obviously, it's a fascinating subject, and it's such a gift to be able to learn about it directly from such a preeminent scientist. As an entrepreneur, you know that decisions are everything. And since you're drawn to doing things your own way, your own uncommon way, you're looking to make autonomous, conscious aligned decisions.

But you're also the kind of person that questions why you are the way you are. You know that sometimes your decisions aren't really your decisions, made from your highest most visionary place. They're someone else's, or something else's, like your biology or your triggers. The more we can understand and unpack all of that influence, the cleaner our decisions, and the more grounded our convictions become.

I mean, think about it, how can you build a business that's a true reflection of you, without getting to know you? That's why it's step one of the only three things you need to focus on for a successful business. Know yourself, know your people, talk about how those two connect. And, it's in that spirit of self-understanding that I am so excited to bring you this episode.

But the other reason this episode is special is because it has a personal significance for me. This was the first podcast episode I ever created. And guess what? We recorded it five years ago. I wanted to share that because I see too many content creators develop a short timer’s attitude. You think the worth of your content is determined by the likes or engagement it gets over the next 24-hour period.

It can feel really heavy when you're thinking that you're pouring love and effort into something short-lived, and you let that heaviness hold you back from sharing your ideas more. But what if you believe that your content was definitely going to land with someone. You just might not know when; it could be right away.

But what if the work you're creating now is going to resonate with someone a year from now, when you repurpose or retool or even flat out recycle that exact post? If that's an exciting thought, I have an upcoming episode on content resurrection that you've got to check out. So, make sure to click follow or that little plus sign on your podcast player so you don't miss it.

Okay, before we dive into the interview, I really want to say thank you to those of you that have supported what we're doing here, by sharing this podcast, downloading episodes, and leaving a review. You have the ability to brighten someone's day by getting this uncommon way of thinking, about business and life, into their hands or ears, I guess. And, we do that by getting noticed by the algorithms during these critical first couple of weeks. It's a very special opportunity in time, to get in front of people that might otherwise take years to find us. So, thank you.

And if you haven't had a chance to leave a review yet, that's okay. You still can do so, and then possibly win a pair of AirPods Pro™, a six-month subscription to Audible®, and a $50 Amazon.com Gift Card™. Listen up later in this episode for how to enter to win.

Okay, now back to our interview. In this episode, we talk first about the interesting chain of events that led Dr. Klucharev to this line of study. And then, he'll offer some powerful ways to think about conformity and nonconformity. And about 10 minutes in, we dive into his groundbreaking experiments and what they revealed.

And then in the end, we move on to what that means for the future. What deserves to be studied next? And, would it ever be possible to lessen or intensify a person's ‘give a shit’ factor? It is such a good conversation. And it's just the beginning, we would love to have him back for a five-year update. So, take note of any questions that come up for you, and then pop them into your podcast review, so I can make sure to cover them in our next episode.

And now, I hope you enjoy this conversation with Dr. Vasily Klucharev, preeminent neuroscientist and the head of the Department of Psychology at the Higher School of Economics, National Research University in Moscow.

Dr. Klucharev, thank you so much for being here with us. There are so many interesting things about your research and the studies, but let's start off with; I know that it was not heavily researched, a heavily researched topic, so I'm really fascinated about how you became interested in it.

Dr. Vasily Klucharev: Actually, I think I got interested in this topic by an accident. So basically, 20 years ago, I investigated neurobiological mechanisms of emotions. And I conducted my studies in St. Petersburg, in Russia, in my home country. I read the book on social psychology, and this is the best-selling book of [Robert] Cialdini on social influence. I was fascinated by social psychology.

And for a neurobiologist, it was a shock to discover how much we’re influenced by others. Because in classical neuroscience, we kind of ignore this fact that our decisions and our behavior is very much affected by others and modulated by others. And it was a very new idea for me, that to understand our decisions we have to understand also decisions of others, or at least take into account social influence.

Twenty years ago, I had no idea how to investigate neurobiological mechanisms, social events; no tools. Actually, also by an accident, 15 years ago, a new field of neuroscience was established, so called neuroeconomics, and in neurobiology of social influence. This field is trying to create an interdisciplinary model of decision-making.

