Autumn: Hey everyone, welcome back! Today, we're diving into something that touches every single aspect of our lives: trust. Seriously, think about how much you rely on it daily—from trusting your partner and colleagues to even trusting that the driver at the red light will actually stop. But how often do you really stop and think, "Can I “actually” trust this person?" And, more importantly, how can you “know” for sure? Rachel: Exactly, Autumn, because most of us just rely on intuition – or worse, blind faith. But what if there was a way to, you know, scientifically decode trust? If we could actually replace guesswork with some kind of proven method? That’s exactly what today’s book is promising, and I’ll admit, I’m a little skeptical but definitely curious to see if it actually delivers. Autumn: So, the book we're talking about is Sizing People Up by Robin Dreeke and Cameron Stauth. It’s written by a former FBI agent, and it’s all about understanding—and predicting—human behavior. Dreeke introduces the Six Signs for Behavior Prediction: Vesting, Longevity, Reliability, Actions, Language, and Stability. It’s not about being a mind reader; it’s really about spotting patterns that reveal someone’s motivations and how trustworthy they are. Rachel: FBI-level superpowers, huh, Autumn? I’m guessing it’s less James Bond and more, you know, day-to-day practical. Is this about nabbing international spies or just, say, identifying the coworker who's gonna bail on that group project at the last minute? Autumn: Precisely! And that's the beauty of this book; it's incredibly practical. Whether you're making high-stakes decisions or just trying to improve your relationships, these tools can help you make much better judgments. It allows you to spot patterns that make trust “measurable”—not just a gut feeling. Rachel: Okay, and that's what we're really going to unpack today. We’re tackling three big questions: What is trust really based on? How can we systematically predict someone’s behavior? And, maybe most importantly, how can we actually use these insights in our own lives? Autumn: Right. So, in the first part, we'll explore the very foundations of trust—what it truly means and why it's rooted in predictability, not just ethics or morality. Then, we'll break down these Six Signs for Behavior Prediction, which is a systematic framework that helps turn trust into something you can assess with real confidence. Rachel: And finally, we’ll bring it all together with actionable strategies you can use every day—whether it's building stronger relationships, avoiding unreliable commitments, or maybe even, you know, spotting a fibber. Autumn: Exactly! It's a fascinating dive into decoding the people around us and really strengthening those connections. So, let's get started!

Autumn: Okay Rachel, let’s dive into this idea of trust. According to the book, there are three elements: predictability, emotional stability, and understanding individual motivations. These are the foundations of trust. But wait, why aren’t things like, you know, honesty or morality on that list? Isn’t trust supposed to be about “being good”? Rachel: Great question, Autumn. It's a bit of a curveball, isn't it? This book “really” challenges what we usually think about trust. Dreeke argues that trust isn’t “really” about morality or ethics. It’s more about predictability. Can I reliably guess how you’ll act in a certain situation? That’s what makes someone trustworthy, even if they're not necessarily a "good" person in the moral sense. Autumn: So trust is more about consistency than conscience. Like, I may not “like” what you’re going to do, but I trust that you’ll do what I expect. That’s both fascinating and kind of chilling. Rachel: Exactly! Dreeke gives a great example of this in a business partnership. He talks about two entrepreneurs: Rachel, who’s consistent and dependable, and Daniel, her partner, who learns to trust her because she’s transparent and always delivers. There’s no guessing with Rachel – her behavior creates this foundation of safety and reliability. Autumn: Right, because if Rachel suddenly becomes unreliable, or surprises Daniel with unexpected changes, trust breaks down. It’s funny, you’d think predictability would be boring, but in relationships, it’s actually the glue that holds things together. Still, it makes you wonder… If predictability is the ultimate measure, does that mean even a selfish person can be trusted as long as they're consistently selfish? Rachel: Harsh, but