Looking at the tragedy in Idaho through the lens of MI(Part _ II)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (43.5MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

We hope you found value in part one of this podcast. Thank you for joining us for this second segment. 

Welcome to today’s episode of The Communication Solution podcast with Casey Jackson, John Gilbert and Danielle Cantin. We love talking about Motivational Interviewing, and about improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve.

Today we continue to focus on the unfortunate murders in Idaho, at the University of Idaho, through the lens of motivational Interviewing.

In this episode tragedy in Idaho through the lens of Motivational Interviewing, we discuss:

• Compassion when living with trauma
• The University of Idaho’s situation
• Compassion from an MI perspective
• Primary trauma and secondary trauma 
• Compassion distinguished from empathy
• Perspective of law enforcement 
• Law enforcement survival in civilian survival and community safety
• The difference between reflective listening and high accurate empathy
• Human thought and behavior
• Extremely complex, high pressured situations 
• Strategically responding to language
• Evidence-based practices that change data 
• Vision and mission statements
• How to get behavior in line with values
• Looking at the human brain from a different perspective
• Gratification
• Job satisfaction
• And so much more!

You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us!

This is part two of a two-part podcast. Thank you for listening to the Communication Solution Podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. As always, this podcast is about empowering you on your journey to change the world. So if you have questions, suggestions, or ideas, send them our way at casey@ifioc.com, that’s CASEY@IFIOC.COM. For more information or to schedule a training visit if IFIOC.com until our next Communication Solution podcast keep changing the world.

Want a transcript? See below!

We hope you found value in part one of this podcast. Thank you for joining us for this second segment. Hello and welcome to the Communication Solution Podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. I’m your host, Danielle Cantin, here at the Institute for Individual and Organizational Change, otherwise known as IFIOC we love to talk about communication. We love to talk about solutions, and we love to talk about providing measurable results for individuals, organizations, and the communities they serve. Welcome to the communication solution that will change your world.

What’s going through my mind is this thread that Casey, to me, you just brought up with a secondary trauma.

It’s like, how do you, regardless of of the work, it could be a officer that’s dealing with this level of stress. It could be a mental health social worker dealing with secondary trauma. How do you have compassion in your work when you’re constantly you know, a sense of feeling the trauma or actually traumatized with a secondary trauma. it’s so different to live it versus talk about it on like a podcast like this. And I want ’em to just bring that up because mi is a way of, of expressing compassion for another human being. You could say, well, I’m expressing compassion by pulling them off of the bridge. Or I’m expressing compassion by tasering this person, cuz it gets the overall good.

So, you know, it’s not that people don’t have compassion, it’s almost like. An expression of compassion we’re talking about here with mi. We’re obviously talking about it more from the, perspective of the officers in, in this recent way, but we could tie it back to even the person you were talking about in the Idaho situation.

How much compassion does this person feel? I don’t know how functional it is to fully unpack this, but I think what you were getting at is like, do my interpretation is that, does this person feel a sense of compassion and ambivalence about that compassion for what they’re doing to these other people?

And I think that’s something of a thread for me in this whole conversation. Can the people that are going through these things have compassion for these other humans involved? If they’re in the mind of a, you know, one of those shows, mind of a Murderer or something like that, do they have compassion? Is there ambivalence in there, like the person with the knife to the neck, or is it the officer that has compassion but is trying to compartmentalize things of how to do this day in and day out?

But how do they have. Compassion for the, the person they’re trying to be helpful for with safety. And then how does the person that’s gone through this horrific event, which I could only imagine the devastation as you were talking about, how do they have compassion? Right? And that’s where, you know, those, those different types of court programs are trying to help heal with things that have happened.

But there seems to be this thread of compassion of like, how do. Pull that thread of compassion from an MI perspective altogether. I don’t think I have the magical answer, but it doesn’t seem like MI is a way of starting to help pull a thread of compassion for everyone, for each other as best we can, which also doesn’t solve the issues of race, gender, all the inequalities dealing with all, all the things we’re talking about.

But I do want to throw that out there and see your thoughts as we’re kind of coming to an end. If you had anything else you wanted to add to that. So there’s a couple things that I want to unpack from this, and one is when we’re talking about kind of primary trauma, secondary trauma for law enforcement, because they have so much primary trauma and secondary trauma, then I wanna take the compassion piece of it too.

