Blog

  • From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    As a product builder over too many years to mention, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen promising ideas go from zero to hero in a few weeks, only to fizzle out within months.

    Financial products, which is the field I work in, are no exception. With people’s real hard-earned money on the line, user expectations running high, and a crowded market, it’s tempting to throw as many features at the wall as possible and hope something sticks. But this approach is a recipe for disaster. Here’s why:

    The pitfalls of feature-first development

    When you start building a financial product from the ground up, or are migrating existing customer journeys from paper or telephony channels onto online banking or mobile apps, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of creating new features. You might think, “If I can just add one more thing that solves this particular user problem, they’ll love me!” But what happens when you inevitably hit a roadblock because the narcs (your security team!) don’t like it? When a hard-fought feature isn’t as popular as you thought, or it breaks due to unforeseen complexity?

    This is where the concept of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) comes in. Jason Fried’s book Getting Real and his podcast Rework often touch on this idea, even if he doesn’t always call it that. An MVP is a product that provides just enough value to your users to keep them engaged, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming or difficult to maintain. It sounds like an easy concept but it requires a razor sharp eye, a ruthless edge and having the courage to stick by your opinion because it is easy to be seduced by “the Columbo Effect”… when there’s always “just one more thing…” that someone wants to add.

    The problem with most finance apps, however, is that they often become a reflection of the internal politics of the business rather than an experience solely designed around the customer. This means that the focus is on delivering as many features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the needs and desires of competing internal departments, rather than providing a clear value proposition that is focused on what the people out there in the real world want. As a result, these products can very easily bloat to become a mixed bag of confusing, unrelated and ultimately unlovable customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

    The importance of bedrock

    So what’s a better approach? How can we build products that are stable, user-friendly, and—most importantly—stick?

    That’s where the concept of “bedrock” comes in. Bedrock is the core element of your product that truly matters to users. It’s the fundamental building block that provides value and stays relevant over time.

    In the world of retail banking, which is where I work, the bedrock has got to be in and around the regular servicing journeys. People open their current account once in a blue moon but they look at it every day. They sign up for a credit card every year or two, but they check their balance and pay their bill at least once a month.

    Identifying the core tasks that people want to do and then relentlessly striving to make them easy to do, dependable, and trustworthy is where the gravy’s at.

    But how do you get to bedrock? By focusing on the “MVP” approach, prioritizing simplicity, and iterating towards a clear value proposition. This means cutting out unnecessary features and focusing on delivering real value to your users.

    It also means having some guts, because your colleagues might not always instantly share your vision to start with. And controversially, sometimes it can even mean making it clear to customers that you’re not going to come to their house and make their dinner. The occasional “opinionated user interface design” (i.e. clunky workaround for edge cases) might sometimes be what you need to use to test a concept or buy you space to work on something more important.

    Practical strategies for building financial products that stick

    So what are the key strategies I’ve learned from my own experience and research?

    1. Start with a clear “why”: What problem are you trying to solve? For whom? Make sure your mission is crystal clear before building anything. Make sure it aligns with your company’s objectives, too.
    2. Focus on a single, core feature and obsess on getting that right before moving on to something else: Resist the temptation to add too many features at once. Instead, choose one that delivers real value and iterate from there.
    3. Prioritize simplicity over complexity: Less is often more when it comes to financial products. Cut out unnecessary bells and whistles and keep the focus on what matters most.
    4. Embrace continuous iteration: Bedrock isn’t a fixed destination—it’s a dynamic process. Continuously gather user feedback, refine your product, and iterate towards that bedrock state.
    5. Stop, look and listen: Don’t just test your product as part of your delivery process—test it repeatedly in the field. Use it yourself. Run A/B tests. Gather user feedback. Talk to people who use it, and refine accordingly.

    The bedrock paradox

    There’s an interesting paradox at play here: building towards bedrock means sacrificing some short-term growth potential in favour of long-term stability. But the payoff is worth it—products built with a focus on bedrock will outlast and outperform their competitors, and deliver sustained value to users over time.

    So, how do you start your journey towards bedrock? Take it one step at a time. Start by identifying those core elements that truly matter to your users. Focus on building and refining a single, powerful feature that delivers real value. And above all, test obsessively—for, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker (whomever you believe!!), “The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

  • An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    Picture this: You’re in a meeting room at your tech company, and two people are having what looks like the same conversation about the same design problem. One is talking about whether the team has the right skills to tackle it. The other is diving deep into whether the solution actually solves the user’s problem. Same room, same problem, completely different lenses.

    This is the beautiful, sometimes messy reality of having both a Design Manager and a Lead Designer on the same team. And if you’re wondering how to make this work without creating confusion, overlap, or the dreaded “too many cooks” scenario, you’re asking the right question.

    The traditional answer has been to draw clean lines on an org chart. The Design Manager handles people, the Lead Designer handles craft. Problem solved, right? Except clean org charts are fantasy. In reality, both roles care deeply about team health, design quality, and shipping great work. 

    The magic happens when you embrace the overlap instead of fighting it—when you start thinking of your design org as a design organism.

    The Anatomy of a Healthy Design Team

    Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both sides of this equation: think of your design team as a living organism. The Design Manager tends to the mind (the psychological safety, the career growth, the team dynamics). The Lead Designer tends to the body (the craft skills, the design standards, the hands-on work that ships to users).

    But just like mind and body aren’t completely separate systems, so, too, do these roles overlap in important ways. You can’t have a healthy person without both working in harmony. The trick is knowing where those overlaps are and how to navigate them gracefully.

    When we look at how healthy teams actually function, three critical systems emerge. Each requires both roles to work together, but with one taking primary responsibility for keeping that system strong.

    The Nervous System: People & Psychology

    Primary caretaker: Design Manager
    Supporting role: Lead Designer

    The nervous system is all about signals, feedback, and psychological safety. When this system is healthy, information flows freely, people feel safe to take risks, and the team can adapt quickly to new challenges.

    The Design Manager is the primary caretaker here. They’re monitoring the team’s psychological pulse, ensuring feedback loops are healthy, and creating the conditions for people to grow. They’re hosting career conversations, managing workload, and making sure no one burns out.

    But the Lead Designer plays a crucial supporting role. They’re providing sensory input about craft development needs, spotting when someone’s design skills are stagnating, and helping identify growth opportunities that the Design Manager might miss.

    Design Manager tends to:

    • Career conversations and growth planning
    • Team psychological safety and dynamics
    • Workload management and resource allocation
    • Performance reviews and feedback systems
    • Creating learning opportunities

    Lead Designer supports by:

    • Providing craft-specific feedback on team member development
    • Identifying design skill gaps and growth opportunities
    • Offering design mentorship and guidance
    • Signaling when team members are ready for more complex challenges

    The Muscular System: Craft & Execution

    Primary caretaker: Lead Designer
    Supporting role: Design Manager

    The muscular system is about strength, coordination, and skill development. When this system is healthy, the team can execute complex design work with precision, maintain consistent quality, and adapt their craft to new challenges.

    The Lead Designer is the primary caretaker here. They’re setting design standards, providing craft coaching, and ensuring that shipping work meets the quality bar. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

    But the Design Manager plays a crucial supporting role. They’re ensuring the team has the resources and support to do their best craft work, like proper nutrition and recovery time for an athlete.

    Lead Designer tends to:

    • Definition of design standards and system usage
    • Feedback on what design work meets the standard
    • Experience direction for the product
    • Design decisions and product-wide alignment
    • Innovation and craft advancement

    Design Manager supports by:

    • Ensuring design standards are understood and adopted across the team
    • Confirming experience direction is being followed
    • Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
    • Facilitating design alignment across teams
    • Providing resources and removing obstacles to great craft work

    The Circulatory System: Strategy & Flow

    Shared caretakers: Both Design Manager and Lead Designer

    The circulatory system is about how information, decisions, and energy flow through the team. When this system is healthy, strategic direction is clear, priorities are aligned, and the team can respond quickly to new opportunities or challenges.

    This is where true partnership happens. Both roles are responsible for keeping the circulation strong, but they’re bringing different perspectives to the table.

    Lead Designer contributes:

    • User needs are met by the product
    • Overall product quality and experience
    • Strategic design initiatives
    • Research-based user needs for each initiative

    Design Manager contributes:

    • Communication to team and stakeholders
    • Stakeholder management and alignment
    • Cross-functional team accountability
    • Strategic business initiatives

    Both collaborate on:

    • Co-creation of strategy with leadership
    • Team goals and prioritization approach
    • Organizational structure decisions
    • Success measures and frameworks

    Keeping the Organism Healthy

    The key to making this partnership sing is understanding that all three systems need to work together. A team with great craft skills but poor psychological safety will burn out. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team with both but poor strategic circulation will work hard on the wrong things.

    Be Explicit About Which System You’re Tending

    When you’re in a meeting about a design problem, it helps to acknowledge which system you’re primarily focused on. “I’m thinking about this from a team capacity perspective” (nervous system) or “I’m looking at this through the lens of user needs” (muscular system) gives everyone context for your input.

    This isn’t about staying in your lane. It’s about being transparent as to which lens you’re using, so the other person knows how to best add their perspective.

    Create Healthy Feedback Loops

    The most successful partnerships I’ve seen establish clear feedback loops between the systems:

    Nervous system signals to muscular system: “The team is struggling with confidence in their design skills” → Lead Designer provides more craft coaching and clearer standards.

    Muscular system signals to nervous system: “The team’s craft skills are advancing faster than their project complexity” → Design Manager finds more challenging growth opportunities.

    Both systems signal to circulatory system: “We’re seeing patterns in team health and craft development that suggest we need to adjust our strategic priorities.”

    Handle Handoffs Gracefully

    The most critical moments in this partnership are when something moves from one system to another. This might be when a design standard (muscular system) needs to be rolled out across the team (nervous system), or when a strategic initiative (circulatory system) needs specific craft execution (muscular system).

    Make these transitions explicit. “I’ve defined the new component standards. Can you help me think through how to get the team up to speed?” or “We’ve agreed on this strategic direction. I’m going to focus on the specific user experience approach from here.”

    Stay Curious, Not Territorial

    The Design Manager who never thinks about craft, or the Lead Designer who never considers team dynamics, is like a doctor who only looks at one body system. Great design leadership requires both people to care about the whole organism, even when they’re not the primary caretaker.

    This means asking questions rather than making assumptions. “What do you think about the team’s craft development in this area?” or “How do you see this impacting team morale and workload?” keeps both perspectives active in every decision.

    When the Organism Gets Sick

    Even with clear roles, this partnership can go sideways. Here are the most common failure modes I’ve seen:

    System Isolation

    The Design Manager focuses only on the nervous system and ignores craft development. The Lead Designer focuses only on the muscular system and ignores team dynamics. Both people retreat to their comfort zones and stop collaborating.

    The symptoms: Team members get mixed messages, work quality suffers, morale drops.

    The treatment: Reconnect around shared outcomes. What are you both trying to achieve? Usually it’s great design work that ships on time from a healthy team. Figure out how both systems serve that goal.

    Poor Circulation

    Strategic direction is unclear, priorities keep shifting, and neither role is taking responsibility for keeping information flowing.

    The symptoms: Team members are confused about priorities, work gets duplicated or dropped, deadlines are missed.

    The treatment: Explicitly assign responsibility for circulation. Who’s communicating what to whom? How often? What’s the feedback loop?

    Autoimmune Response

    One person feels threatened by the other’s expertise. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Lead Designer thinks the Design Manager doesn’t understand craft.

    The symptoms: Defensive behavior, territorial disputes, team members caught in the middle.

    The treatment: Remember that you’re both caretakers of the same organism. When one system fails, the whole team suffers. When both systems are healthy, the team thrives.

    The Payoff

    Yes, this model requires more communication. Yes, it requires both people to be secure enough to share responsibility for team health. But the payoff is worth it: better decisions, stronger teams, and design work that’s both excellent and sustainable.