yes, actually! Dreeke uses that exact example. Trust isn’t about liking or agreeing with someone. It’s about understanding their patterns. If someone consistently acts out of self-interest, at least you know what to expect. You just wouldn’t, you know, hand over your wallet without being aware of their motivations. Autumn: So villains can be predictable. Think of movie villains who stick to their carefully-written list of demands – but unpredictable people? They’re just walking chaos waiting to happen. That kind of uncertainty must be damaging in any relationship Rachel: Absolutely. And speaking of uncertainty, that brings us to the next cornerstone of trust: “emotional stability”. That's all about how someone handles stress and pressure. Do they stay calm, or do they act erratically? Dreeke says that emotional stability is “essential” for trustworthiness because it keeps people consistent, even when things get tough. Autumn: It makes perfect sense. I mean, if someone’s mood determines whether or not they show up to a meeting… yeah, I’m not trusting them with any important projects. Does Dreeke give any examples of emotional stability in action? Rachel: He does! He shares a powerful story from September 11th. Dreeke highlights how emotional stability made a life-or-death difference that day. He tells us about Lenny, another FBI agent, who kept a "quiet mind" in those terrible circumstances. Lenny went into the burning towers with a clear purpose, when everyone was panicking. His emotional steadiness inspired trust and was an anchor of reliability amidst complete chaos. Autumn: So Lenny’s calmness wasn’t just heroic – it was strategic. His clarity and composure made him someone others could depend on when everything was falling apart. That takes serious self-control... or just nerves made of steel. Rachel: It “really” does. And this kind of emotional stability isn’t just about staying calm under pressure; it’s also about reducing volatility. Imagine working with someone who explodes over minor setbacks and sends angry emails at 3 a.m. That instability erodes trust because you can’t predict what they'll do next. Autumn: So emotional stability isn't just a nice-to-have – it’s the foundation of trust. Without it, even the most talented people become risky partners. But, there's one more element to this puzzle, right? Understanding motivations? Rachel: Exactly. This one’s about digging deeper – taking the time to “really” understand what drives people. Dreeke emphasizes that motivations are like the engine behind someone’s behavior. If you can understand what makes someone tick – ambition, love, fear, whatever it is – you can predict their actions better and build deeper connections. Autumn: I like this. It’s almost like becoming a behavioral detective. So how does Dreeke suggest we decode motivations? Are there any stories in the book that illustrate this? Rachel: There's a great one about Sarah, who runs into her ex-boyfriend Mike at a networking event. At first, their conversation seems friendly, but then Mike makes a dismissive comment about women’s ambitions in the workplace. And boom! That one little comment exposes his underlying values – values that clash with Sarah’s priorities. She realizes then and there that his motivations and worldview make him, well, incompatible with her. Autumn: So Mike wasn’t trying to ruin his chances with Sarah, but his true colors came out. And that’s the key, isn’t it? Motivations aren't always obvious at first; they show up in subtle ways. Rachel: Right! Mike’s comment was what Dreeke calls a "reveal" – a small but revealing insight into his values. By paying attention to those clues, Sarah made a smart decision about who to trust and who to avoid. Autumn: Makes you think about how much we miss when we’re not paying attention. Alright, let’s bring this all together. We’ve got: predictability – where patterns are key; emotional stability – absolutely no room for volatility; and motivations – which involves decoding the engine behind people’s actions. All of these give us the first layer of the trust equation. Rachel: Right. These aren’t just abstract ideas – they’re tools for navigating relationships, whether personal or professional. When you focus on patterns, calmness, and underlying drives, you stop guessing about trust and start making more informed decisions. Okay, let’s pause here before we dive into Dreeke’s Six Signs for Behavior Prediction, because that framework builds directly on these three pillars.