So we’re gonna talk about the trauma piece, we’re gonna talk about the compassion piece of it, and then distinguish that from the empathy piece all right. So in MI, our ivory tower version of it is, It’s a way of expressing com of expressing compassion. When you get into the measurement of it, there’s nothing about measuring compassion and motivational interviewing.

So this is what Miller brought into. We need to pay more attention to this, whether or not we can ever measure it. What we can measure is accurate empathy. So I, from my experience so far, there’s no way I could lead in training law enforcement about tapping into their compass. because that just culturally would not work.

That’s just not something that’s going to, because that in some ways is it’s not even a sign of weakness. It’s actually inefficient. It’s ineffective when you’re looking from a pure law enforcement perspective, because when you’re going from that perspective, you’re wasting time. What you feel is detracting from what you can assess.

So there’s no utility in how you feel, which is why you see a lot of times that law enforcement gets a perspective that they’re just cold or aren’t engaged, and they’re not healthy for our communities when they’re from that perspective. But when you look from a different angle, you’re looking at how can you assess 50 or 60 different indicators on a scene that are critical for officer survival in civilian survival and community safety.

and be compassionate at the same time. Yeah, that’s great. Most human beings couldn’t do that. But you’re having people that are expected to do that. So that’s why I wanna parse out the compassion piece from the empathy thing, the empathy con construction of it. You start to look from that angle and you and I know John, we can teach people to express accurate empathy.

The difficulty is for it to be accurate empathy. The person on the receiving end has to feel heard and understood. This is why we need to differentiate the difference between reflective listening and what is a high accurate empathy. Officers can do reflective listening. It is a much taller order for them to express high accurate empathy because they’re having to leave their worldview.

This is where you can parallel compassion and empathy when you’re, when I look from a law enforcement perspective, because both means you’re somewhat other person center. empathy or specifically other person-centered compassion is because you’re radiating the thing that you want everybody to be happier and healthier and mass.

So they’re two different things. So your mindset can have a compassionate mindset, but then there’s also the things that you have to be able to assess on scene at any given moment at time. So they’re not only assessing what’s happening in front of them assessing, they’re assessing every other indicator around the scenario as well too.

It’s just when you’re talking from a brain perspective, is extremely. Take that level of complexity. Now, when you have health and safety issues going on, what does the natural human brain do? Once a health and safety issue, it starts to drop down into the reptilian brain for survival. So you’ve got an officer who’s trying to assess all these things at the same time, trying to express, express, accurate epi empathy.

Well, part of the brain is, oh my God, I hope this guy doesn’t jump, because they’re still human. The officers are still human and they don’t want people to get hurt and they don’t want them to jump off the side of the bridge. But they’ve seen so many people jump. They can’t put a whole lot of stock into, I just don’t know if I wanna clean this one up again.

So, which can seem cold on one hand, but it’s just like, if it’s a chronic reality, it’s a chronic reality. It’s the side effect of war. There’s going to be bodies. And I think that’s the, the complexity of this is how do you maintain that level of if you don’t understand what we’re talking about from a technique perspective and that level of compassion and deal with these things multiple times on any given day, it just becomes extremely complex.

And, and I, this is not to make light of it, but I think of how much I complain about poor customer service at restaurants post covid. I mean, that’s what, and that’s so if you have a server that can barely get the plates out and aren’t particularly good at having good customer service, that’s not quite as complex as what I just articulated for a difficult.

Does that make sense? Not quite . So, but that, I mean, so you can just see we’re talking about just extremely complex layers of human thought and human behavior and having this lens of motivational interviewing I think is amazing because what we can do then is I can train law enforcement. How do you express accurate?

And still assess the entire situation. How can you lean forward and make this person feel heard and understood, and still assess the situation while you’re adding a different level of complexity? I always think if somebody’s juggling, you’re gonna add, you know, a couple more balls and then a knife to the whole situation.

It’s just like, that’s just a lot to juggle, you know? And if you keep adding one more and one more, it just gets more complex. So officers are dealing with extremely complex situations when we’re talking about this. You know, these really high-pressured situations. and what they can do is they can listen to language.