    When both roles are healthy and working well together, you get the best of both worlds: deep craft expertise and strong people leadership. When one person is out sick, on vacation, or overwhelmed, the other can help maintain the team’s health. When a decision requires both the people perspective and the craft perspective, you’ve got both right there in the room.

    Most importantly, the framework scales. As your team grows, you can apply the same system thinking to new challenges. Need to launch a design system? Lead Designer tends to the muscular system (standards and implementation), Design Manager tends to the nervous system (team adoption and change management), and both tend to circulation (communication and stakeholder alignment).

    The Bottom Line

    The relationship between a Design Manager and Lead Designer isn’t about dividing territories. It’s about multiplying impact. When both roles understand they’re tending to different aspects of the same healthy organism, magic happens.

    The mind and body work together. The team gets both the strategic thinking and the craft excellence they need. And most importantly, the work that ships to users benefits from both perspectives.

    So the next time you’re in that meeting room, wondering why two people are talking about the same problem from different angles, remember: you’re watching shared leadership in action. And if it’s working well, both the mind and body of your design team are getting stronger.

  • Design Dialects: Breaking the Rules, Not the System

    Design Dialects: Breaking the Rules, Not the System

    “Language is not merely a set of unrelated sounds, clauses, rules, and meanings; it is a totally coherent system bound to context and behavior.” — Kenneth L. Pike

    The web has accents. So should our design systems.

    Design Systems as Living Languages

    Design systems aren’t component libraries—they’re living languages. Tokens are phonemes, components are words, patterns are phrases, layouts are sentences. The conversations we build with users become the stories our products tell.

    But here’s what we’ve forgotten: the more fluently a language is spoken, the more accents it can support without losing meaning. English in Scotland differs from English in Sydney, yet both are unmistakably English. The language adapts to context while preserving core meaning. This couldn’t be more obvious to me, a Brazilian Portuguese speaker, who learned English with an American accent, and lives in Sydney.

    Our design systems must work the same way. Rigid adherence to visual rules creates brittle systems that break under contextual pressure. Fluent systems bend without breaking.

    Consistency becomes a prison

    The promise of design systems was simple: consistent components would accelerate development and unify experiences. But as systems matured and products grew more complex, that promise has become a prison. Teams file “exception” requests by the hundreds. Products launch with workarounds instead of system components. Designers spend more time defending consistency than solving user problems.

    Our design systems must learn to speak dialects.

    A design dialect is a systematic adaptation of a design system that maintains core principles while developing new patterns for specific contexts. Unlike one-off customizations or brand themes, dialects preserve the system’s essential grammar while expanding its vocabulary to serve different users, environments, or constraints.

    When Perfect Consistency Fails

    At Booking.com, I learned this lesson the hard way. We A/B-tested everything—color, copy, button shapes, even logo colors. As a professional with a graphic design education and experience building brand style guides, I found this shocking. While everyone fell in love with Airbnb’s pristine design system, Booking grew into a giant without ever considering visual consistency.  

    The chaos taught me something profound: consistency isn’t ROI; solved problems are.

    At Shopify. Polaris () was our crown jewel—a mature design language perfect for merchants on laptops. As a product team, we were expected to adopt Polaris as-is. Then my fulfillment team hit an “Oh, Ship!” moment, as we faced the challenge of building an app for warehouse pickers using our interface on shared, battered Android scanners in dim aisles, wearing thick gloves, scanning dozens of items per minute, many with limited levels of English understanding.

    Task completion with standard Polaris: 0%.

    Every component that worked beautifully for merchants failed completely for pickers. White backgrounds created glare. 44px tap targets were invisible to gloved fingers. Sentence-case labels took too long to parse. Multi-step flows confused non-native speakers.

    We faced a choice: abandon Polaris entirely, or teach it to speak warehouse.

    The Birth of a Dialect

    We chose evolution over revolution. Working within Polaris’s core principles—clarity, efficiency, consistency—we developed what we now call a design dialect:

    ConstraintFluent MoveRationale
    Glare & low lightDark surfaces + light textReduce glare on low-DPI screens
    Gloves & haste90px tap targets (~2cm)Accommodate thick gloves
    MultilingualSingle-task screens, plain languageReduce cognitive load

    Result: Task completion jumped from 0% to 100%. Onboarding time dropped from three weeks to one shift.

    This wasn’t customization or theming—this was a dialect: a systematic adaptation that maintained Polaris’s core grammar while developing new vocabulary for a specific context. Polaris hadn’t failed; it had learned to speak warehouse.

    The Flexibility Framework

    At Atlassian, working on the Jira platform—itself a system within the larger Atlassian system—I pushed for formalizing this insight. With dozens of products sharing a design language across different codebases, we needed systematic flexibility so we built directly into our ways of working. The old model—exception requests and special approvals—was failing at scale.

    We developed the Flexibility Framework to help designers define how flexible they wanted their components to be:

    TierActionOwnership
    ConsistentAdopt unchangedPlatform locks design + code
    OpinionatedAdapt within boundsPlatform provides smart defaults, products customize
    FlexibleExtend freelyPlatform defines behavior, products own presentation

    During a navigation redesign, we tiered every element. Logo and global search stayed Consistent. Breadcrumbs and contextual actions became Flexible. Product teams could immediately see where innovation was welcome and where consistency mattered.

    The Decision Ladder

    Flexibility needs boundaries. We created a simple ladder for evaluating when rules should bend:

    Good: Ship with existing system components. Fast, consistent, proven.

    Better: Stretch a component slightly. Document the change. Contribute improvements back to the system for all to use.

    Best: Prototype the ideal experience first. If user testing validates the benefit, update the system to support it.

    The key question: “Which option lets users succeed fastest?”

    Rules are tools, not relics.

    Unity Beats Uniformity

    Gmail, Drive, and Maps are unmistakably Google—yet each speaks with its own accent. They achieve unity through shared principles, not cloned components. One extra week of debate over button color costs roughly $30K in engineer time.

    Unity is a brand outcome; fluency is a user outcome. When the two clash, side with the user.

    Governance Without Gates

    How do you maintain coherence while enabling dialects? Treat your system like a living vocabulary:

    Document every deviation – e.g., dialects/warehouse.md with before/after screenshots and rationale.

    Promote shared patterns – when three teams adopt a dialect independently, review it for core inclusion.

    Deprecate with context – retire old idioms via flags and migration notes, never a big-bang purge.

    A living dictionary scales better than a frozen rulebook.

    Start Small: Your First Dialect

    Ready to introduce dialects? Start with one broken experience:

    This week: Find one user flow where perfect consistency blocks task completion. Could be mobile users struggling with desktop-sized components, or accessibility needs your standard patterns don’t address.

    Document the context: What makes standard patterns fail here? Environmental constraints? User capabilities? Task urgency?

    Design one systematic change: Focus on behavior over aesthetics. If gloves are the problem, bigger targets aren’t “”breaking the system””—they’re serving the user. Earn the variations and make them intentional.

    Test and measure: Does the change improve task completion? Time to productivity? User satisfaction?

    Show the savings: If that dialect frees even half a sprint, fluency has paid for itself.

    Beyond the Component Library

    We’re not managing design systems anymore—we’re cultivating design languages. Languages that grow with their speakers. Languages that develop accents without losing meaning. Languages that serve human needs over aesthetic ideals.

    The warehouse workers who went from 0% to 100% task completion didn’t care that our buttons broke the style guide. They cared that the buttons finally worked.

    Your users feel the same way. Give your system permission to speak their language.

  • Design for Amiability: Lessons from Vienna

    Design for Amiability: Lessons from Vienna

    Today’s web is not always an amiable place. Sites greet you with a popover that demands assent to their cookie policy, and leave you with Taboola ads promising “One Weird Trick!” to cure your ailments. Social media sites are tuned for engagement, and few things are more engaging than a fight. Today it seems that people want to quarrel; I have seen flame wars among birders.  

    These tensions are often at odds with a site’s goals. If we are providing support and advice to customers, we don’t want those customers to wrangle with each other. If we offer news about the latest research, we want readers to feel at ease; if we promote upcoming marches, we want our core supporters to feel comfortable and we want curious newcomers to feel welcome. 

    In a study for a conference on the History of the Web, I looked to the origins of Computer Science in Vienna (1928-1934)  for a case study of the importance of amiability in a research community and the disastrous consequences of its loss. That story has interesting implications for web environments that promote amiable interaction among disparate, difficult (and sometimes disagreeable) people.

    The Vienna Circle

    Though people had been thinking about calculating engines and thinking machines from antiquity, Computing really got going in Depression-era Vienna.  The people who worked out the theory had no interest in building machines; they wanted to puzzle out the limits of reason in the absence of divine authority. If we could not rely on God or Aristotle to tell us how to think, could we instead build arguments that were self-contained and demonstrably correct? Can we be sure that mathematics is consistent? Are there things that are true but that cannot be expressed in language? 

    The core ideas were worked out in the weekly meetings (Thursdays at 6) of a group remembered as the Vienna Circle. They got together in the office of Professor Moritz Schlick at the University of Vienna to discuss problems in philosophy, math, and language. The intersection of physics and philosophy had long been a specialty of this Vienna department, and this work had placed them among the world leaders.  Schlick’s colleague Hans Hahn was a central participant, and by 1928 Hahn brought along his graduate students Karl Menger and Kurt Gödel. Other frequent participants included philosopher Rudolf Carnap, psychologist Karl Popper, economist Ludwig von Mises (brought by his brother Frederick, a physicist),  graphic designer Otto Neurath (inventor of infographics), and architect Josef Frank (brought by his physicist brother, Phillip).  Out-of-town visitors often joined, including the young Johnny von Neumann, Alfred Tarski, and the irascible Ludwig Wittgenstein. 

    When Schlick’s office grew too dim, participants adjourned to a nearby café for additional discussion with an even larger circle of participants.  This convivial circle was far from unique.  An intersecting circle–Neurath, von Mises, Oskar Morgenstern–established the Austrian School of free-market economics. There were theatrical circles (Peter Lorre, Hedy Lamarr, Max Reinhardt), and literary circles. The café was where things happened.

    The interdisciplinarity of the group posed real challenges of temperament and understanding. Personalities were often a challenge. Gödel was convinced people were trying to poison him. Architect Josef Frank depended on contracts for public housing, which Mises opposed as wasteful. Wittgenstein’s temper had lost him his job as a secondary school teacher, and for some of these years he maintained a detailed list of whom he was willing to meet. Neurath was eager to detect muddled thinking and would interrupt a speaker with a shouted “Metaphysics!” The continuing amity of these meetings was facilitated by the personality of their leader, Moritz Schlick, who would be remembered as notably adept in keeping disagreements from becoming quarrels.

    In the Café

    The Viennese café of this era was long remembered as a particularly good place to argue with your friends, to read, and to write. Built to serve an imperial capital, the cafés found themselves with too much space and too few customers now that the Empire was gone. There was no need to turn tables: a café could only survive by coaxing customers to linger. Perhaps they would order another coffee, or one of their friends might drop by. One could play chess, or billiards, or read newspapers from abroad. Coffee was invariably served with a glass of purified spring water, still a novelty in an era in which most water was still unsafe to drink. That water glass would be refilled indefinitely. 

    In the basement of one café, the poet Jura Soyfer staged “The End Of The World,” a musical comedy in which Professor Peep has discovered a comet heading for earth.

    Prof. Peep: The comet is going to destroy everybody!

    Hitler:  Destroying everybody is my business.