Autumn: So, building on all that, we naturally move to tools for actually assessing and predicting behavior. That's where Dreeke's Six Signs for Behavior Prediction come in. It's not just theory, but a real framework to apply understanding of trust in real life. Rachel: Exactly, we're done philosophizing. Time to roll up our sleeves. These Six Signs—Vesting, Longevity, Reliability, Actions, Language, and Stability—they're like a behavioral compass. Autumn, let’s start with Vesting. What does that even “mean” here? Autumn: Vesting means identifying if someone has a real stake in the outcome. A clear indicator of shared commitment. I mean, if someone's truly "vested," their goals line up with yours. They're not just in it for themselves. Rachel: Got it. If I'm collaborating with someone, Vesting is about whether they care about the project as much as I do. So how do we see it in action? Autumn: Good question. Vesting shows itself in actions over time. Dreeke has a great example: two colleagues working on a really important proposal. One colleague consistently does much more than what is assigned. They anticipate problems, offer solutions, and adjust. That shows they're deeply committed to the result, not just doing their job. Rachel: And what about the opposite? What if someone “isn't” vested? Autumn: You'll see that too. It looks like self-serving behavior. They might prioritize their achievements or they might not share resources with the group. Those are issues; they aren't vested in the shared result; they're focused on their own benefit. Rachel: So, the takeaway is simple: no Vesting equals risk. You're heading in opposite directions, and there will be problems later on. Autumn: Precisely. That brings us to Longevity. It's the duration and consistency of someone's behavior. Consistency over time is a strong sign of trustworthiness. Rachel: Like that colleague who has been dependable for years, always meeting deadlines and handling challenges. The person who has a really solid reputation. Autumn: Exactly. Longevity is the trust that develops from repeated patterns over time. Dreeke talks about someone you've worked with for years who has always been a reliable person. If they've consistently delivered in the past, it's a good sign they'll keep doing so. Rachel: But here's my problem with Longevity—it's not always there. What about new relationships or situations without a track record? What happens then? Autumn: That's a good point, and Dreeke knows that. When Longevity is missing, lean more on the other signs, like Actions or Language. Without that historical pattern, be more careful and observant. Rachel: Makes sense. And let's talk about Reliability. It overlaps with Longevity—both involve keeping your promises. So, what’s the difference? Autumn: Think of Reliability as the short-term version of Longevity. Longevity is consistency over time, Reliability is whether they deliver on their immediate promises. Can they be counted on right “now”? Dreeke talks about a supervisor who talked a big game about supporting their team but always dismissed ideas and failed to deliver on their own promises. Rachel: Right, so outwardly dependable, but their actions showed the truth. It reminds me of "talk is cheap." Even the most reassuring words mean nothing if they aren't backed up by actions. Autumn: Exactly. Reliability is matching words to actions. If someone always delivers on their promises, it builds trust. But when there's a gap between what they say and what they do, mistrust creeps in. Rachel: Let’s pause there. A theme here: trust is deeply rooted in action. Whether it’s Vesting, Longevity, or Reliability, what people “do” speaks volumes. Autumn: Absolutely. Dreeke dedicates a whole sign to it: Actions. Observing someone’s patterns is a strong sign of their intentions. Aligning behavior with stated goals. Remember Lenny during 9/11? His actions mirrored his sense of responsibility and courage. Rachel: And let's not forget the bad side. Inconsistent actions are also revealing—like someone who claims to be dependable but flakes or shifts priorities without warning. Inconsistencies are a trust-killer. Autumn: Right. Actions are like a measure for intentions. They either reinforce trust or undermine it. That brings us to the last two signs: Language. It's not just what's said; it's “how” it's said. Honest communication builds trust, while vague language sets off alarm bells. Rachel: Autumn, I have stories—you can always tell when someone’s dodging. Rehearsed answers, deflecting questions... It’s like watching a house of cards being built. Any techniques for decoding language? Autumn: He does! Look for congruence between words and actions. Professional negotiations: someone who openly acknowledges challenges but remains focused on solutions is probably trustworthy. Someone who dodges or says "That's not my problem" is unreliable. Rachel: So it’s about spotting patterns, not specific phrases? Transparent language equals solid foundation; evasive language equals run for the hills. Autumn: Exactly. And finally, Stability—the most telling sign of all. Stability measures emotional predictability. Staying composed, especially under stress, creates a foundation of trust. Rachel: I’m thinking about Lenny again. His ability to remain calm after 9/11 was like a light in the storm. Emotional stability isn’t just nice; it’s essential. You can’t trust someone if their emotions are a mess. Autumn: Exactly. Unstable people—those prone to impulsivity—inject uncertainty. Stability reassures us and makes trust possible. Rachel: Alright, we’ve covered it all: Vesting, Longevity, Reliability, Actions, Language, and Stability. Together, an incredibly practical toolkit for assessing trustworthiness. The real challenge isn’t understanding the signs—it’s having the discipline to pay attention to them. Autumn: Exactly! Once you use this framework, it changes how you see relationships. Trust stops feeling like a mystery and becomes something real—something based on patterns and grounded in reality.