And this is why I train this from, from a tactical perspective in language, which is you can choose what type of language you respond to. That’s no different than how you’re gonna hold the gun or you know what you’re gonna do. You know, all the things they learned tactically when they arrive on scene as well too, which is a skillset as far as tactic skillsets, using language can become a tactical skillset.

it’s just not what they’re used to doing. They don’t track the types of language. And like I tell them, if you’re doing an investigation, your brain is listening to content. If you’re trying to affect behavior change, you have to step back and listen for types of language and how do you respond to the types of language.

So again, Wendy, I love the conversation we had in a podcast with Danielle about the naive brain. So you’re taking naive brains to motivational interview. You’re adding concepts are pretty complex, even for people that are, are pretty good at motivational interviewing and have some skill behind it. What do we know is one of the hardest skills to master is strategically responding to language.

People can express high accurate empathy, but to be able in the moment in real conversation respond to sustained talk. And looking at our decision tree, do we wanna ask a question for change? Wouldn’t reflect change? Do we wanna ask a question around sustained? Do we wanna reflect, sustain, and keep a real dialogue going?

Azure monitoring these extremely complex scenarios that they’re on. It’s just a lot to do and people have the human capacity to do it. So if the desire is there, then there is the capacity to develop that skill to master this as well too. And then again, it’s why we start, and literally, John, you know this, we start with our curriculum.

One of the first three to four slides we show is to help people understand, are you trying to go for compli? or are you trying to affect behavior change? And so when you look from a law enforcement lens, a significant chunk of what they do is gonna be compliance, drop that weapon, pull over, like it’s gonna be compliance driven.

So the fact that law enforcement is even trying to look from a, from a behavior change perspective or a very narrow slice of law enforcement is really deeply looking at how do we affect behavior change more effectively is it’s pretty cutting edge. It’s extremely innovative in terms of looking at this as a promising practice in law.

So, and Danielle, you can jump in at any point. Of course. I’m just, I’m so curious about so many angles of this because this is so, into so much of what’s happened recently. But Casey, I know we’ve, we will be, Robin here at some point, but there’s so much around what you’re talking about around simplicity, like complexity and simplicity, and I just want to bring that into highlighting.

we all as humans are gonna go with likely what is simple and what we know. And it’s just normal. It’s natural. You could call it entropy, you could call it all sorts of things from science to psychology. And some people will be more naturally gravitating towards, what is g are what’s gonna have them grow and learn in something new and complex.

Right? And some people are just trying. get by, in their situation, you know, be it the person that’s struggling with poverty, be it the officer that’s going through primary and secondary trauma. So it where my brain goes and thinking about this, of trying to have empathy for the person going through the, the grief of, in this case a, you know, a murderous situation that they don’t know how they would’ve prevent.

or you’re thinking of it from the officer perspective that’s trying to negotiate with someone live on the scene. As I’m trying to think about this, there’s this place of like, well, you’re making the job more complex for the officers on top of complexity. And what’s simpler is to go with what we know, which is this is how I define deescalation.

And so this is the way it is, right? And we all do this with different but you’re inviting a different way and you even provided feedback with the escalator analogy that maybe there’s a different way of looking at this. And so it’s, it’s interesting just to think about all the perspectives we bring into a situation in our work environment and our realities and how we just tend to perpetuate that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of this is the way things are done.

And am I in some ways with what you’re doing with the officers and. It can relate to the, the Idaho situation is you’re inviting or introducing a potential other way of thinking about the situation or approaching the situation or somehow, like in acceptance commitment therapy, you’re acting first and then learning from the actions that happen.

Like we’ve seen, like Danielle talked about in the police cam footage videos, you watch how the person. Responds differently, and then the officers respond differently to the person responding differently. And it’s just a lot of taking simplicity and not trying to make it too complex. But it’s this journey you’re talking about that is trying not to overwhelm.

Seemingly the officers to see if there’s ambivalence inside that person, but it takes effort. And I just wanted to highlight that, that sometimes people are just trying to get by. And so I wondered what your thoughts were of the receptivity of like, this takes more work and this is more effort, so how are we supposed to do that type perspective?

And then just any other thoughts you had about ambivalence from that angle? Y years when I first started doing trainings for when I was requested to start training outside of behavioral health, and addiction treatment. First that I got asked to do was healthcare physicians. And everybody said, you’re not gonna wanna train physicians.