Neuroeconomics is very much affected by social psychology, by behavioral economics, and by neuroscience. Neuroeconomics is a kind of a theory of decision-making. This new theory, or this new field, gave me a tool to study social influence. So basically, my idea was to investigate how social agents manipulate this decision-making mechanism, affect this decision-making mechanism. It helps to understand the neurobiological mechanisms urging conformity in some.

And actually, 15 years ago, I joined the new laboratory in Netherlands. And it was an interesting laboratory, established by the Department of Neuroscience and by the Department of Marketing. They were interested, actually, in my topic in neurobiology of social influence. At that time, I think only a couple of laps in the world were interested in this topic.

Jenna: It's just a beautiful irony that you are studying nonconformity, and at the same time, you are a nonconformist. Because there weren't too many people studying this. So, were you like that growing up? Would you say you were a bit nonconformist?

Dr. Klucharev: So, I would say I would be careful with the label nonconformist. I think an ultimate nonconformist is a very unique and annoying person; a person who doesn't follow any norm. So, I would say in some context, I am nonconformist. Perhaps when I deal with my personal values and scientific interest.

In some contexts, I like norms. For example, I like norms during conversations, communication. I am annoyed by non-polite communication. In this sense, I'm kind of a conformist. I like the social mores. But as this regards my personal values and scientific interest, yes, I am kind of a non-conformist, because it was actually quite difficult to push this line of research. Not many people understood it.

For neuroscientists, it was a relatively new idea that others do affect our brain activity and decision-making. For social psychologists it was also a bit of a strange line because they couldn't understand the added value of neurobiology. Why should you get some neurobiological mechanisms of explaining this series? I think it took a lot of time to overcome this skepticism of the community.

And to be honest, actually, social influence also helped us a lot, because one of our early studies was published on the cover page of a very popular journal, it was kind of a social influence in the scientific community. Actually, it effected a lot of people.

Jenna: So, would you say that you could describe this conformity, human conformity, as a spectrum? Because I agree that there certainly, on one end, an antisocial behavior that could even be pathological, right? On the other hand, there's a situation where you have an individual that's so conformist, that even though their deep underlying values are urging them in a different direction, they refuse to follow that, whatever that is; that drive.

Dr. Klucharev: Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, to be honest, we don't fully understand the neurobiological reasons of individual differences and in formatives. So, I think it's also important to mention that conformity is not something negative. Conformity is a cheap way to learn from the behavior of others.

So, evolutionarily speaking, this is a very good strategy. We shouldn't try everything ourselves. It's enough to look at what others are doing. Most of the time, particularly the constant environment, it works very well. Medical models show that the community can face some problems when the environment changes. In this case, very strong conformity can actually destroy them as a community, because social norms will drive us in the wrong direction.

But normally, conformity is a good way to learn many things. And it looks like we have some natural, individual differences in the levels of conformity. And to be honest, we don't still understand the reasons. So, we have some hints why do people differ. They have subtleties, for example, they show even a difference in core cortical structure of people who are more nonconformist, as compared to conformists. But we still don't understand the reasons why do we have this variety of conformism analysis?

Jenna: Interesting. So, in terms of your own social influence, are there any things you can pinpoint in your environment that made you who you are, in terms of a scientist?

Dr. Klucharev: I lived in a very, in a way, a strange and unique environment, because I entered university during a collapse of Soviet Union. And it was an interesting moment of a kind of freedom, and a completely new experience. We were able to read new books, we discovered free speech, freedom of journalism. I would say, of course, many people leave during that time.

I think also in my family, and actually my father and mother were scientists; they were physicists. So, in a way they also tried to discover new things. I don't think that something really unique happened in my life that drive me to be a nonconformist.

I was very much affected by my scientific supervisor. She was very talented lady, unfortunately, she’s dead now. But for example, she told me a lot about new developments in neuroscience. She believed the future of neuroscience is related to interdisciplinary research. She particularly, actually, mentioned social neuroscience; that in the future, neuroscientists should take into account social interactions.

So, I would say maybe things could affect me, but I don't think there is a particular event or factor that could predict my research; I wouldn’t say so.