    Of course, coffee can be prepared in many ways, and the Viennese café developed a broad vocabulary to represent precisely how one preferred to drink it: melange, Einspänner, Brauner, Schwarzer, Kapuziner. This extensive customization, with correspondingly esoteric conventions of service, established the café as a comfortable and personal third space, a neutral ground in which anyone who could afford a coffee would be welcome. Viennese of this era were fastidious in their use of personal titles, of which an abundance were in common use. Café waiters greeted regular customers with titles too, but were careful to address their patrons with titles a notch or two greater than they deserved. A graduate student would be Doktor, an unpaid postdoc Professor.  This assurance mattered all the more because so many members of the Circle (and so many other Viennese) came from elsewhere: Carnap from Wuppertal, Gödel from Brno, von Neumann from Budapest. No one was going to make fun of your clothes, mannerisms, or accent. Your friends wouldn’t be bothered by the pram in the hall. Everyone shared a Germanic Austrian literary and philosophical culture, not least those whose ancestors had been Eastern European Jews who knew that culture well, having read all about it in books.

    The amiability of the café circle was enhanced by its openness. Because the circle sometimes extended to architects and actors, people could feel less constrained to admit shortfalls in their understanding. It was soon discovered that marble tabletops made a useful surface for pencil sketches, serving all as an improvised and accessible blackboard.

    Comedies like “The End Of The World” and fictional newspaper sketches or feuilletons of writers like Joseph Roth and Stefan Zweig served as a second defense against disagreeable or churlish behavior. The knowledge that, if one got carried away, a parody of one’s remarks might shortly appear in Neue Freie Presse surely helped Professor Schlick keep matters in hand.

    The End Of Red Vienna

    Though Austria’s government drifted to the right after the War, Vienna’s city council had been Socialist, dedicated to public housing based on user-centered design, and embracing  ambitious programs of public outreach and adult education. In 1934 the Socialists lost a local election, and this era soon came to its end as the new administration focused on the imagined threat of the International Jewish Conspiracy. Most members of the Circle fled within months: von Neumann to Princeton, Neurath to Holland and Oxford, Popper to New Zealand, Carnap to Chicago. Prof. Schlick was murdered on the steps of the University by a student outraged by his former association with Jews.  Jura Soyfer, who wrote “The End Of The World,” died in Buchenwald.

    In 1939, von Neumann finally convinced Gödel to accept a job in Princeton. Gödel was required to pay large fines to emigrate. The officer in charge of these fees would look back on this as the best posting of his career; his name was Eichmann.

    Design for Amiability

    An impressive literature recounts those discussions and the environment that facilitated the development of computing. How can we design for amiability?  This is not just a matter of choosing rounded typefaces and a cheerful pastel palette. I believe we may identify eight distinct issues that exert design forces in usefully amiable directions.

    Seriousness: The Vienna Circle was wrestling with a notoriously difficult book—Wittgenstein’s Tractus Logico-Philosophicus—and a catalog of outstanding open questions in mathematics. They were concerned with consequential problems, not merely scoring points for debating. Constant reminders that the questions you are considering matter—not only that they are consequential or that those opposing you are scoundrels—help promote amity.

    Empiricism: The characteristic approach of the Vienna Circle demanded that knowledge be grounded either in direct observation or in rigorous reasoning. Disagreement, when it arose, could be settled by observation or by proof. If neither seemed ready to hand, the matter could not be settled. On these terms, one can seldom if ever demolish an opposing argument, and trolling is pointless.

    Abstraction: Disputes grow worse when losing the argument entails lost face or lost jobs. The Vienna Circle’s focus on theory—the limits of mathematics, the capability of language—promoted amity. Without seriousness, abstraction could have been merely academic, but the limits of reason and the consistency of mathematics were clearly serious.

    Formality: The punctilious demeanor of waiters and the elaborated rituals of coffee service helped to establish orderly attitudes amongst the argumentative participants. This stands in contrast to the contemptuous sneer that now dominates social media.  

    Schlamperei: Members of the Vienna Circle maintained a global correspondence, and they knew their work was at the frontier of research. Still, this was Vienna, at the margins of Europe: old-fashioned, frumpy, and dingy. Many participants came from even more obscure backwaters. Most or all harbored the suspicion that they were really schleppers, and a tinge of the ridiculous helped to moderate tempers. The director of “The End Of The World” had to pass the hat for money to purchase a moon for the set, and thought it was funny enough to write up for publication.

    Openness: All sorts of people were involved in discussion, anyone might join in. Each week would bring different participants. Fluid borders reduce tension, and provide opportunities to broaden the range of discussion and the terms of engagement. Low entrance friction was characteristic of the café: anyone could come, and if you came twice you were virtually a regular. Permeable boundaries and café culture made it easier for moderating influences to draw in raconteurs and storytellers to defuse awkward moments, and Vienna’s cafés had no shortage of humorists. Openness counteracts the suspicion that promoters of amiability are exerting censorship.

    Parody: The environs of the Circle—the university office and the café—were unmistakably public. There were writers about, some of them renowned humorists. The prospect that one’s bad taste or bad behavior might be ridiculed in print kept discussion within bounds. The sanction of public humiliation, however, was itself made mild by the veneer of fiction; even if you got a little carried away and a character based on you made a splash in some newspaper fiction, it wasn’t the end of the world.

    Engagement: The subject matter was important to the participants, but it was esoteric: it did not matter very much to their mothers or their siblings. A small stumble or a minor humiliation could be shrugged off in ways that major media confrontations cannot.

    I believe it is notable that this environment was designed to promote amiability through several different voices.  The café waiter flattered each newcomer and served everyone, and also kept out local pickpockets and drunks who would be mere disruptions. Schlick and other regulars kept discussion moving and on track. The fiction writers and raconteurs—perhaps the most peripheral of the participants—kept people in a good mood and reminded them that bad behavior could make anyone ridiculous.  Crucially, each of these voices were human: you could reason with them. Algorithmic or AI moderators, however clever, are seldom perceived as reasonable. The café circles had no central authority or Moderator against whom everyone’s resentments might be focused. Even after the disaster of 1934, what people remembered were those cheerful arguments.

  • Marketing Chaos Ends With a Real System

    Marketing Chaos Ends With a Real System

    Marketing Chaos Ends With a Real System written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Catch the full episode: Episode Overview In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, host John Jantsch and Sara Nay, CEO of Duct Tape Marketing and author of Unchained: Breaking Free from Broken Marketing Models, discuss why traditional marketing feels chaotic and how installing a structured marketing operating system can drive clarity, consistency, accountability, […]

    Why Goals Fail and How to Change the Odds written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Catch the full episode:

     

    Episode Overview

    In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, host John Jantsch sits down with award-winning strategy consultant, speaker, and author Kyle Austin Young to explore his decision-making and goal-achievement framework called probability hacking. Kyle explains why traditional goal pursuits rooted in hustle, mindset, and positive thinking fall short and how identifying and solving for potential risks can dramatically shift your odds of success.

    Guest Bio

    Kyle Austin Young is a strategy consultant, speaker, and writer helping high achievers accomplish meaningful goals through his probability hacking framework. He’s been featured in top publications and is the author of Success Is a Numbers Game: Achieve Bigger Goals by Changing the Odds.

    Key Takeaways

    • Probability over Mindset: Success isn’t just about positivity—it’s about improving your odds.
    • Probability Hacking Framework: Define goals, identify prerequisites, anticipate what could go wrong, and solve creatively.
    • Success Diagrams: Visual tools to map out and de-risk goal pathways.
    • Multiplying Probabilities: Understand true odds by combining variables—not averaging them.
    • Resilience & Repetition: Trying multiple times can dramatically increase your likelihood of success.
    • Mindset Shift: Think negative—not to be pessimistic, but to preemptively solve issues.

    Notable Moments (Time‑Stamped)

    • 00:01 – Introduction of Kyle Austin Young and today’s topic
    • 00:59 – Odds vs. mindset in goal-setting
    • 04:15 – Kyle’s story of landing a high-stakes job at age 21
    • 07:04 – Breakdown of the success diagram framework
    • 09:19 – Why averaging leads to false confidence
    • 11:57 – Miracle on Ice and the math of multiple attempts
    • 14:32 – Getting started with probability thinking
    • 15:41 – The four paths to success explained
    • 17:47 – Edison and the role of experimentation in resilience
    • 19:54 – Where to find Kyle and his book

    Quotes

    “What’s going to have to go right? And what could go wrong? That’s where your opportunity to change the odds lives.” — Kyle Austin Young

    “Success is really about identifying what could derail you and finding creative ways to make those outcomes less likely.” — Kyle Austin Young

    Connect with Kyle Austin Young

     

    John Jantsch (00:01.218)

    Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch. My guest today is Kyle Austin Young. He’s an award winning strategy consultant, speaker and writer who helps leaders, entrepreneurs and high achievers accomplish big, meaningful goals. His work centers on a unique decision-making and goal achievement framework that he calls probability hacking, a method designed to analyze and intentionally improve the odds of success in any pursuit. We’re going to talk about his newest book.

    Success is a numbers game. Achieve bigger goals by changing the odds. So Kyle, welcome to the show.

    Kyle Austin Young (00:37.348)

    Thank you for having me. Honored to be here.

    John Jantsch (00:39.278)

    So I’m going to start with the premise that I’m sure you, I won’t be the first person to ask this question. I think a lot of times when people talk about goals, they think about hustle or mindset or heck even luck. You are saying it’s more about odds. What’s different in that shift?

    Kyle Austin Young (00:59.15)

    Yeah, let me give you sort of an example. Let’s say that we’ve set the goal of training to run a marathon. Let’s say that’s something that we’ve decided we want to accomplish and we hire a running coach and she says, I can get you ready in time, but you’re gonna have to do three things. I need you to eat, sleep, and train according to some specific regimens that I’m gonna create for you.

    John Jantsch (01:02.872)

    me

    John Jantsch (01:14.829)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (01:16.334)

    So let’s say that we know that one of these prerequisites is we’re to have to train according to some certain parameters. And so we identify some of the things that could go wrong, some of the things that might happen instead of what we want. And maybe we identify bad weather as something that could derail a training regimen. I’m currently preparing for a big wintery snowstorm. Let’s say that we identify injury as a potential risk, or maybe we identify that our kids might have a crisis that could overwhelm our schedule. So the question that I like to ask people is,

    tell me how wanting to run a marathon is an antidote to any of those threats to our success. How does wanting to run a marathon change the weather? How does wanting to run a marathon prevent injury? How does wanting to run a marathon keep a crisis from happening in our kids’ lives? Certainly, we’re going to need a measure of commitment and hustle in order to be successful. But ultimately, what we’re going to really need is we need some creative solutions to the things that could keep us from getting what we want.

    So I believe that we can understand probabilities similar to the way we’ve traditionally understood matter. It can’t be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and rearranged. The odds of success, the odds that we want for our goal are currently hiding in our potential bad outcomes. When we identify what those things are and what we can do about them, we can tilt the odds in our favor.

    John Jantsch (02:30.488)

    So it’s all about quantum physics. Is that what you’re saying? So when you talk about moving matter around, was the first thought I had. Sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (02:33.54)

    Very little physics in the book. I don’t think I’ve ever taken a physics class.

    Kyle Austin Young (02:40.418)

    Well, I do think that there’s a lot of truth in the idea that a lot of people want to conjure good odds out of thin air. This idea that maybe I can wish myself into a better position. And I don’t think that’s true. I think that a lot of times when we’re pursuing a goal, we’re encouraged to think positive. Don’t worry about what could go wrong. If it’s meant to happen, it’ll happen. Just focus on the positive. I encourage people to do the exact opposite. I tell people to think negative. I tell people, for everything that has to go right in order for you to get what you want, identify the potential bad outcomes. Identify the things that could happen instead of what you want.

    John Jantsch (02:55.8)

    Thank

    Kyle Austin Young (03:09.464)

    and use your creativity to systematically de-risk your goals.