They are a difficult group to train. So, of course, and I hyper prep like I normally do for groups that I’m nervous about training. And what I ended up uncovering, which was so helpful for me in teaching and training, is, you know, I stumbled upon, Ignatius Semmelweis, and who’s the, you? Patron saint of, you know, pregnant women delivering women.

And, you know, and, and what I think of it’s such a simple concept is he was the one who was running a maternity ward at a hospital and realized that if they washed their hands before they delivered, the mother would live in, the child would live at much higher rates. And he preached this at conferences and showed the data for 15 years and died Humili.

Basically cast out of the medical field. After 15 years of preaching, if we just wash our hands before we deliver a baby, women will live and babies will live at much higher rates. It will cut our mortality rates down for 15 years. Physicians just blew it off and we’re just ridiculed him. How dare you think that we are not clean human beings and we don’t pay attention to things, but they weren’t washing their hands before they were delivering babies.

That was 15 years. So what I look at is it’s hard for people to want to change data and not look at evidence-based practices that change data. So that’s why I take this, you know, further than a bird’s eye view, kind of an earth view of we know that data can actually change outcomes. If there’s certain data points that we know we can change, why wouldn’t we wanna do that?

That is a very nature of promising practice and evidence-based practice. So I have to hold that focus when I drop down into the reality of what law enforcement has to deal with. Does the human brain have the capacity to monitor all the things that officers have to do when they arrive on scene and strategically respond to language?

The answer is yes. Is it easy? No. Is it achievable? Yes. So I just have to keep it simple for my brain because these things get so complex. And then what I think of is then there has to be the will. To change the data. And I think because of, I think because of where the public is at with law enforcement, some extremely supportive, some extremely against what the defund the police perspective is, how do we get back to what the basic values are?

I mean, I can ask Daniel, and people won’t know this off the top of their head, but as soon as they hear it, they go, well, of course that’s what it is. I mean, what do we know historically was on the side of a police car to serve and to protect? . That’s not what people think of when they think of law enforcement, which means they’ve drifted away from what their vision and their mission is.

When I work with law enforcement, I pull up their vision and mission statements. There are some beautifully written vision and mission statements for law enforcement about inclusive co communities and safety, and building a sense of community. It does not mean their behavior is in alignment with those values.

and people are gonna go, yeah, but look at what they’re dealing with. And it’s like, then I think then change your vision and mission and value statement because your behavior’s aligned with what you think you need to be doing versus what communities are asking for. I’m gonna keep going back to, and I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m just running this through an MI lens, is how do we get our behavior in line with our values?

How do you help somebody that’s doing anything extremely complex? Ensure that their behaviors align with our values and they can have the intention, but it doesn’t mean that they have the skillset. For me, motivational is a skillset that is learnable and teachable. That does improve outcomes. It helps people reduce resistance In law enforcement, wouldn’t you wanna see reduce resistance reduced?

Wouldn’t you wanna see a less discord and less tension in conversations will be no data reams and reams of data that shows in that motivationally is very effective. and once the the tension is reduced, can you help people work through their ambivalence? I think most people that are in situations with officers have a massive amount of ambivalence.

And I think this is where you get to compare and contrast between most situations. Even with people that are suicidal or homicidal or have got themselves barricaded and have weapons, is different than somebody that pre-planned something like the U of I thing. Does that make sense? And I’m not saying that the individual.

Didn’t have ambivalence throughout the process, but I think that’s the part that we just don’t know. Would that be effective or not? And then you think in hindsight, if the individual is guilty of these crimes, does therapy even work if the crime’s already been committed? So the people want blood. You know, Eye for an eye is what kind of public opinion is, is Eye for an eye.

So who cares if there’s therapy or rehabilitation? He needs to get paid. He needs to be put on death row for this. So it’s such a complex issue. And why, for me, I’m gonna keep saying, the way I simplify it is my curiosity as always. Does ambivalence exist? Is their behavior genuinely in line with their values?

And sometimes we get confused and we say their behavior is their values, which that’s not always true because just because you speed does not make you a criminal, even though it’s does that make sense? So we tend to wanna oversimplify things, but then we don’t wanna oversimplify where it doesn’t apply to us

So, so that’s, so those are the things that makes these just really complex, but absolutely fascinating to kind of arm chart quarterback and, and step back. And I think that’s what Danielle originally kind of tees us up for is, hey, let’s just kind of take this, you know, put our toe in the water and venture out into kind of current events and kind of try to overlay an MI perspective on this and.