Jenna: They're all fascinating stories though, for sure.

When Dr. Klucharev was preparing to set up his now famous first experiment, there wasn't much precedent. It wasn't until he was in the middle of the project that he came across a couple of articles by Gregory Berns and Read Montague, and realized he wasn't alone in his interest.

What he had hypothesized was that the brain monitors our behavior and the behavior of others. And, when there's a deviation from the group norm, it produces a kind of signal, an error signal. It's a warning that something has gone wrong, that a prediction or expectation was not met.

He knew he’d be able to verify his hypothesis by monitoring the brains of his subjects with Magnetic Resonance Imaging, because that type of error signal had already been studied extensively for other behaviors. And lastly, they also thought that perhaps, the stronger that error activity was, the higher the probability that the subject would then change his or her opinion, in order to conform with others.

I'll let the doctor tell you about how they set up that experiment and what they found.

Dr. Klucharev: We just knew the regions of interest. This is the medial prefrontal cortex, and also so called, nucleus accumbens, and also ventral striatum, are the two related brain regions. They're both involved in the learning and error monitoring.

We exposed our subjects to the opinions of others. I can say a few words about our paradigm. I think we were lucky to create a very simple paradigm, but later it was used by other groups a lot. So, our subjects rated facial attractiveness of more than 200 faces. Subjects had to rate attractiveness on the scale of say, from 1 to 7. And at the end of each trial, our subject was exposed to the opinion of the group.

It was an average opinion of more than 100 students from the same university. In fact, actually, we manipulated this group opinion. Sometimes the group had the same opinion as our subject, and sometimes their opinion was different. We were able to compare brain responses to those two situations; when your opinion matches others and when your opinion mis-matches others. And we discovered that indeed, there is a conflict of opinions as this error-related activity is elevated. In next studies, we proved this discovery using other techniques.

Jenna: So, how were you actually able to manipulate their decision about whether to conform with a group?

Dr. Klucharev: Okay, this is kind of next study, because with different neuroimaging tools, you can answer very different questions. So, with fMRI, you cannot really show like a causal relationship between the brain activity and the behavior of yourself. So, you don't know whether this activity’s necessary for conformity.

To prove that, you have to use a different technique. In our study, we use Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. So, with this device, Transcranial Magnetic stimulator, you can temporarily shut-down a brain region. So, by an alternative magnetic field, you can disturb activity for 10-20 minutes in a small region of the brain. So, we focus Transcranial Magnetic stimulator on this medial prefrontal cortex, and we temporarily suppressed activity in this region. And, what we showed is that it will lead it to the less conformative. So, our subjects became kind of nonconformist for 20 minutes.

Jenna: So, so interesting.

Dr. Klucharev: Basically, it shows the causal relationship between this neural mechanism and conformity. Some other groups later used other techniques, they manipulated - they gave some education [inaudible] to those subjects and also changed conformity of subjects, as well, using our teams.

Yes, a very interesting experiment was conducted in Denmark, because this brain region is rich of chemical called dopamine. So, you can manipulate the amount of dopamine in the brain, by some chemicals. And in that study, our Danish colleagues, they gave a drug that increases the amount of dopamine temporally, in the brain. And they showed that subjects became more conformist.

So, vices, drugs pick-up increased activity in this brain region. So, kind of like we have increased this error signal, indicating that you're different from others, and people started to change opinion more. Altogether, we got a lot of kind of support for our hypothesis; this particular brain region is involved and confirmed.

Jenna: Yeah, yeah. So, what are you interested in for the future, in this topic? What needs to be studied?

Dr. Klucharev: I think that many things are interesting. So first of all, many of my students asked me, “Okay, you investigated conformance, but do you know something about nonconformist? And to be honest, non-conformists are not very well investigated.

One interesting topic would be to investigate action non-conformist? Who are these people? Why are they different from majority of people? Another, actually, fundamental question is yeah; what are the major factors making people conformist? Is conformism based on our genotype, on social environment, on our childhood? To be honest, our field is missing this information. So, these factors have been studied by social psychology but not by cognitive neuroscience.