Autumn: So, with these tools in hand, we really move into the practical side of building and maintaining trust. We’re talking about transforming these concepts from abstract ideas into strategies we can actually use in our daily lives, both personally and professionally. Our focus today is on how these frameworks can help us navigate social situations, not just to predict how people might act, but more importantly, to build really strong, lasting relationships. Rachel: Exactly, Autumn, this is where it gets interesting. It’s one thing to discuss the theory, but when you’re actually trying to resolve a conflict at work, dealing with tricky family dynamics, or even just navigating your friendships, these strategies become essential. The book walks us through situational, emotional, and behavioral methods to show how these trust-building decisions play out in real life. So, let's dive in with a high-stakes example Dreeke presents in the book to really ground this discussion. Starting straight with diplomatic negotiations, trust-building on that level sounds incredibly difficult. What does that even look like? Autumn: Dreeke shares a great example about negotiations between two countries on the verge of conflict. The stakes are incredibly high – we’re talking about potential economic sanctions, even war. The diplomat appears calm, but their subtle micro-expressions – things we might not consciously notice, like wiping sweaty palms or glancing down – reveal their unease. Rachel: So, it’s much more than just putting on a poker face. It’s about truly “reading” someone beyond what they’re saying, right? Facial micro-expressions almost sound like secret messages. Autumn: Absolutely. These subtle cues, though easily missed, can reveal anxieties hidden beneath the surface. In this case, the skilled diplomat recognized this behavior as a sign of potential flexibility. By shifting from a confrontational approach to a reassuring one, they eased the tension and found compromises that might have otherwise been overlooked. Rachel: It’s like being part psychologist, part strategist – watching for vulnerabilities and then steering the conversation in a way that addresses those points. I like that trust-building doesn't mean rolling over or abandoning your position. It's about assessing the situation, anticipating, and subtly influencing the outcome. Autumn: Exactly. It’s not manipulation; it's about observing intelligently. The real value of behavioral analysis in high-pressure situations is its precision in helping us to understand motivations and emotional cues. You’re listening not just with your ears, but with your eyes and your intuition. You start to see actions, tone, and gestures working together to form a complete picture. Rachel: And keeping that objectivity is so important, right? Dreeke argues that you have to separate your emotions from your observations. You’re not just guessing; you’re interpreting. Autumn: Precisely. And here’s the crucial point: these intense scenarios highlight the need to combine emotional intelligence with logic. And while this is quite obvious in negotiations or crisis situations, the same principles apply across the board, from workplace interactions to disagreements within your family. Rachel: Okay, let’s move away from these high-stakes scenarios and talk about something more relatable. Dreeke lays out the “Code of Trust,” a systematic approach. I found its first principle basically boils down to, "Suspend Your Ego.” It sounds simple, we hear it all the time, but how does it really work in building trust? Autumn: Suspending your ego is really fundamental. It’s about setting aside your personal ambitions or defensiveness to create a space for true collaboration. Dreeke uses the example of Carla, a manager who initially saw her colleague Andrew as a competitor. They were leading competing departments, both trying to secure the same resources. Carla intentionally shifted her mindset during a joint project. Instead of paying attention to her ego or what Andrew might gain, she really listened and looked for shared goals. This subtle but significant shift transformed them from competitors into trusted allies. Rachel: So, it’s not about being passive, but about being self-aware enough to realize that ego-driven decisions can cloud your judgment. Carla’s emotional intelligence benefited everyone, it improved her relationship with Andrew, which directly enhanced their organization's success. Autumn: Exactly. When you remove ego from the equation, people become more approachable, more empathetic, and more focused