This was originally recorded in 2019 and appeared as Episode 67, when this was sill The Dissect Podcast. Currently we are deep in print, digital, and construction projects that prevent us recording with the frequency we once insisted upon. However, as we went through the archives we discovered some real gems of conversations that merit revisiting.

Hoby Darling made us feel like under-achievers once we learned his background. His law degree is from Northwestern, his graduate degrees in business from UC Berkeley and Columbia, and he worked for Volcom and Nike before becoming CEO of Skullcandy, then executive director of Jaybird/Logitech. He has raced Ironman events, competed in CrossFit, and coached a number of top performing athletes. This impressive resumé pales beside his mission, as a founding member of the Liminal Collective, "to advance the limitless potential of humans, preparing and supporting those who take pioneering steps in extreme, unexplored, and unknown spaces." During the podcast we spoke about the Logitech Cognitive Performer Summit, where in 2019, Mark joined a panel to discuss the influence of the natural environment on creative output.

The initial impetus of that first summit came from asking, "What does the science of performance look like? And how do you fill a room with people who think alternatively about these theories to discuss and advance ideas derived from but not yet proven by science?" Many scientific positions are old; the experiments were done years ago, and it takes time to peer-review, publish, and then apply the conclusions in the real world to demonstrate actual utility. Besides, "the science" often shuts down (public or common) inquiry by declaring definitive conclusions … which places a box around an idea thus defines the boundaries of future exploration.

Traditionally, when it comes to scientific or casual inquiry, attention has focused on physical performance (in sport) because it is visible, but at the highest levels the bodies and capabilities are similar so why are some athletes or performers great? This drives some to examine the influence of cognitive ability on physical performance and oddly enough, as test and analytical capabilities have improved, we've seen that the top performers in E-Sports are making the fastest decisions on the planet under highest cognitive load. This psychological performance used to be invisible — it’s only in the last years that we could begin to observe it, and analyze it. If we agree that, "desire is the highest octane fuel that there is," the next question must be, "How do we quantify or measure or reproduce the desire that affects high performance in any arena?"

This path of inquiry requires new eyes, new ideas, a conceptual openness disassociated from from the steps and positions previously taken or used. Michael and Hoby used a simple analogy in the conversation regarding the shift away from plastic bottles to contain and transport water towards aluminum cans, which are far more reusable and recyclable ... that's all well and good but also self-limiting. What’s the moonshot here? Instead of going from 1 to 1.1 we should be going from the plastic bottle to not needing a container or vessel at all … let’s return to 0 and discover a new and different solution.

We must be more creative when seeking modern solutions to age-old understanding and the problems those conclusions caused; when you no longer have a hammer you must find a different way to drive the nail … or … you have to become the nail. Our physical experiences have led us to examine the influence of psychological ‘fitness’ on performance, learning, and exploration but it's clear that understanding the utility of fitness in the context of such inquiry is lacking.

We use the process of developing fitness to teach people how to change behavior … if they learn to control a single aspect of their condition it opens them to the idea that there are other parts of life and behavior one might consciously influence or change.

"I don’t know how to be the person that I want to be so I sought a guide … I looked for a situation within which there was no judgement about my current condition yet much opportunity to change that condition existed.”

Deeper into the conversation we addressed how poorly we as human beings are able to select the right person for a particular task or position; when it comes to choosing quarterbacks, CEOs at start-ups, or the right individual to augment an existing team, "you’re better off flipping a coin."

Concepts like emotional self-regulation, compassion for others, self-efficacy, the willingness and desire to be curious, resilience and grit do not present during interviews or result from psychometric test … so how do we make better selections? If we can eventually understand that then the outcomes will be more predictable, and better for our species as well as the spinning orb we inhabit.

Dig in, this is a good one.

https://www.liminalcollective.co/who-we-are