Also, it will be very interesting to investigate the influence of minorities, and then, how the minority is able to affect the majority. Of course, most of our studies focus on majority and how majority influences are working. But on the same time, we know that minority can also affect majority. And this is still a puzzling question. And then, how the majority is able to overcome the influence of… What kind of minority is able to overcome the influence of the majority?

Jenna: Oh, I love it. I love it. We'll have to keep up with your work.

Dr. Klucharev: Thank you so much.

Jenna: Are you aware of any corollary tendencies yet, with nonconformists? Other things that they're more likely to do?

Dr. Klucharev: There is some literature in social psychology on nonconformance. So, there are some psychological factors affecting the behavior. I remember one study, conducted in Japan, that investigated the difference in brain structure of conformists and nonconformists.

They actually investigated an interesting kind of… Portrayed a need for uniqueness. So, some people have a strong need for uniqueness; they actually would like to be different. And this interesting study actually showed that there was a difference in some brain structures, in people who have a strong tendency to be unique. And particularly this brain area, medial prefrontal cortex, is thinner.

So, you can speculate that perhaps these people experience a lessened error related signal when there’s a difference from others. But this is pure speculation. So, to be honest, nonconformists are not very well investigated. So, we have to, because there are not so many.

Jenna: And perhaps more difficult to identify, because there is this range that we talked about. So, you mentioned pharmacology, as a potential modulator of behavior with conformity and nonconformity. What are some of the other ways? I know you've talked about, in prior interviews, maybe looking for behavioral techniques that would affect that activity. Can you speak about that?

Dr. Klucharev: I think there are basically two ways to create these techniques. One can be like neuroscience [inaudible]. We actually tried to create something like that, it's not easy. I think we’re in the middle of this process. I think it will take time before we will create some techniques, based on our knowledge of neurobiological mechanisms, to come forward. We have some ideas. But to be honest, we are just testing these approaches right now.

There are some more classical ways to do it. In social psychology there are some ways to help people to prevent social influence. Something really simple for example, you can get a warning signal that you will discuss a certain subject. And in this case, you will be able to come up with some contrivance in advance and actually help.

Anyway, social influence is very strong, normally. In some cases, it could help you; a simple warning signal. Some techniques, based on so called inoculation theory, suggests that you can kind of, you can learn how to generate counterevidence.

So, for example, before social influence, you can get a very weak argument as that can be easily destroyed. And it will help you to practice, a bit, how to generate counterevidence. So, it's kind of inoculation technique, you can practice a bit, how to deal with social influence.

Actually, the same theory suggests that some kind of a tree of facts can be very much affected by social influence. It can be easily destroyed, because some facts that you've never criticized in your life, can be actually easily modulated by social agents. Like, to brush your teeth in the morning, you don't have a strong experience of criticizing this.

Actually, studies show that these kinds of beliefs are easily manipulated, because you never generated arguments supporting these ideas. On the other hand, this technique allows you to practice the generation of arguments supporting your [inaudible]. So, there are some kinds of basic mechanisms, including, for example, a training to say no, to refuse. It's particularly important for, let's say, alcohol consumption or for drug addictions, when teenagers, for example, have to say no.

And the rest of them, I would say, contradictory studies and results, it looks like some techniques are effective, some are not effective. I don't think there is a consensus on the effectiveness of the techniques. But it looks like, in some cases, you can help with this.

I would say that social psychology gives us right now, much more tools to resist social influence. Even though we have to take into account, that social influence is extremely automatic. And we basically never pay attention to social influence. Many studies shows that people just ignore the fact that they're affected by others. And this is the last reason for people to explain their decisions. Even many studies show that this is the most influential factor affecting our decision.

I think that some studies on alcohol consumption, on energy conservation, shows that with decisions, they're determined, fully determined by social norms, by behavior of neighbors, by behavior of our friends. And if you will ask people, they would never name this factor as a critical factor for your decisions.

So, I think that's the most important points that we basically never recognize socially. Yeah. Even enough education warning about social [inaudible], I think would help.

Jenna: Yes. Definitely. And then, the two ideas for the behavioral modification that I heard you say; one would be repetition. So over time, then we become less affected perhaps by this prediction error. If we get into the habit of purposely choosing to say no, or purposely choosing to go against the majority.