    John Jantsch (03:13.826)

    So in your bio, and I know in the book itself, you talk a lot about probability hacking. So let’s talk about what that is or how you define

    Kyle Austin Young (03:22.916)

    Yeah, I define probability hacking as doing exactly what we just did. It starts with getting an idea of what’s going to have to go right and then identifying what could go wrong and then looking for creative solutions. I’ll tell a different example. You know, when I first graduated from college, I wasn’t excited about the entry level positions that I was seeing. I wanted to try for something more ambitious. So I actually applied to become the product development director at a growing health organization. I was 21 years old. If hired, I was going to be managing people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, people with PhDs and master’s degrees.

    a crazy thing to do, but I got an interview and I wanted to make the most of it. So even at that time, I did what I essentially do now for a living. I created what I call a success diagram. I only needed to get a job offer at that point. That was the only step left, but I looked at what are the potential bad outcomes that could happen instead of me getting that job offer. And so I identified three. And so I’m giving this example. You kind of had the quantum physics concern because there’s no numbers here. I’m just going to show you how we can do this at a story level. One of the risks I identified was they might not hire me because of how young I looked.

    John Jantsch (04:15.054)

    Bye.

    Kyle Austin Young (04:21.54)

    I might walk in and they take one look and say, he can’t lead this team. So one of the very practical things I did to combat that is I just grew a beard. I still have the beard today. It was something that made me look about 10 years older than I was. And I knew that if I could do that, it would maybe take the edge off of that concern a little bit. A second bad outcome that I identified, a potential bad outcome rather, was there might be concerns over my lack of experience, which were valid. I didn’t have a deep resume. I had just graduated from college. So what I did was I couldn’t lie. I wasn’t going to

    John Jantsch (04:22.126)

    Right.

    Kyle Austin Young (04:49.54)

    pretend that I had experience I didn’t have, but I wanted to show the quality of my thinking. So I actually typed up a plan for how I was going to turn this department around. It was so thick, I had to have it spiral bound. It was a book. And every person I went to and interviewed with, I gave them a copy of it. And the goal was when they would ask me questions about my past, I would just redirect it to be a conversation about the future. What experience do you have with whatever the case might be, product development? Great question. Here’s my plan for product development. Let’s talk about the vision that I have for this role if I’m given the opportunity.

    The third potential bad outcome I identified was maybe they would be concerned that I couldn’t really get along with the existing team because there was just such a big generational gap. So I used a strategy that I’m still using today. It’s worked really well for me. I asked one of the people in the organization if the product development team had read any books recently as a group. She listed a few titles, I think it was three or four, and I went out and read every single one of them. And what that did is it gave me the ability to have conversations with the team that no other applicant could have. I understood their goals, I understood their jargon, I could make inside jokes.

    John Jantsch (05:25.538)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (05:48.56)

    There was a group interview where it was me and a bunch of people 20, 30 years older than me with a lot more experience trying to decide who was going to ultimately win the opportunity to lead this department. And one of the books that they read was called The Wuffy Factor. I don’t know if you remember that. was a book about how to, you remember the Wuffy? It was about how brands are in social capital. This was close to 15 years ago. And I remember being in that interview and I said, you know, I think this idea that we’re discussing could help us get a lot of Wuffy.

    John Jantsch (05:57.934)

    Right.

    I remember saying that, yeah, yeah.

    Kyle Austin Young (06:11.632)

    And I remember looking around and these other applicants, their eyes are bugging out of their heads. What on earth did he just say? You know, is he feeling, okay, what does he mean? We’re going to get a lot of wealthy out of this. But the existing team members, they were all laughing and nodding along. They knew exactly what I was talking about. We were reading the same books. So when all was said and done, I got that job. At 21 years old, I became the product development director for a health organization. It dramatically accelerated my career, but it started with this idea of probability hacking. It started with getting clear on what I wanted and getting clear on what was going to have to go right. Then thinking negatively,

    identifying the risks to my success and not resorting to desire as an antidote to uncertainty, but instead using my creativity to solve those problems.

    John Jantsch (06:49.006)

    So you gave very specific details and steps of what you did, but it sounded, it started to sound a bit like a framework, which I know you have in the book. So were those steps that you gave me a part of that framework? Do you want to outline what that framework is?

    Kyle Austin Young (07:04.41)

    Sure, I encourage people to start by creating what I call a success diagram. A success diagram is you write down what’s the goal, what do I want to accomplish? I do that at the top right of the page. And then to the left, I just try to list out everything that’s gonna have to go right in order for me to get what I want. So it might be run a marathon. And what I call critical points, the prerequisites to my success are eat according to the regimen my coach gives me, sleep according to the regimen she gives me, train according to the regimen she gives me. So now I have the path, I have the destination.

    And then for each one of those things that has to go right, I try to identify the potential bad outcomes. These aren’t just things that could go wrong, they’re alternate outcomes to success. Things that would be so significant they would completely derail the goal if any of them were to come true. After I have those mapped out, I try to just assign a level of risk to each of them. Is this a low risk potential bad outcome, a medium risk, a high risk, so they know how to prioritize? And then probability hacking again is using our creativity to try to find solutions to that. If I’m concerned about

    you know, inclement weather derailing my training routine, I might need a treadmill indoors or need to find some alternate exercises that can allow me to build my fitness on days when I can’t go for a run. If I’m concerned about scheduling issues, something happening at my kid’s school, then I might want to train first thing in the morning or I might want to buy an extra pair of running shoes to keep in the car so that I can train at a park if I need to, if my day gets derailed.

    John Jantsch (08:20.034)

    In a lot of ways, what I’m hearing you describe is, I mean, think there are a lot of people that have mapped out the plan to run the marathon. mean, you can buy books, entire books, will tell you exactly what to do on day one, day two. But what you’re saying a lot of people miss is integrating the whole, you know, of life. And I think in a lot of ways, you’re really just asking people to step back and you’re calling it what could go wrong. But what you’re really doing is saying, hey, you have to have a grasp of reality.

    Kyle Austin Young (08:31.29)

    Sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (08:49.764)

    I think you do have to have a grasp of reality. I think that when we consider these statistics that are floating around all the time, just how many people fail at their New Year’s resolutions, how this vast majority of mergers and acquisitions fail to create lasting value for shareholders, how many new businesses will ultimately fail in the first few years after their existence, we start to recognize that it’s because we haven’t stopped to consider the things that could go wrong. And I’ll demonstrate that with just a little bit of numbers. Let’s use that marathon example. There’s three things that have to go right. I need to eat, sleep, and train according to a certain regimen.

    John Jantsch (08:51.307)

    me

    John Jantsch (08:57.139)

    Mm-hmm. Right.

    John Jantsch (09:13.763)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (09:19.14)

    Well, let’s take some imaginary numbers and try to estimate how likely we are to accomplish each of those three things. Maybe we think it’s 70 % across the board. 70 % chance I’ll stick with the diet, 70 % chance I’ll sleep the way I’m supposed to, 70 % chance I’ll train the way I’m supposed to. What a lot of people do is they fall into a trap called averaging. If they feel good about the individual prerequisites, they feel good about the goal as a whole. That’s not actually logically sound, it’s not mathematically sound. What we have to do is multiply those numbers together to find our overall odds of success.

    John Jantsch (09:45.261)

    Yes.

    Kyle Austin Young (09:47.204)

    And if we do that, we find that even though we feel really good about each of these things, 70 % across the board, our overall odds of being ready on race day are only 34%. And that I believe explains a lot of the dysfunction in our world. Why are people failing at goals and wondering, how did this not go the way that I expected it to? I felt good about each individual step. Well, you averaged in your head. You didn’t take the time to understand what your overall odds were. And because of that, maybe you didn’t pay as much attention to your opportunity to change your odds as you could have. Maybe you didn’t get that grasp on reality exactly like what you said.

    John Jantsch (10:14.926)

    Thank

    Kyle Austin Young (10:16.27)

    and try to the odds in your favor.

    John Jantsch (10:18.766)

    Is there any, do you ever run the risk or do you find that people might, like if I sat down thought, oh, my odds of actually being prepared on race day is only in the 30 % range, is there any chance that I say, why bother?

    Kyle Austin Young (10:32.538)

    There could be, but if we’re taking the time to think negative and identify the bad outcomes that are dragging those odds down, then we can use our creativity and see if we can’t change those numbers, at least in how we understand them, to look like something that’s more optimistic. You if we are using our creativity to address the risk of bad weather when we need to train, or address the risk of injury, or address the risk of our schedule being sabotaged, then we can ultimately run the numbers again. And maybe by the time we’re done optimizing this plan,

    John Jantsch (10:33.902)

    Yeah

    Kyle Austin Young (10:59.812)

    we end up feeling like it’s 90 % across the board. That’s still not a 90 % chance of success, but I believe it’s in the 70s. It’s a lot better.

    John Jantsch (11:05.166)

    Yeah. So, so do you find that you have to help people reframe this idea of failure even?

    Kyle Austin Young (11:14.426)

    Give me an example of what you mean by that.

    John Jantsch (11:16.844)

    Well, I mean, in some ways you’re, as I listened to you talk about the steps, you’re, you’re, you’re not saying that’s failures of possibility, but that it’s part of the equation. and a lot of people, you know, would have, I think some people would, would struggle with that idea. I, I’m not saying what you’re talking about doesn’t make sense, but just the mindset that a lot of people have that might be hard to overcome.

    Kyle Austin Young (11:41.37)

    Sure.

    Absolutely. Failure is going to be part of the equation. One of the things that I encourage people to consider in the book is the power of multiple attempts. If you’re chasing a goal that’s really unlikely, often one of the most reliable ways to ultimately succeed is to try more than one time. I tell the story of the miracle on ice in the first chapter of the book. I got to interview Jack O’Callaghan who played on that 1980 hockey team that beat the Soviet Union. And a lot of people consider that a miracle. It’s been called the greatest sporting event of the 20th century, I believe, by Sports Illustrated.

    John Jantsch (11:57.518)

    Right.

    Kyle Austin Young (12:14.028)

    And as an individual event, it was really miraculous. But when you recognize that over the course of this Olympic rivalry, the United States played the Soviets nine times and won two, that’s not that remarkable. Winning two times out of nine isn’t unheard of. So was it surprising that they won the game they won? Sure. But the odds told us that we would expect them to win some games. And that’s ultimately what they did. And what’s interesting is when I interviewed Jack, he told me that in the locker room before they went out to take the ice for that game,

    John Jantsch (12:23.842)

    Mm-hmm. Right.

    John Jantsch (12:35.18)

    Yeah.

    Kyle Austin Young (12:42.244)

    Coach Herb Brooks gives this speech and there’s a movie about it and the movie has some quotes that are really powerful. What Jack told me is he said he doesn’t remember the exact words that were spoken. But he says he remembers that when he left the locker room, they’re trudging down to take the ice. He says he remembers leaving with the idea that his coach believed if we played them 10 times, they might beat us nine times, but they’re not going to beat us tonight. And so there was an expectation that failure was going to be a part of that, but they had an opportunity for tonight to be the exception. And ultimately it was.

    John Jantsch (13:10.446)

    I remember vividly watching that in my dorm room in college. does this, like a marathon I would call a long-term goal, particularly for somebody who hasn’t run one, right? They should start early, right? Can this be applied to short-term decisions as well?

    Kyle Austin Young (13:14.956)

    Amazing. I missed it by a few years, but I’m jealous.

    Kyle Austin Young (13:24.666)

    Sure. Sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (13:33.166)

    absolutely. You know, in the context of me trying to get that job, I just did this as I headed into an interview. It was going to all take place in a day. When we have something that needs to go right, one of the best things we can do to help it go right is think about what could go wrong. Ultimately, that’s what’s dragging our probability down. If you think about flipping a coin, let’s say you need it to land on heads, you have a 50 % chance of success. Why? Why don’t you have a 100 % chance of success? Well, because it might land on tails, and there’s a 50 % chance of that happening. Now, I don’t know how to rig a coin to make it…

    do what I want it to do. But in life, a lot of times we can rig it or we can re-rig it in our favor. We can try to take the risk out of the bad outcomes, bring those odds over to our side.

