Utkarsh Narang (00:00.901) Welcome to another episode of the IgnitedNeurons Podcast. Today, I think there was some lag there. I'll begin again. Welcome to another episode of the IgnitedNeurons Podcast. Today I have with me a guest who's very different from our usual guests. Irina is someone who is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Outsider, and she deals with and writes about geopolitical issues from the Middle East and the North Africa region. And she's not only... influencing that space but I think she's helping craft that space too. So today we're going to speak about how this beautiful world of ours which seems really hyper connected in the 21st century with technology but is still so massively fragmented and we'll take what Irina feels is is happening to the world right now and help us understand that better. Welcome Irina to the conversation. Irina Tsukerman (00:51.576) Thank you and I'm so glad to be here. Thank you for the invitation. Utkarsh Narang (00:54.875) Absolutely, looking forward to it. And before we dive into any of our conversations around what I hypothesized about, I think what's really important is we dive deep into who the guest is. And so the question that we start the podcast is that if that eight-year-old Irina, that eight-year-old little girl, wherever you were growing up, if that little girl were to come and meet you right now, what kind of a conversation do you think will emerge between the two of you? Irina Tsukerman (01:25.004) Well, I think... I really think that we have actually more in common than many people think they have with their childhood self. Because the one thing that I've tried to hang on from my childhood was being open-minded, being curious and asking a lot of questions. And that is definitely something I used to do a lot. And I think my eight-year-old would be ecstatic to ask... tons of questions about what happened, what I've learned from it, whether it was all worth it. And I think I would have wanted to ask myself, the childhood self, I would have wanted to be reminded of kind of a more simple, more direct way of looking at things, somewhat less cynical, and kind of... Utkarsh Narang (02:16.358) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (02:20.918) Remember the this period of just looking at things when they're brand new When you don't know anything about them and you are able to view them as they are and make that initial assessment that sort of excitement that is not in the sort of anticipation of what the future holds instead of dread, anxiety, existential angst and rolling your eyes about oh well, you know, okay, that looks great but how much is it going to cost or what is it going to take to get there or how long I'm going to have to deal with this. That sort of thing. think there would be a great exchange with me, kind of trying to remember what motivated me back. Utkarsh Narang (02:54.375) you Irina Tsukerman (03:09.296) back at the time and the young me wanting to see whether there's anything inspiring to look forward to, there are any lessons to be drawn from my experience that could kind of help channel that energy more successfully, more directly. I think that would be a fun discussion. Utkarsh Narang (03:31.559) That's so beautiful. And I think the words that you're using, I see and I hear this often, right? That as young kids, we're curious, we're open to asking questions. There's no judgment. There's no trying to figure out all the how's that we do as adults. What's your understanding? Like, where do these beautiful traits get lost on that journey? Irina Tsukerman (03:57.208) Well, I've tried not to lose too much of it, because in terms of being direct, I literally am told that I kind of approach things in a very direct way. don't burden myself with layers of social nuance, not in the way of being completely attackless, of course, but simply trying to kind of speak as if I were speaking directly to people, speak, you know, just get what's on my mind off. and the intellectual curiosity train to be curious about things, actually think that quality can actually be developed more over time because in childhood we are actually limited by the exposure of our experience and so certain things that we are not used to may seem hard or boring or uninspiring and as we grow older and we force ourselves to expose to new things we may discover things we never thought we might like. So I actually think that that sort of energy can be channeled. But There is also of course the reality that the world is not black and white, that it's complicated, that there's a lot of nuance, that what seems like a simple decision when you're a may be in some ways complicated due to emotional challenges, due to the complexity of human nature, due to the fact that people are all different and have different experiences and may be motivated by different things or may see the Irina Tsukerman (05:30.448) through the lens of the experiences so that doesn't necessarily make them evil or great it just makes them who they are and it makes sense to try to understand that so it's not necessarily a bad thing to kind of try to balance some of that you want to be able to understand different people's perspectives and nuance is good but on the other hand what you don't want to do is complicate simple things beyond what they need to be. There are some things that are right and wrong. Treating people with decency, trying to be helpful, trying to be compassionate is never a good, a bad thing. And that's something that we tend to forget behind these layers of protective mechanisms that we develop over time. Utkarsh Narang (06:19.782) I love this line, don't complicate things that are overly simple and you don't have to make that happen. And I think you're absolutely right. We all have a very individual lens of looking at things based on our perspective, based on how we've grown up. But I think there are a few things like being decent, being kind, being empathetic and being, yeah, just present. I think these are things that we can absolutely take away. When in that journey for that eight-year-old, did that eight-year-old decide to become a human rights lawyer and a national security lawyer? that's a big, big, big, big title and a role and a word. Irina Tsukerman (07:01.422) Actually I was pretty young, was only about 13 when I started moving in that direction. It took me some years to kind of finalize where it was going. First of all, I was interested