Dr. Klucharev: Yes, this is true. Yeah. But that's driven by this idea of neurobiological findings. This is true. So, habits are particularly resistant to change. To any change but particularly [inaudible].

Jenna: And then, I also heard that there might be some influence just of using logic. So, you mentioned building up an argument and taking time to work through the argument yourself, might help modulate your behavior over time.

Dr. Klucharev: Another point here, is that basically what do we see in our neurobiological studies is that this error signal, neurobiological error signal is a very automatic process. And. it's kind of a really fast response of our brain. So, you see the signal within 20 milliseconds after you detect that your opinion is different from others. And, this is a really fast process.

So, theoretically, that's one way to overcome it, is to delay your response and switch on other decision-making mechanisms of brain. So, to put it simple, we simplify of course, now, the neurobiological story, but we have multiple decision-making systems in the brain. Some people would call it system one, system two, emotional system, rational system.

Emotional decision-making system is really fast, but sometimes makes a lot of mistakes. Rational system is slower, and it can modulate the activity of the emotional system. So, I would say, in a particular situation, you can avoid some decisions imposed by social influence by delaying the decision, and switching on your rational decision-making system. Loading from your memory, whatever, from other sources and additional information. And you can treat the situation in a more rational way.

So, you have to remember that your initial fast response, your brain will need a very fast learning signal that will modulate your opinion. So, you can overcome it by kind of, if you will be able, by delaying your decision.

Jenna: Is there anything else that you think we should have covered, or that you'd like our audience to understand or know more fully?

Dr. Klucharev: I can just say a couple of words about our kind of recent version of the neurobiological mechanism, kind of informative. We call it sometimes, like a prediction error mechanism of social influence. And prediction error is an idea from computational neuroscience, from neuroeconomics, that basically suggests that each moment, during each decision, we generate some expectations of outcomes of our decisions.

So, it always generates expectations, and we compare the result of our decisions with expectations. And, whenever the outcome of the decision is different from your expectations, the brain generates a so called prediction error signal. It basically indicates that you have to change something in your behavior, in order to collect things expected out. If prediction error signal is zero, it means everything is okay, you shouldn’t change your decision.

So nowadays, we basically say that our brain, during our behavior, predicts that our decisions should match our group decisions. And, whenever our opinion or the outcome of our decision is different from norms, this learning signal is generated by the brain. So, whenever you read in my studies, like a prediction error mechanism, this is a kind of a basic learning mechanism, suggested by computational neuroscience, that change our behavior.

So, I'd say nowadays, I state our hypothesis in a bit more complicated way than we initially stated. That's basically it.

Jenna: Okay, fantastic. And so, you know, that just makes me wonder if a person has a tendency to be more nonconformist, and to assume, set their expectation that they are unique or different, like you mentioned in that Japanese study. I wonder if they exhibit an error signal when they realize that their opinion goes along with the general population, the majority?

Dr. Klucharev: Indeed, at least, what we do see in our studies and some of the previous studies, is they have a less error signal when they are different from the group. Actually, there was a very interesting study conducted by Keise Izuma in the States.

He asked people to, I think, rate t-shirts or something like this. Sometimes they were exposed to the opinion of their in-group, to the opinion of students, I think, from Caltech or something like that. And sometimes they were exposed to the opinion of out-group, and they were like criminals.

And, what he found is that this error signal is emitted when your opinion is different from the opinion of the in-group and when your opinion matches, so this error signal is context dependent. So, a brain likes to be similar to the out-group and doesn't like to be similar to the out-group.

So, for our brain, it is kind of mismatch when we're similar with out-group. It's a very context dependent, and so it looks like it can be that it causes nonconformist. The thing behaves differently from conformist. They present basically, that it's an error to be similar. In contrast to this.

Jenna: Interesting. Makes sense. Makes sense. Okay, Doctor, thank you so much for speaking with us.

Dr. Klucharev: Thank you very much.

Jenna: All right. I hope you loved hearing about these groundbreaking experiments and the nonconformist visionary who created them. It's sobering to know that conformity is one of the foremost reasons for our decisions, and yet we rarely recognize it's even happening.