on solutions. It’s all about shifting the focus away from ourselves and towards common goals. And this leads us to the second principle, which I particularly like: Validate Others. Rachel: Right, and that’s where Dreeke emphasizes that validation isn’t about agreeing with someone – it’s about recognizing their experience. Can you give us an example? Autumn: Sure. We have Alex, a team leader, and Megan, an employee who feels like her ideas aren’t being heard. When Megan finally expressed her frustration, Alex resisted the urge to defend himself or change the subject. Instead, he acknowledged Megan’s feelings by saying, "I understand that it feels like your input hasn’t been heard, and I want to find ways for us to collaborate better." That simple statement eased her frustration. From there, they were able to make changes to improve their team dynamic. Rachel: It’s pretty amazing how powerful it is to feel seen, isn’t it? And acknowledging someone else’s perspective is such a simple habit to develop. No one’s going to hand in their resignation after hearing, "I see why you’re upset. Let’s see if we can figure this out." Autumn: Exactly. It makes a huge difference because it shows that you care about their feelings and needs. This then leads into the third principle: Avoid Judgment. It’s about creating a safe and open environment. When you avoid being judgmental, you create the conditions for honesty and vulnerability – which are key for building trust. Rachel: Right, because being judgmental is a trust killer. People aren’t going to open up if they think they’ll be criticized later. Autumn: Exactly. That makes perfect sense. Avoiding judgment naturally leads us to the forth principle: Be Reasonable and Generous. It’s simple: by offering support without expecting anything back immediately – showing emotional generosity, practical generosity – you create a foundation that others will want to build on. Rachel: That makes sense. You have to give if you want to receive. But being generous needs to strike a balance. You don’t want to come across as if you’re just trying to win someone over, do you? Autumn: Real generosity is selfless – but logical. You’re not counting, but you’re still being smart about it. When done correctly, it attracts loyalty. And finally, there’s a principle that ties it all together: Create Rituals of Trust. Consistency isn’t built overnight, but small routines strengthen relationships – things like regular check-ins to reinforce teamwork, or actions that reinforce stability. Rachel: Rituals make trust tangible. They prove that it’s here to stay. So, consistency, once again, is key.

Autumn: So, Rachel, today we “really” dug deep into trust, looking at both its foundations and some actionable frameworks, right? We started by reframing trust. It's not just about whether someone's a good person, but more about predictability, emotional stability, and really understanding what makes them tick. Then we unpacked the Six Signs for Behavior Prediction: Vesting, Longevity, Reliability, Actions, Language, and Stability. It’s a practical toolkit for building and gauging trust. Rachel: Exactly! What really hit home for me is that trust isn't some fuzzy concept; it's measurable and rooted in behavior. But like anything worthwhile, knowing the Six Signs or even the core principles is one thing; actually using them is where the rubber meets the road. It's about observing, actively listening, and testing these ideas out in the real world. Autumn: Definitely. Dreeke’s approach pushes us to move past our snap judgments and see trust as something we actively shape and improve. Whether you're negotiating a deal or just navigating daily life, the key is to be more aware of how we build and assess trust–learning to read people, understand what drives them, and lead with emotional intelligence. Rachel: Okay, Autumn, so here’s the challenge I’m throwing out to our listeners: let’s put this stuff into practice. Start noticing those patterns of reliability or emotional stability in people. Really listen to their words and see if they match their actions. What are people really telling you with their actions? Trust becomes way easier to navigate when you can actually see it. Autumn: Absolutely! So, as you go about your day, remember: Trust isn’t just luck. It’s logical. It’s about tuning into behavior, ditching our own egos, and building genuine, lasting connections. So, thanks for joining us today as we explored the science of trust. Keep observing, keep connecting, and above all, keep building trust. Rachel: Catch you all next time!