Can this help our conversations be more effective instead of more fruitless, or more contentious, or more exhaustive, or just kind of throw our hands up in there air and just say nothing’s ever gonna change. And I think that’s why I think Danielle was kind of thinking, scratch your head saying, you know, this might be worth us kind of venturing into this and talking about how can we look at human brain from a different perspective and will it make other people feel like it’s given me something to put some reference or frame or reference around.

And something that I never, never really had a frame of reference for. So well, and one last thing I’ll throw in case that you can riff off or we can completely end on is, you know, we’re talking about motivational interviewing lens on this event. It’s happened in Idaho. We’re talking about your involvement from thinking about it from, officers in, and policing.

We’re thinking of it on receiving. If you were the person involved in a devastating situation like this, if you’re in the family, we’re thinking of. From different angles, but primarily, from a law officer perspective, we’ve, we’ve really spent a good amount of time thinking, well, that’s where we can apply MI to hopefully avoid situations like this.

That’s what I’ve taken, from this type of a thing. There’s also this place that I wanted to bring up if we’re gonna talk about motivation, what’s kind of been implied that I’ve interpreted, and you could totally correct me if I’m wrong, at Casey. There’s a sense of gratification felt when our behavior is aligned with our values.

And if we’re constantly not feeling gratified and say, from a law officer, potential perspective criticized, and then when we are aligned, we don’t feel the gratification. It’s unlikely to be motivated to keep doing. Harder, more complex behavior. And then I think of gratification from the alleged person that that killed those people.

There’s a certain level of, well, would they do it again? You know? And is there ambivalence there? Is the gratification from that behavior, or is it more that there’s a deeper value? They could get met in a more pro-social way. And where my brain just went with that is what gratifies us, what more deeply motivates us?

And I just wanted to bring that in just to think of like, well, if you’re gonna try something new that’s hard, you better feel some gratification from it, because you’re not gonna keep with it. Hence, lots of behavior change around lifestyle that doesn’t tend to stick for a lot of people. And so I just wanted to bring that into the discussion, be it from.

Person in Idaho that allegedly killed those people to the officers, to then the families that are going through it, what’s gratifying? Yeah. I, and I think the way that I’ll wrap this up is I think physicians feel gratified when they fix somebody. I think an addiction counselor feels somebody, when somebody feels better, when somebody gets, you know, is no longer using substances.

I think an officer feels better if the situation’s resolved in a, in a healthy. I think that, you know, then you can get into the complexities of, you know, for the, the person who you know, has committed a heinous crime. Do they feel gratified by the crime or do they feel. Gratified by the, you know, taking responsibility for it and finally just owning up to it.

You know, because some people feel that, that just, I need to apologize to the victim’s families, like I need to for that reconciliation. So you can see that ambivalence exists inside their brain in those situations. So I think what’s so fascinating about it is human beings want to help resolve their ambivalence.

I think then we get into social construct in terms of what’s okay and what’s not okay. What I can bring it back to an end of one. is after this last consult that I did in in-person consult. There’s an officer whose videos I use, the one with the suicidal individual on the bridge that particular officer does more, to walk outta the building with him after that consult, and for him to say how much it’s affected his life in such a positive way that he’s less stressed and he feels more skilled when he shows up on scene in terms of when do I need to use force and when can I use my communication more effectively?

There’s something about him that just looks. and he’s effective at what he does. And ironically, in some ways he looks softer to some other officers. But his outcomes are getting better and better. So it is to be able to stand up and draw that kind of attention for any of us, for a doctor who’s not going to immediately diagnose and say, this is the fix versus a behavior change approach, which is, what do you wanna see happen from here and how can I support you in that process?

That doesn’t sound normal to a lot of physic. So it’s, are you willing to step up because you wanna see improvement in outcomes, and part of the improvement in outcome is it’s helping heal and make you feel like you’re more effective in the role that you chose to do for a profession. Do you wanna feel more effective?

Do you wanna feel, at the end of the day, you’re less troubled about decisions you’ve had to make versus you feel more. Satisfied that you engaged somebody’s brain in their own change process and they had informed choice that they gotta choose what the outcome was and they feel good about their choice, irrespective of if it agreed with what your choice was or not and that you created that.