    John Jantsch (14:11.448)

    So if somebody hasn’t thought this way, what’s kind some of the first things you try to help people? And again, I don’t know if you actually consult on this or teach courses on this as well, but what are some of the first things you try to do to get people to start putting this way of thinking? Because I think a lot of times these things are just mindset. So what do you get them to start thinking this way? What are some of the first things?

    Kyle Austin Young (14:32.784)

    Well, in the book, I tell people that I think there are four paths to success. One of them is some people just get lucky. I tell the story of Norma Jean Doherty. She’s working at an aviation munitions factory in the war, and a photographer comes to take pictures for a military magazine to inspire the troops. He notices Norma Jean, thinks she’s really beautiful, says, can I take some pictures for you for magazines that don’t have anything to do with the military? And she said, sure. She ultimately finds a lot of success as a model and then goes on to star as an actress under the name Marilyn Monroe, has just this enormously successful career.

    That is certainly a success story. Is it a success story we should reverse engineer though? If I meet a young woman who’s coming to me for training or coaching rather, can you tell me what I can do to become a successful Hollywood star? Would I say, well, the first thing you need to do is get a job at an aviation munitions factory and hope that someday a military photographer stops by and notices how pretty you are and says, can I take some pictures of you? No, that probably wouldn’t be a very reliable path to success. So some people succeed through luck. They succeed even though the odds are bad, simply because we expect unlikely events to happen sometimes.

    Some people succeed, they don’t beat the odds, but they play them. We think about entrepreneurs, there are some really famous examples of people who heard that nine out of 10 businesses fail, and that was actually what inspired them to start 10 businesses or 15 businesses, was the belief that they were going to experience those predicted failures, but they would also experience the predicted successes. Some people succeed because they have advantages, they have areas of tremendous strength in their lives, and so they try to lean into those goals.

    John Jantsch (15:41.314)

    you

    Kyle Austin Young (15:54.084)

    That can often be something that’s really wise for us is asking the question, what are some goals that are pretty high probability goals for me right now that might bring bigger accomplishments within reach? One of the goals that I had for years was ultimately getting a book deal and hopefully getting a big advance and being able to publish that to a mass audience with a major publisher. At the time when I set that goal, it wasn’t really realistic for me, but I was able to pursue smaller goals that changed my odds. One of them was writing for major publications.

    John Jantsch (16:01.42)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (16:21.04)

    As you mentioned, I’ve written for sites like HBR, Fast Company, Psychology Today. But one of my favorite things and one of the reasons I was so excited to have the opportunity to come on is it’s an exciting full circle moment for me. When I first decided that I was going to try to write for some of these respected publications, get my voice out there and ultimately position myself for things like a book deal, the first site that took me was the Duct Tape Marketing Blog. It was in 2015. I remember I was in my grandmother’s house at the time. They were having a garage sale. I was helping out when I got the response. I couldn’t even tell you where I was sitting.

    John Jantsch (16:31.63)

    You

    John Jantsch (16:42.292)

    the

    Kyle Austin Young (16:49.742)

    and it was such an exciting thing. So it’s an honor to be with you here today. So that’s the third path of success is people making the most of areas where they have good odds. The fourth path is probability hacking, doing everything you can to tilt the odds in your favor.

    John Jantsch (16:50.286)

    you

    John Jantsch (17:01.006)

    So, you know, I was going to ask you about resilience. And then you kind of threw in that story about the entrepreneurs starting 10 businesses, but what, what connection do you think with the framework and just the whole mindset of resilience? What does it play?

    Kyle Austin Young (17:17.774)

    Well, it’s incredibly important if you’re going to especially be pursuing the path of repeated attempts. In the book, I tell the story of Thomas Edison. He’s in a race to try to get valuable patents surrounding the incandescent lamp. If he can get them, it’ll be something that’s transformational for his career. And what this race came down to is he and these other people were all trying to find a practical filament. They needed something that could glow hot enough to emit light without catching on fire and without snuffing out really quickly to the point where it wasn’t worth it. What Edison did that was different than these other people…

    John Jantsch (17:23.0)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (17:29.709)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (17:47.376)

    is he actually experimented with 6,000 different plant materials to find the one that worked best. He didn’t try to divine the right answer. He didn’t try to guess the right answer. The answer turned out to be, in his context, carbonized bamboo. And I don’t know about you. That would not have been my first guess. If you said, what are we going to use as a filament? I would have said, I bet it’s carbonized bamboo. That’s not where I would have started. It’s not where he started either. It took 6,000 attempts. But ultimately, he had a clear definition of success. He had a stopwatch, so to speak. And he was able to run more experiments than anyone else. And because of that,

    John Jantsch (17:54.144)

    Mm-hmm.

    John Jantsch (18:04.718)

    the

    Kyle Austin Young (18:15.364)

    he found these unlikely answers. so resilience is a big part of that. Some of it comes from, we need to be confident that there is going to be a best answer out there. And in his case, it wasn’t, you know, it was comparative. He could be confident that one option out of the 6,000 would be the best out of the 6,000. And he liked his chance of creating a great product with a wider net when it came to ultimately trying to find the best filament than he did with somebody who’s only trying two or three things.

    John Jantsch (18:27.982)

    Thanks.

    John Jantsch (18:41.526)

    Yeah, and there’s obviously, I don’t know that it’s all true, but you hear these stories that people would ask him, gosh, aren’t you tired of failing so much? He said, no, I just have one more thing out of the way that I know is not the answer.

    Kyle Austin Young (18:55.116)

    He has a quote attributed to him that’s, to have a great idea, have a lot of them. And I think it’s that exact same mentality. It’s not about being the smartest person in the room necessarily. A lot of times it’s being the most generative. It’s being the person who’s the most prolific and who ultimately uncovers that unlikely good idea.

    John Jantsch (18:58.936)

    Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

    John Jantsch (19:12.396)

    Yeah. And, and, you know, there’s, there’s certainly a mentality out there. People want to, you know, take the easy path, get rich quick, you know, be famous, all the things that, people aspire to. And I don’t, you know, the, people that really get there, you know, they just show up and do the work every day for a long time. Sometimes.

    Kyle Austin Young (19:29.614)

    Well, it’s one of the dangers of reverse engineering, like I mentioned, you know, the Marilyn Monroe story, we kind of chuckle at that, but I think we’re doing similar things in our daily lives. We’ll find somebody who started a successful organization and turns out he drives a blue convertible. So I should buy a blue convertible because clearly that’s got to be playing a role in his success. What if he just got lucky? I’m not saying that they did, but we need to be really careful about what we reverse engineer because just because someone is seeing good results doesn’t mean that they got there through good decisions.

    John Jantsch (19:31.874)

    Yeah, yeah.

    Right? Yeah.

    John Jantsch (19:46.924)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (19:54.646)

    Yeah. Well, and I think a lot of times we miss the 10 years before, before they blew up, right? Yeah, exactly. Well, Kyle, I appreciate you stopping by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Is there someplace you’d invite people to find out more about your work and to perhaps pick up success is a numbers game.

    Kyle Austin Young (19:58.778)

    Sure, yeah, that kind of quote that most overnight successes are 20 years in the making, sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (20:14.0)

    You can get a copy of the book pretty much anywhere, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, directly on the Penguin Random House website. Be honored if you did that. If you want to connect with me personally, I think we’ll probably put my website in the show notes, just kyleaustinyoung.com. But what I’d prefer you do, honestly, this was something that was just kind of an unexpected blessing of this journey, is I heard someone who was encouraging people to find them on LinkedIn, and I thought, that’s a strange thing to do. I’ll throw that idea out too. And that was many interviews ago, but it’s turned into one of just the best parts of this, is pretty much every day I wake up and someone has

    John Jantsch (20:25.134)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (20:43.118)

    sent me a message saying, I heard you here, I heard you there, can I ask you a question? It’s led to some really engaging conversations that I’ve really enjoyed, some fun opportunities for collaboration for me. So feel free to find me, Kyle Austin Young on LinkedIn. I’d love to hear from you.

    John Jantsch (20:45.1)

    Okay.

    John Jantsch (20:56.618)

    Awesome. Well, again, appreciate you stopping by and hopefully we’ll maybe we’ll run into one of these days out there on the road.

    Kyle Austin Young (21:02.16)

    That’d be great. Thanks.

    powered by

  • Why Goals Fail and How to Change the Odds

    Why Goals Fail and How to Change the Odds

    Why Goals Fail and How to Change the Odds written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Catch the full episode:   Episode Overview In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, host John Jantsch sits down with award-winning strategy consultant, speaker, and author Kyle Austin Young to explore his decision-making and goal-achievement framework called probability hacking. Kyle explains why traditional goal pursuits rooted in hustle, mindset, and positive thinking fall […]

    Why Goals Fail and How to Change the Odds written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Catch the full episode:

     

    Episode Overview

    In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, host John Jantsch sits down with award-winning strategy consultant, speaker, and author Kyle Austin Young to explore his decision-making and goal-achievement framework called probability hacking. Kyle explains why traditional goal pursuits rooted in hustle, mindset, and positive thinking fall short and how identifying and solving for potential risks can dramatically shift your odds of success.

    Guest Bio

    Kyle Austin Young is a strategy consultant, speaker, and writer helping high achievers accomplish meaningful goals through his probability hacking framework. He’s been featured in top publications and is the author of Success Is a Numbers Game: Achieve Bigger Goals by Changing the Odds.

    Key Takeaways

    • Probability over Mindset: Success isn’t just about positivity—it’s about improving your odds.
    • Probability Hacking Framework: Define goals, identify prerequisites, anticipate what could go wrong, and solve creatively.
    • Success Diagrams: Visual tools to map out and de-risk goal pathways.
    • Multiplying Probabilities: Understand true odds by combining variables—not averaging them.
    • Resilience & Repetition: Trying multiple times can dramatically increase your likelihood of success.
    • Mindset Shift: Think negative—not to be pessimistic, but to preemptively solve issues.

    Notable Moments (Time‑Stamped)

    • 00:01 – Introduction of Kyle Austin Young and today’s topic
    • 00:59 – Odds vs. mindset in goal-setting
    • 04:15 – Kyle’s story of landing a high-stakes job at age 21
    • 07:04 – Breakdown of the success diagram framework
    • 09:19 – Why averaging leads to false confidence
    • 11:57 – Miracle on Ice and the math of multiple attempts
    • 14:32 – Getting started with probability thinking
    • 15:41 – The four paths to success explained
    • 17:47 – Edison and the role of experimentation in resilience
    • 19:54 – Where to find Kyle and his book

    Quotes

    “What’s going to have to go right? And what could go wrong? That’s where your opportunity to change the odds lives.” — Kyle Austin Young

    “Success is really about identifying what could derail you and finding creative ways to make those outcomes less likely.” — Kyle Austin Young

    Connect with Kyle Austin Young

     

    John Jantsch (00:01.218)

    Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch. My guest today is Kyle Austin Young. He’s an award winning strategy consultant, speaker and writer who helps leaders, entrepreneurs and high achievers accomplish big, meaningful goals. His work centers on a unique decision-making and goal achievement framework that he calls probability hacking, a method designed to analyze and intentionally improve the odds of success in any pursuit. We’re going to talk about his newest book.

    Success is a numbers game. Achieve bigger goals by changing the odds. So Kyle, welcome to the show.

    Kyle Austin Young (00:37.348)

    Thank you for having me. Honored to be here.

    John Jantsch (00:39.278)

    So I’m going to start with the premise that I’m sure you, I won’t be the first person to ask this question. I think a lot of times when people talk about goals, they think about hustle or mindset or heck even luck. You are saying it’s more about odds. What’s different in that shift?