But I think it's worth reiterating how Dr. Klucharev said that one of the most effective means of lessening that inclination to conform, is to prepare in advance, by coming up with our counter arguments. So, if we take the time to ground into our values and opinions, to know the why behind our decisions, we're less likely to be swayed. We're less likely to change everything because some coach or consultant suggests we should, or some shiny object happens to float across our feet.

I'll give you a very recent personal example. Preparing this podcast, I hired a top-notch team to help me. We're talking professional graphic designers, illustrators, sound editors, music editors, voiceover artists, producers and more. And, it has been amazing. Listening to this beautiful audio and watching everything come together feels like a total makeover.

I told my newsletter subscribers that I feel like Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada, after Stanley Tucci worked his magic. So, a little plug for the crew at Digital Freedom Productions because they are fantastic. But an earlier me would have been very swayed by all of their opinions. They do, after all, know more about podcasting than I do. And they have a clear track record of success.

But because I've done the work of knowing myself and my people, it was very easy for me to say, “No, that professional headshot is not right for the cover art. It's not going to capture the attention of my kind of people, in the way that a less perfect but more evocative image will. And that copy, that is really appealing, but it won't call in my ideal clients.” So, I need to create the copy because nobody knows them better than me.

Just watching myself with all these industry pros and how decisive I am about what works and doesn't work for my business, was the best part of all in the pre-launch process. It illustrated so perfectly, why I'm creating this podcast. I want you to have that same sense of certainty and control.

Now, another insight that Dr. Klucharev shared is that questioning your opinions and allowing them to be questioned by others, is actually how you come to better understand them and solidify them. You're more likely to change an unquestioned belief like; you should brush your teeth twice a day, then you are to change something you've repeatedly questioned. Which I find so ironic, because we spend so much of our lives hiding our truths away from others, and often even from ourselves.

We think we're keeping them safe, but actually we make them more vulnerable to getting swept aside. Are you ready to change that? Then, go do your thing. Turn left, if you want to turn left, even if it seems like someone else is turning right. Share your opinions because they're just as valid as the broader group, which is primarily made up of people who are just conforming to the group themselves.

And look, when I say this to you, I'm saying it to me, as well. We all need to be reminded. Maybe you're putting out your first social media posts. Or maybe you're like me, and you've been in business for years, and you're fully comfortable speaking your mind in your own circles. But now you're doing something new, like stepping onto a stage or writing a book, or launching a podcast.

But from now on, thanks to Dr. Klucharev, whenever you get the nudge to conform, you can just reassure yourself, “Oh, there's that prediction error firing in my brain again, that's all. I know what's going on. And, I have some remedies.”

So, my friend, if you want a place where you can start unpacking what you really believe and who you really are, and then use that to transform your business and the way you show up in it, then you've got to join us in the Clarity Accelerator. There's no other place like it.

Alright, my friends, that's it for today. And remember, on a certain level, you know who you are. And every day, you're stepping further into what you're here to create.

Hey, to celebrate the launch of the show, I'm going to be giving away three really great prizes, a pair of AirPods Pro™, a six-month subscription to Audible®, and a $50 Amazon.com Gift Card™. I'll be giving these away to some lucky listeners who follow rate, review and share the show.

Here's why your help is essential. I need to know what resonated with you and what you're still curious about so I can create the most high value content for you. I don't want to create what other people want. I want to create what you want. So, I need to hear from you.

And also, this work changes lives; it sure as hell changed mine. I am on a mission to get these episodes into the hands of everyone who needs it. Since this isn't your first rodeo, and you've listened to a podcast or two before, you know that follows, rates, reviews, and shares are how this new baby podcast will get seen and bumped up in search results.

Thank you for spreading the word. To learn more about the contest and how to enter to win the AirPods, the Audible subscription, or the gift card, just visit TheUncommonWay.com/podcast launch. I'll be announcing the winners on the show in an upcoming episode.

Thanks for joining us here at The Uncommon Way. If you want more tips and resources for developing clarity in your business and life, including the Clarity First Strategy for growing and scaling your business, visit TheUncommonWay.com. See you next time.

Enjoy the Show?

Don’t miss an episode, follow the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Stitcher.