I seem greater job satisfaction from professionals are learning to master that and it’s what they have control over rather than focusing on all the things they don’t. Just like the grieving family, just like the officer. And cuz we didn’t talk about how, you know, there are things outside of mi like single fa or single mother families and other things that, that are related to adverse childhood experiences and all these other things that play in that aren’t motivational interviewing to committing certain kinds of, of behaviors.

But at the end of the day, what do we have control over? And I think what you just articulated is a very powerful thing to be like, well I have control over so I appreciate that. And, and how we think about it, which we’re gonna get into in another podcast on mi and personal development and personal communication.

But really appreciate your perspective, Casey and Danielle, you, really, asking about current events in this particular current event. I appreciate you both bringing it up because it really spurred a lot of interesting thoughts, so, . Yeah. Thank you so much, Casey. Thank you, John. I think, I know I’m walking away from this conversation thinking differently and thinking about, you know, I think I hear you guys talk about bias and I’m definitely biased.

And. Have my different opinions about different things, but what this invites me to do is really look at everything from so many different perspectives so that it takes that charge out of it. Yeah. And it really becomes solution oriented. Yes. It becomes, how do you help whoever it might be, take their next step that’s in alignment with their values, and like you said, very slim, slim part of the population has values that.

Don’t resonate with, with people on our planet. Yes. And so they feel good about horrific things they do, but in general, ambivalence is there for everyone and, and to, you know, I’m, I don’t wanna get too emotional about this, but the fact that there is law enforcement out there and you said it’s definitely cutting edge and it’s a small piece of it.

I’m like, oh, here’s to that growing. Yes. Here’s that growing. Those folks who are going out on a. On the cutting edge saying, let’s do this. And the, and the officers who are taking on that challenge and having the will to say, I will incorporate this new yes, this new way of being. Also, you’re brilliant, Casey, at just laying out, I, I could actually see through the eyes of an, a law enforcement officer.

I have 50, 60 points of assessment I’m doing to keep me safe, the people safe, the community. and then, you know, interlaying compassion and all of these different things. It’s like we ask so much of so many different individuals and we don’t stop to think about it. And that’s what I love being around you guys, cuz I, I’m like, oh wow.

I can, I can see what life might be like, a little glimpse into it. So kudos to you. Thank God people are are stepping up and saying, let’s, let’s learn this. Here’s to more and more of them doing that. If you’re interested, you’re listening to this, you wanna learn more about it, please reach out casey i f ioc.com.

Shoot us an email. You can always go to our website as well. I F ioc.com. And we’re here to help you. Whatever you might be facing and looking at. You heard from definitely an organizational perspective, but what I love you talking about too is, is what does that officer feel like? What does that Yes, person in the community feel like?

And you’re also rolling out training, you know, be the change, right? Of Yes. How do we use motivational interviewing to support the individual? Who’s actually out there using motivational interviewing to help others. It’s like, how do we just make this a win-win for everyone? Well, you know, and I think just the, what wraps it up so nicely is, you know, and it’s not, I, I afraid that it comes across as trite, but what you were literally talking about is, you know, as you’re thinking about your own bias, I’d rather be part of the solution than part of the problem.

And that’s truly where the whole construct of the communication solution came. That’s why we call it the communication solution. Is it it we want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. And so much communication causes problem. Yeah. And we just wanna be part of that solution. So I appreciate you saying that.

Cause it, first thing that I ha think about is I always wanna be part of the solution. I’m, part of the problem. And that is literally where the, the whole tagline the communication solution came from is right from there. Yeah. And you know, I think, you know, all the listeners out there, they’re probably feeling the same way.

We all wanna be part of the solution, but we don’t know how. Yes, yes. And that’s where people give up apathy, right? It’s like, I don’t know. And here’s this beautiful path. It’s like you’re the Sherpa, the guide that’s gonna be like, Hey, let’s, let’s do this together and figure it out. So thank you. Thank you.

What a beautiful series and I think. I think we will be touching on current events a little more often. We’ll, thanks Casey. Thank you, John. Everybody.

Thank you for listening to the Communication Solution Podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. As always, this podcast is about empowering you on your journey to change the world.

So if you have questions, suggestions, or ideas, send them our way at casey@ifioc.com. That’s casey@ifioc.com. For more information or to schedule a training visit if ioc.com until our next Communication Solution podcast keep changing the world.