    Kyle Austin Young (00:59.15)

    Yeah, let me give you sort of an example. Let’s say that we’ve set the goal of training to run a marathon. Let’s say that’s something that we’ve decided we want to accomplish and we hire a running coach and she says, I can get you ready in time, but you’re gonna have to do three things. I need you to eat, sleep, and train according to some specific regimens that I’m gonna create for you.

    John Jantsch (01:02.872)

    me

    John Jantsch (01:14.829)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (01:16.334)

    So let’s say that we know that one of these prerequisites is we’re to have to train according to some certain parameters. And so we identify some of the things that could go wrong, some of the things that might happen instead of what we want. And maybe we identify bad weather as something that could derail a training regimen. I’m currently preparing for a big wintery snowstorm. Let’s say that we identify injury as a potential risk, or maybe we identify that our kids might have a crisis that could overwhelm our schedule. So the question that I like to ask people is,

    tell me how wanting to run a marathon is an antidote to any of those threats to our success. How does wanting to run a marathon change the weather? How does wanting to run a marathon prevent injury? How does wanting to run a marathon keep a crisis from happening in our kids’ lives? Certainly, we’re going to need a measure of commitment and hustle in order to be successful. But ultimately, what we’re going to really need is we need some creative solutions to the things that could keep us from getting what we want.

    So I believe that we can understand probabilities similar to the way we’ve traditionally understood matter. It can’t be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and rearranged. The odds of success, the odds that we want for our goal are currently hiding in our potential bad outcomes. When we identify what those things are and what we can do about them, we can tilt the odds in our favor.

    John Jantsch (02:30.488)

    So it’s all about quantum physics. Is that what you’re saying? So when you talk about moving matter around, was the first thought I had. Sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (02:33.54)

    Very little physics in the book. I don’t think I’ve ever taken a physics class.

    Kyle Austin Young (02:40.418)

    Well, I do think that there’s a lot of truth in the idea that a lot of people want to conjure good odds out of thin air. This idea that maybe I can wish myself into a better position. And I don’t think that’s true. I think that a lot of times when we’re pursuing a goal, we’re encouraged to think positive. Don’t worry about what could go wrong. If it’s meant to happen, it’ll happen. Just focus on the positive. I encourage people to do the exact opposite. I tell people to think negative. I tell people, for everything that has to go right in order for you to get what you want, identify the potential bad outcomes. Identify the things that could happen instead of what you want.

    John Jantsch (02:55.8)

    Thank

    Kyle Austin Young (03:09.464)

    and use your creativity to systematically de-risk your goals.

    John Jantsch (03:13.826)

    So in your bio, and I know in the book itself, you talk a lot about probability hacking. So let’s talk about what that is or how you define

    Kyle Austin Young (03:22.916)

    Yeah, I define probability hacking as doing exactly what we just did. It starts with getting an idea of what’s going to have to go right and then identifying what could go wrong and then looking for creative solutions. I’ll tell a different example. You know, when I first graduated from college, I wasn’t excited about the entry level positions that I was seeing. I wanted to try for something more ambitious. So I actually applied to become the product development director at a growing health organization. I was 21 years old. If hired, I was going to be managing people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, people with PhDs and master’s degrees.

    a crazy thing to do, but I got an interview and I wanted to make the most of it. So even at that time, I did what I essentially do now for a living. I created what I call a success diagram. I only needed to get a job offer at that point. That was the only step left, but I looked at what are the potential bad outcomes that could happen instead of me getting that job offer. And so I identified three. And so I’m giving this example. You kind of had the quantum physics concern because there’s no numbers here. I’m just going to show you how we can do this at a story level. One of the risks I identified was they might not hire me because of how young I looked.

    John Jantsch (04:15.054)

    Bye.

    Kyle Austin Young (04:21.54)

    I might walk in and they take one look and say, he can’t lead this team. So one of the very practical things I did to combat that is I just grew a beard. I still have the beard today. It was something that made me look about 10 years older than I was. And I knew that if I could do that, it would maybe take the edge off of that concern a little bit. A second bad outcome that I identified, a potential bad outcome rather, was there might be concerns over my lack of experience, which were valid. I didn’t have a deep resume. I had just graduated from college. So what I did was I couldn’t lie. I wasn’t going to

    John Jantsch (04:22.126)

    Right.

    Kyle Austin Young (04:49.54)

    pretend that I had experience I didn’t have, but I wanted to show the quality of my thinking. So I actually typed up a plan for how I was going to turn this department around. It was so thick, I had to have it spiral bound. It was a book. And every person I went to and interviewed with, I gave them a copy of it. And the goal was when they would ask me questions about my past, I would just redirect it to be a conversation about the future. What experience do you have with whatever the case might be, product development? Great question. Here’s my plan for product development. Let’s talk about the vision that I have for this role if I’m given the opportunity.

    The third potential bad outcome I identified was maybe they would be concerned that I couldn’t really get along with the existing team because there was just such a big generational gap. So I used a strategy that I’m still using today. It’s worked really well for me. I asked one of the people in the organization if the product development team had read any books recently as a group. She listed a few titles, I think it was three or four, and I went out and read every single one of them. And what that did is it gave me the ability to have conversations with the team that no other applicant could have. I understood their goals, I understood their jargon, I could make inside jokes.

    John Jantsch (05:25.538)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (05:48.56)

    There was a group interview where it was me and a bunch of people 20, 30 years older than me with a lot more experience trying to decide who was going to ultimately win the opportunity to lead this department. And one of the books that they read was called The Wuffy Factor. I don’t know if you remember that. was a book about how to, you remember the Wuffy? It was about how brands are in social capital. This was close to 15 years ago. And I remember being in that interview and I said, you know, I think this idea that we’re discussing could help us get a lot of Wuffy.

    John Jantsch (05:57.934)

    Right.

    I remember saying that, yeah, yeah.

    Kyle Austin Young (06:11.632)

    And I remember looking around and these other applicants, their eyes are bugging out of their heads. What on earth did he just say? You know, is he feeling, okay, what does he mean? We’re going to get a lot of wealthy out of this. But the existing team members, they were all laughing and nodding along. They knew exactly what I was talking about. We were reading the same books. So when all was said and done, I got that job. At 21 years old, I became the product development director for a health organization. It dramatically accelerated my career, but it started with this idea of probability hacking. It started with getting clear on what I wanted and getting clear on what was going to have to go right. Then thinking negatively,

    identifying the risks to my success and not resorting to desire as an antidote to uncertainty, but instead using my creativity to solve those problems.

    John Jantsch (06:49.006)

    So you gave very specific details and steps of what you did, but it sounded, it started to sound a bit like a framework, which I know you have in the book. So were those steps that you gave me a part of that framework? Do you want to outline what that framework is?

    Kyle Austin Young (07:04.41)

    Sure, I encourage people to start by creating what I call a success diagram. A success diagram is you write down what’s the goal, what do I want to accomplish? I do that at the top right of the page. And then to the left, I just try to list out everything that’s gonna have to go right in order for me to get what I want. So it might be run a marathon. And what I call critical points, the prerequisites to my success are eat according to the regimen my coach gives me, sleep according to the regimen she gives me, train according to the regimen she gives me. So now I have the path, I have the destination.

    And then for each one of those things that has to go right, I try to identify the potential bad outcomes. These aren’t just things that could go wrong, they’re alternate outcomes to success. Things that would be so significant they would completely derail the goal if any of them were to come true. After I have those mapped out, I try to just assign a level of risk to each of them. Is this a low risk potential bad outcome, a medium risk, a high risk, so they know how to prioritize? And then probability hacking again is using our creativity to try to find solutions to that. If I’m concerned about

    you know, inclement weather derailing my training routine, I might need a treadmill indoors or need to find some alternate exercises that can allow me to build my fitness on days when I can’t go for a run. If I’m concerned about scheduling issues, something happening at my kid’s school, then I might want to train first thing in the morning or I might want to buy an extra pair of running shoes to keep in the car so that I can train at a park if I need to, if my day gets derailed.

    John Jantsch (08:20.034)

    In a lot of ways, what I’m hearing you describe is, I mean, think there are a lot of people that have mapped out the plan to run the marathon. mean, you can buy books, entire books, will tell you exactly what to do on day one, day two. But what you’re saying a lot of people miss is integrating the whole, you know, of life. And I think in a lot of ways, you’re really just asking people to step back and you’re calling it what could go wrong. But what you’re really doing is saying, hey, you have to have a grasp of reality.

    Kyle Austin Young (08:31.29)

    Sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (08:49.764)

    I think you do have to have a grasp of reality. I think that when we consider these statistics that are floating around all the time, just how many people fail at their New Year’s resolutions, how this vast majority of mergers and acquisitions fail to create lasting value for shareholders, how many new businesses will ultimately fail in the first few years after their existence, we start to recognize that it’s because we haven’t stopped to consider the things that could go wrong. And I’ll demonstrate that with just a little bit of numbers. Let’s use that marathon example. There’s three things that have to go right. I need to eat, sleep, and train according to a certain regimen.

    John Jantsch (08:51.307)

    me

    John Jantsch (08:57.139)

    Mm-hmm. Right.

    John Jantsch (09:13.763)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (09:19.14)

    Well, let’s take some imaginary numbers and try to estimate how likely we are to accomplish each of those three things. Maybe we think it’s 70 % across the board. 70 % chance I’ll stick with the diet, 70 % chance I’ll sleep the way I’m supposed to, 70 % chance I’ll train the way I’m supposed to. What a lot of people do is they fall into a trap called averaging. If they feel good about the individual prerequisites, they feel good about the goal as a whole. That’s not actually logically sound, it’s not mathematically sound. What we have to do is multiply those numbers together to find our overall odds of success.

    John Jantsch (09:45.261)

    Yes.

    Kyle Austin Young (09:47.204)

    And if we do that, we find that even though we feel really good about each of these things, 70 % across the board, our overall odds of being ready on race day are only 34%. And that I believe explains a lot of the dysfunction in our world. Why are people failing at goals and wondering, how did this not go the way that I expected it to? I felt good about each individual step. Well, you averaged in your head. You didn’t take the time to understand what your overall odds were. And because of that, maybe you didn’t pay as much attention to your opportunity to change your odds as you could have. Maybe you didn’t get that grasp on reality exactly like what you said.

    John Jantsch (10:14.926)

    Thank

    Kyle Austin Young (10:16.27)

    and try to the odds in your favor.

    John Jantsch (10:18.766)

    Is there any, do you ever run the risk or do you find that people might, like if I sat down thought, oh, my odds of actually being prepared on race day is only in the 30 % range, is there any chance that I say, why bother?

    Kyle Austin Young (10:32.538)

    There could be, but if we’re taking the time to think negative and identify the bad outcomes that are dragging those odds down, then we can use our creativity and see if we can’t change those numbers, at least in how we understand them, to look like something that’s more optimistic. You if we are using our creativity to address the risk of bad weather when we need to train, or address the risk of injury, or address the risk of our schedule being sabotaged, then we can ultimately run the numbers again. And maybe by the time we’re done optimizing this plan,

    John Jantsch (10:33.902)

    Yeah

    Kyle Austin Young (10:59.812)

    we end up feeling like it’s 90 % across the board. That’s still not a 90 % chance of success, but I believe it’s in the 70s. It’s a lot better.

    John Jantsch (11:05.166)

    Yeah. So, so do you find that you have to help people reframe this idea of failure even?

    Kyle Austin Young (11:14.426)

    Give me an example of what you mean by that.

    John Jantsch (11:16.844)

    Well, I mean, in some ways you’re, as I listened to you talk about the steps, you’re, you’re, you’re not saying that’s failures of possibility, but that it’s part of the equation. and a lot of people, you know, would have, I think some people would, would struggle with that idea. I, I’m not saying what you’re talking about doesn’t make sense, but just the mindset that a lot of people have that might be hard to overcome.

    Kyle Austin Young (11:41.37)

    Sure.

    Absolutely. Failure is going to be part of the equation. One of the things that I encourage people to consider in the book is the power of multiple attempts. If you’re chasing a goal that’s really unlikely, often one of the most reliable ways to ultimately succeed is to try more than one time. I tell the story of the miracle on ice in the first chapter of the book. I got to interview Jack O’Callaghan who played on that 1980 hockey team that beat the Soviet Union. And a lot of people consider that a miracle. It’s been called the greatest sporting event of the 20th century, I believe, by Sports Illustrated.

    John Jantsch (11:57.518)

    Right.

    Kyle Austin Young (12:14.028)

    And as an individual event, it was really miraculous. But when you recognize that over the course of this Olympic rivalry, the United States played the Soviets nine times and won two, that’s not that remarkable. Winning two times out of nine isn’t unheard of. So was it surprising that they won the game they won? Sure. But the odds told us that we would expect them to win some games. And that’s ultimately what they did. And what’s interesting is when I interviewed Jack, he told me that in the locker room before they went out to take the ice for that game,

    John Jantsch (12:23.842)

    Mm-hmm. Right.

    John Jantsch (12:35.18)

    Yeah.

    Kyle Austin Young (12:42.244)

    Coach Herb Brooks gives this speech and there’s a movie about it and the movie has some quotes that are really powerful. What Jack told me is he said he doesn’t remember the exact words that were spoken. But he says he remembers that when he left the locker room, they’re trudging down to take the ice. He says he remembers leaving with the idea that his coach believed if we played them 10 times, they might beat us nine times, but they’re not going to beat us tonight. And so there was an expectation that failure was going to be a part of that, but they had an opportunity for tonight to be the exception. And ultimately it was.

    John Jantsch (13:10.446)

    I remember vividly watching that in my dorm room in college. does this, like a marathon I would call a long-term goal, particularly for somebody who hasn’t run one, right? They should start early, right? Can this be applied to short-term decisions as well?

    Kyle Austin Young (13:14.956)

    Amazing. I missed it by a few years, but I’m jealous.

    Kyle Austin Young (13:24.666)

    Sure. Sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (13:33.166)

    absolutely. You know, in the context of me trying to get that job, I just did this as I headed into an interview. It was going to all take place in a day. When we have something that needs to go right, one of the best things we can do to help it go right is think about what could go wrong. Ultimately, that’s what’s dragging our probability down. If you think about flipping a coin, let’s say you need it to land on heads, you have a 50 % chance of success. Why? Why don’t you have a 100 % chance of success? Well, because it might land on tails, and there’s a 50 % chance of that happening. Now, I don’t know how to rig a coin to make it…

    do what I want it to do. But in life, a lot of times we can rig it or we can re-rig it in our favor. We can try to take the risk out of the bad outcomes, bring those odds over to our side.

    John Jantsch (14:11.448)

    So if somebody hasn’t thought this way, what’s kind some of the first things you try to help people? And again, I don’t know if you actually consult on this or teach courses on this as well, but what are some of the first things you try to do to get people to start putting this way of thinking? Because I think a lot of times these things are just mindset. So what do you get them to start thinking this way? What are some of the first things?

    Kyle Austin Young (14:32.784)

    Well, in the book, I tell people that I think there are four paths to success. One of them is some people just get lucky. I tell the story of Norma Jean Doherty. She’s working at an aviation munitions factory in the war, and a photographer comes to take pictures for a military magazine to inspire the troops. He notices Norma Jean, thinks she’s really beautiful, says, can I take some pictures for you for magazines that don’t have anything to do with the military? And she said, sure. She ultimately finds a lot of success as a model and then goes on to star as an actress under the name Marilyn Monroe, has just this enormously successful career.

    That is certainly a success story. Is it a success story we should reverse engineer though? If I meet a young woman who’s coming to me for training or coaching rather, can you tell me what I can do to become a successful Hollywood star? Would I say, well, the first thing you need to do is get a job at an aviation munitions factory and hope that someday a military photographer stops by and notices how pretty you are and says, can I take some pictures of you? No, that probably wouldn’t be a very reliable path to success. So some people succeed through luck. They succeed even though the odds are bad, simply because we expect unlikely events to happen sometimes.

    Some people succeed, they don’t beat the odds, but they play them. We think about entrepreneurs, there are some really famous examples of people who heard that nine out of 10 businesses fail, and that was actually what inspired them to start 10 businesses or 15 businesses, was the belief that they were going to experience those predicted failures, but they would also experience the predicted successes. Some people succeed because they have advantages, they have areas of tremendous strength in their lives, and so they try to lean into those goals.

    John Jantsch (15:41.314)

    you

    Kyle Austin Young (15:54.084)

    That can often be something that’s really wise for us is asking the question, what are some goals that are pretty high probability goals for me right now that might bring bigger accomplishments within reach? One of the goals that I had for years was ultimately getting a book deal and hopefully getting a big advance and being able to publish that to a mass audience with a major publisher. At the time when I set that goal, it wasn’t really realistic for me, but I was able to pursue smaller goals that changed my odds. One of them was writing for major publications.

    John Jantsch (16:01.42)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (16:21.04)

    As you mentioned, I’ve written for sites like HBR, Fast Company, Psychology Today. But one of my favorite things and one of the reasons I was so excited to have the opportunity to come on is it’s an exciting full circle moment for me. When I first decided that I was going to try to write for some of these respected publications, get my voice out there and ultimately position myself for things like a book deal, the first site that took me was the Duct Tape Marketing Blog. It was in 2015. I remember I was in my grandmother’s house at the time. They were having a garage sale. I was helping out when I got the response. I couldn’t even tell you where I was sitting.

    John Jantsch (16:31.63)

    You

    John Jantsch (16:42.292)

    the

    Kyle Austin Young (16:49.742)

    and it was such an exciting thing. So it’s an honor to be with you here today. So that’s the third path of success is people making the most of areas where they have good odds. The fourth path is probability hacking, doing everything you can to tilt the odds in your favor.

    John Jantsch (16:50.286)

    you

    John Jantsch (17:01.006)

    So, you know, I was going to ask you about resilience. And then you kind of threw in that story about the entrepreneurs starting 10 businesses, but what, what connection do you think with the framework and just the whole mindset of resilience? What does it play?

    Kyle Austin Young (17:17.774)

    Well, it’s incredibly important if you’re going to especially be pursuing the path of repeated attempts. In the book, I tell the story of Thomas Edison. He’s in a race to try to get valuable patents surrounding the incandescent lamp. If he can get them, it’ll be something that’s transformational for his career. And what this race came down to is he and these other people were all trying to find a practical filament. They needed something that could glow hot enough to emit light without catching on fire and without snuffing out really quickly to the point where it wasn’t worth it. What Edison did that was different than these other people…

    John Jantsch (17:23.0)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (17:29.709)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (17:47.376)

    is he actually experimented with 6,000 different plant materials to find the one that worked best. He didn’t try to divine the right answer. He didn’t try to guess the right answer. The answer turned out to be, in his context, carbonized bamboo. And I don’t know about you. That would not have been my first guess. If you said, what are we going to use as a filament? I would have said, I bet it’s carbonized bamboo. That’s not where I would have started. It’s not where he started either. It took 6,000 attempts. But ultimately, he had a clear definition of success. He had a stopwatch, so to speak. And he was able to run more experiments than anyone else. And because of that,

    John Jantsch (17:54.144)

    Mm-hmm.

    John Jantsch (18:04.718)

    the

    Kyle Austin Young (18:15.364)

    he found these unlikely answers. so resilience is a big part of that. Some of it comes from, we need to be confident that there is going to be a best answer out there. And in his case, it wasn’t, you know, it was comparative. He could be confident that one option out of the 6,000 would be the best out of the 6,000. And he liked his chance of creating a great product with a wider net when it came to ultimately trying to find the best filament than he did with somebody who’s only trying two or three things.

    John Jantsch (18:27.982)

    Thanks.

    John Jantsch (18:41.526)

    Yeah, and there’s obviously, I don’t know that it’s all true, but you hear these stories that people would ask him, gosh, aren’t you tired of failing so much? He said, no, I just have one more thing out of the way that I know is not the answer.

    Kyle Austin Young (18:55.116)

    He has a quote attributed to him that’s, to have a great idea, have a lot of them. And I think it’s that exact same mentality. It’s not about being the smartest person in the room necessarily. A lot of times it’s being the most generative. It’s being the person who’s the most prolific and who ultimately uncovers that unlikely good idea.

    John Jantsch (18:58.936)

    Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

    John Jantsch (19:12.396)

    Yeah. And, and, you know, there’s, there’s certainly a mentality out there. People want to, you know, take the easy path, get rich quick, you know, be famous, all the things that, people aspire to. And I don’t, you know, the, people that really get there, you know, they just show up and do the work every day for a long time. Sometimes.

    Kyle Austin Young (19:29.614)

    Well, it’s one of the dangers of reverse engineering, like I mentioned, you know, the Marilyn Monroe story, we kind of chuckle at that, but I think we’re doing similar things in our daily lives. We’ll find somebody who started a successful organization and turns out he drives a blue convertible. So I should buy a blue convertible because clearly that’s got to be playing a role in his success. What if he just got lucky? I’m not saying that they did, but we need to be really careful about what we reverse engineer because just because someone is seeing good results doesn’t mean that they got there through good decisions.

    John Jantsch (19:31.874)

    Yeah, yeah.

    Right? Yeah.

    John Jantsch (19:46.924)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (19:54.646)

    Yeah. Well, and I think a lot of times we miss the 10 years before, before they blew up, right? Yeah, exactly. Well, Kyle, I appreciate you stopping by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Is there someplace you’d invite people to find out more about your work and to perhaps pick up success is a numbers game.

    Kyle Austin Young (19:58.778)

    Sure, yeah, that kind of quote that most overnight successes are 20 years in the making, sure.

    Kyle Austin Young (20:14.0)

    You can get a copy of the book pretty much anywhere, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, directly on the Penguin Random House website. Be honored if you did that. If you want to connect with me personally, I think we’ll probably put my website in the show notes, just kyleaustinyoung.com. But what I’d prefer you do, honestly, this was something that was just kind of an unexpected blessing of this journey, is I heard someone who was encouraging people to find them on LinkedIn, and I thought, that’s a strange thing to do. I’ll throw that idea out too. And that was many interviews ago, but it’s turned into one of just the best parts of this, is pretty much every day I wake up and someone has

    John Jantsch (20:25.134)

    Mm-hmm.

    Kyle Austin Young (20:43.118)

    sent me a message saying, I heard you here, I heard you there, can I ask you a question? It’s led to some really engaging conversations that I’ve really enjoyed, some fun opportunities for collaboration for me. So feel free to find me, Kyle Austin Young on LinkedIn. I’d love to hear from you.

    John Jantsch (20:45.1)

    Okay.

    John Jantsch (20:56.618)

    Awesome. Well, again, appreciate you stopping by and hopefully we’ll maybe we’ll run into one of these days out there on the road.

    Kyle Austin Young (21:02.16)

    That’d be great. Thanks.

    powered by

  • Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Episode 4 Review – Vox in Excelso

    Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Episode 4 Review – Vox in Excelso

    The following contains spoilers for Star Trek: Starfleet Academy episode 4. Fourth time’s the charm, or so it appears forStar Trek: Starfleet Academy. While the franchise’s latest series has certainly struggled a bit out of the gate — its first three episodes have, thus far, ranged from largely forgettable to painfully frustrating — it finally finds something […]

    The post Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Episode 4 Review – Vox in Excelso appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Riddle me this, riddle me that. Who’s afraid of being typecast in genre superhero parts and never being allowed to make respectable cinema alongside auteurs such as French filmmaker Olivier Assayas? Certainly not Paul Dano, who took time out from promoting his work in Assayas’s new comedy thriller The Wizard of the Kremlin to express interest in reprising his role as Edward Nashton aka the Riddler from the Matt Reeves movie The Batman.

    When French chat show Clique TV asked if Dano would do a Riddler television show in the vein of The Penguin, the actor responded in the affirmative. “Why not, if we can do something really good?,” he answered, before expounding on that qualification. “You’ve got to keep the bar high.”

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    He’s right about the high bar set by The Batman and The Penguin. The Batman was a hit with audiences and critics; we here at Den of Geek called it “one of the best superhero movies ever made.” Although The Penguin had a more mixed critical reception, it was nominated for several awards and netted a Primetime Emmy for Cristin Milioti. Even in an age of superhero saturation, Reeves, his stars Dano and Robert Pattinson, and their co-creators managed to make something fresh and special with The Batman.

    For Dano, The Batman reached that level of quality because of the psychological complexity of its characters. Where most depictions of the Riddler imagine him as a genius who just wants to test his wits against the Caped Crusader, Dano sees a deeper connection between the hero and the villain. “This was a guy who was an orphan like Batman,” he explained to Click TV, “who had a really traumatic upbringing and was obviously unwell. What I really liked about this was what he thought was his connection to the Batman… I liked that twist on it, that the villain saw himself in line with the hero.”

    As his answer suggests, Dano has put a great deal of thought into the construction of Nashton. In fact, he developed the character so much that he also wrote a six-issue prequel comic for DC, illustrated by Stevan Subic. That story showed how Ashton was orphaned and how he came to hold the Wayne family and the gangster Carmine Falcone responsible for the death of his parents, a belief that eventually drives him to become the Riddler.

    The series would provide a strong foundation for a Riddler show, should Reeves and WB ever call for one. However, such a show seems unlikely at the moment. Even though the first part came out in 2022, The Batman: Part II is still in preproduction, with major stars such as Scarlett Johansson and Sebastian Stan just now being cast. Furthermore, the mainline DC Universe has shifted since the release of the first film, and DC Studios head James Gunn and Peter Safran have several unrelated Bat-projects in the works, including the movie Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

    Still, Gunn has been very open about loving Reeves’s work and insisting that he’ll green-light projects if they have a quality script. Thanks to Dano, a potential Riddler project has already solved the two biggest problems facing a new show, providing both a great story and a compelling star.

    The Batman: Part II releases in theaters on October 1, 2027.

    The post The Batman: Paul Dano Wants to Return as the Riddler on TV appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • 11 Times Fashion Trends Went Way Too Far

    11 Times Fashion Trends Went Way Too Far

    Fashion is a funny thing. Trends that once seemed daring or stylish often look downright absurd when viewed years later. From outrageous silhouettes to over-the-top accessories, the history of fashion is littered with moments that made us ask, “What were they thinking?” This list celebrates those extreme missteps, the styles that went too far, pushed […]

    The post 11 Times Fashion Trends Went Way Too Far appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Riddle me this, riddle me that. Who’s afraid of being typecast in genre superhero parts and never being allowed to make respectable cinema alongside auteurs such as French filmmaker Olivier Assayas? Certainly not Paul Dano, who took time out from promoting his work in Assayas’s new comedy thriller The Wizard of the Kremlin to express interest in reprising his role as Edward Nashton aka the Riddler from the Matt Reeves movie The Batman.

    When French chat show Clique TV asked if Dano would do a Riddler television show in the vein of The Penguin, the actor responded in the affirmative. “Why not, if we can do something really good?,” he answered, before expounding on that qualification. “You’ve got to keep the bar high.”

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    He’s right about the high bar set by The Batman and The Penguin. The Batman was a hit with audiences and critics; we here at Den of Geek called it “one of the best superhero movies ever made.” Although The Penguin had a more mixed critical reception, it was nominated for several awards and netted a Primetime Emmy for Cristin Milioti. Even in an age of superhero saturation, Reeves, his stars Dano and Robert Pattinson, and their co-creators managed to make something fresh and special with The Batman.

    For Dano, The Batman reached that level of quality because of the psychological complexity of its characters. Where most depictions of the Riddler imagine him as a genius who just wants to test his wits against the Caped Crusader, Dano sees a deeper connection between the hero and the villain. “This was a guy who was an orphan like Batman,” he explained to Click TV, “who had a really traumatic upbringing and was obviously unwell. What I really liked about this was what he thought was his connection to the Batman… I liked that twist on it, that the villain saw himself in line with the hero.”

    As his answer suggests, Dano has put a great deal of thought into the construction of Nashton. In fact, he developed the character so much that he also wrote a six-issue prequel comic for DC, illustrated by Stevan Subic. That story showed how Ashton was orphaned and how he came to hold the Wayne family and the gangster Carmine Falcone responsible for the death of his parents, a belief that eventually drives him to become the Riddler.

    The series would provide a strong foundation for a Riddler show, should Reeves and WB ever call for one. However, such a show seems unlikely at the moment. Even though the first part came out in 2022, The Batman: Part II is still in preproduction, with major stars such as Scarlett Johansson and Sebastian Stan just now being cast. Furthermore, the mainline DC Universe has shifted since the release of the first film, and DC Studios head James Gunn and Peter Safran have several unrelated Bat-projects in the works, including the movie Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

    Still, Gunn has been very open about loving Reeves’s work and insisting that he’ll green-light projects if they have a quality script. Thanks to Dano, a potential Riddler project has already solved the two biggest problems facing a new show, providing both a great story and a compelling star.

    The Batman: Part II releases in theaters on October 1, 2027.

    The post The Batman: Paul Dano Wants to Return as the Riddler on TV appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • The Paradise Season 2 Trailer Takes Us Outside the Bunker at the End of the World

    The Paradise Season 2 Trailer Takes Us Outside the Bunker at the End of the World

    It won’t be just another day in Paradise when the eponymous Hulu series returns for its second season this winter. The series, which follows the fallout from a devastating climate disaster that destroyed much of the Earth as we know it, will finally move outside the restrictive bunker setting that has defined so much of […]

    The post The Paradise Season 2 Trailer Takes Us Outside the Bunker at the End of the World appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Riddle me this, riddle me that. Who’s afraid of being typecast in genre superhero parts and never being allowed to make respectable cinema alongside auteurs such as French filmmaker Olivier Assayas? Certainly not Paul Dano, who took time out from promoting his work in Assayas’s new comedy thriller The Wizard of the Kremlin to express interest in reprising his role as Edward Nashton aka the Riddler from the Matt Reeves movie The Batman.

    When French chat show Clique TV asked if Dano would do a Riddler television show in the vein of The Penguin, the actor responded in the affirmative. “Why not, if we can do something really good?,” he answered, before expounding on that qualification. “You’ve got to keep the bar high.”

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    He’s right about the high bar set by The Batman and The Penguin. The Batman was a hit with audiences and critics; we here at Den of Geek called it “one of the best superhero movies ever made.” Although The Penguin had a more mixed critical reception, it was nominated for several awards and netted a Primetime Emmy for Cristin Milioti. Even in an age of superhero saturation, Reeves, his stars Dano and Robert Pattinson, and their co-creators managed to make something fresh and special with The Batman.

    For Dano, The Batman reached that level of quality because of the psychological complexity of its characters. Where most depictions of the Riddler imagine him as a genius who just wants to test his wits against the Caped Crusader, Dano sees a deeper connection between the hero and the villain. “This was a guy who was an orphan like Batman,” he explained to Click TV, “who had a really traumatic upbringing and was obviously unwell. What I really liked about this was what he thought was his connection to the Batman… I liked that twist on it, that the villain saw himself in line with the hero.”

    As his answer suggests, Dano has put a great deal of thought into the construction of Nashton. In fact, he developed the character so much that he also wrote a six-issue prequel comic for DC, illustrated by Stevan Subic. That story showed how Ashton was orphaned and how he came to hold the Wayne family and the gangster Carmine Falcone responsible for the death of his parents, a belief that eventually drives him to become the Riddler.

    The series would provide a strong foundation for a Riddler show, should Reeves and WB ever call for one. However, such a show seems unlikely at the moment. Even though the first part came out in 2022, The Batman: Part II is still in preproduction, with major stars such as Scarlett Johansson and Sebastian Stan just now being cast. Furthermore, the mainline DC Universe has shifted since the release of the first film, and DC Studios head James Gunn and Peter Safran have several unrelated Bat-projects in the works, including the movie Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

    Still, Gunn has been very open about loving Reeves’s work and insisting that he’ll green-light projects if they have a quality script. Thanks to Dano, a potential Riddler project has already solved the two biggest problems facing a new show, providing both a great story and a compelling star.

    The Batman: Part II releases in theaters on October 1, 2027.

    The post The Batman: Paul Dano Wants to Return as the Riddler on TV appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Masters of the Universe Toys Reveal Updates to Classic Characters

    Masters of the Universe Toys Reveal Updates to Classic Characters

    Even the most dedicated fan of Masters of the Universe knows that the franchise began as a toy line, and that the initial cartoon existed to entice kids to buy those toys. Yes, Masters of the Universe has expanded into multiple cartoon series, comic book runs, video games, and now a second (and hopefully more […]

    The post Masters of the Universe Toys Reveal Updates to Classic Characters appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Riddle me this, riddle me that. Who’s afraid of being typecast in genre superhero parts and never being allowed to make respectable cinema alongside auteurs such as French filmmaker Olivier Assayas? Certainly not Paul Dano, who took time out from promoting his work in Assayas’s new comedy thriller The Wizard of the Kremlin to express interest in reprising his role as Edward Nashton aka the Riddler from the Matt Reeves movie The Batman.

    When French chat show Clique TV asked if Dano would do a Riddler television show in the vein of The Penguin, the actor responded in the affirmative. “Why not, if we can do something really good?,” he answered, before expounding on that qualification. “You’ve got to keep the bar high.”

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    He’s right about the high bar set by The Batman and The Penguin. The Batman was a hit with audiences and critics; we here at Den of Geek called it “one of the best superhero movies ever made.” Although The Penguin had a more mixed critical reception, it was nominated for several awards and netted a Primetime Emmy for Cristin Milioti. Even in an age of superhero saturation, Reeves, his stars Dano and Robert Pattinson, and their co-creators managed to make something fresh and special with The Batman.

    For Dano, The Batman reached that level of quality because of the psychological complexity of its characters. Where most depictions of the Riddler imagine him as a genius who just wants to test his wits against the Caped Crusader, Dano sees a deeper connection between the hero and the villain. “This was a guy who was an orphan like Batman,” he explained to Click TV, “who had a really traumatic upbringing and was obviously unwell. What I really liked about this was what he thought was his connection to the Batman… I liked that twist on it, that the villain saw himself in line with the hero.”

    As his answer suggests, Dano has put a great deal of thought into the construction of Nashton. In fact, he developed the character so much that he also wrote a six-issue prequel comic for DC, illustrated by Stevan Subic. That story showed how Ashton was orphaned and how he came to hold the Wayne family and the gangster Carmine Falcone responsible for the death of his parents, a belief that eventually drives him to become the Riddler.

    The series would provide a strong foundation for a Riddler show, should Reeves and WB ever call for one. However, such a show seems unlikely at the moment. Even though the first part came out in 2022, The Batman: Part II is still in preproduction, with major stars such as Scarlett Johansson and Sebastian Stan just now being cast. Furthermore, the mainline DC Universe has shifted since the release of the first film, and DC Studios head James Gunn and Peter Safran have several unrelated Bat-projects in the works, including the movie Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

    Still, Gunn has been very open about loving Reeves’s work and insisting that he’ll green-light projects if they have a quality script. Thanks to Dano, a potential Riddler project has already solved the two biggest problems facing a new show, providing both a great story and a compelling star.

    The Batman: Part II releases in theaters on October 1, 2027.

    The post The Batman: Paul Dano Wants to Return as the Riddler on TV appeared first on Den of Geek.