in different cultures since I was a child. I was brought up that way, I was exposed to different things very early on, even before I was 8. So it came naturally and it... It seemed to me that I was also naturally gravitating to it because I didn't find it boring. I found it exciting and interesting and compelling. So that aspect of it was always there. What happened was when I was 13, I was in junior high school here in the US and we were reading a book called To Kill a Mockingbird which featured a heroic lawyer who was standing up for justice and despite extreme social pressure to abandon his client. And I thought about that and I thought, look at that. This seems to be a way of preserving justice, of fighting for the right thing, of helping people who are otherwise voiceless. who are misrepresented by social trends and social injustices. And that's something that is a choice. This is something you can choose to do. This is not something dependent on how wealthy you are or how popular you are. This is a moral choice that you can bring into your profession. And that really kind of changed my way I realized that I'm really excited to do that and... you know, this is something that seems to be a natural fit much more than what I thought I would be doing previously and eventually I started seeing, well, how can I combine the sense of justice with my interest in international affairs? And that didn't happen all at once, it took many years to formulate, but I knew that I wanted to be doing some combination of those two things. Irina Tsukerman (09:13.184) Eventually it came together for me in ways that I didn't even realize, you know, could even happen because I ended up actually working on exactly these types of situations where people were falsely maligned, where standing up and trying to make the case for them was exceptionally difficult, where other institutions and people have failed them and it's... both exceptionally complicated, exceptionally frustrating at times, but also morally rewarding and exciting in many ways, exciting and challenging in a good way. Utkarsh Narang (09:53.319) That's amazing and you remind me of the book How to Kill a Mockingbird. It's, I don't know, maybe 15 years, maybe 20 years ago that I think that'll be that long. Yeah, vividly remember a little bit of that, but yeah, it was a powerful book at the time whenever I was reading it. And then that's beautiful how certain childhood experiences can have like a pivotal impact on how you choose this journey. But then... what's happening in the world right now, right? I mean, and you've seen it evolve over the last couple of decades. How do you feel about like, I, and I'll be like an audience who's 40 years old, trying to figure out the world who does not understand geopolitics really well. So what I'm seeing is that we're all becoming really protective of our national boundaries. We're all becoming, as countries, are very protective of... who stays, where they stay, what do immigrants bring to a new country? And there's this fragmentation that I'm witnessing. How are you seeing this evolving nature of our planet? Irina Tsukerman (10:55.95) I mean, look, whether you are just a regular person operating on your individual level or a nation-state, there's always going to be a conversation about boundaries and balancing your specific personal or state interests with community interests, global interests. And that's a normal thing. And there's always going to be a different balance depending on the circumstances, depending on your position, your experiences, your needs at any given moment. What is different is how you resolve these concerns, whether you do it through dialogue and discussion. and whether you approach it in an informed, open-minded way, you weigh all the pros and cons to determine where that line should be drawn, or whether you jump into it impulsively, aggressively, whether you discount and dismiss other perspectives. And that's true whether you're just a regular person living your own life and figuring out your neighbor's boundary between your two houses, whether you're state actor trying to figure out demarcation of borders, or whether you're trying to discuss the limits of migration and migration policies or something like that. There's always going to be question of how do you balance your relationship with the outside world, with other interests. But the bottom line is the process matters more than the outcome. The outcome will always be adjusted to some extent. But the process is what matters. this is what it's important to have an approach that doesn't infringe on the rights of other people even as you are trying to defend and establish your own. Utkarsh Narang (12:50.458) Hmm. That's, very interesting. So you're saying, and I love how you compare it to as an individual, I'll also be protective of my boundaries. And if someone is infringing those boundaries and my like spider senses will be activated and, that's the same for the nation states on the process you're saying. So you're saying the process matters more than the outcomes. It seems really logical that people should choose dialogue, should choose having conversations, debates, writing treaties over wars. But still in this day and age, we're still seeing so many wars sprouting in different parts of the world. What's the need for any war? Irina Tsukerman (13:31.534) So this brings me to... So by process I don't just mean that process of conventional dialogue, but it also means having policies and process in place when your neighbor is doing something that cannot be resolved easily. Do you file a lawsuit? Do you erect a border? Do you call the police? If there is no police, what measures can you do to protect yourself? To send a message of deterrence for the neighbor to stop doing what they're not supposed to if they're not listening to you and not resolving it amicably? At what point do you draw the line? How do you manage escalation in your relations? And again, that's as true on an individual level as on a state level, except the stakes are higher and the means are different. But the concept is the same. The concept is to be able to think ahead, be proactive, get ahead of the problem before it becomes unmanageable and overwhelming and involves other, and it starts affecting other people besides yourself and your neighbor. Utkarsh Narang (14:42.599) I understand what you're saying. this, the space that you've operated in, human rights and understanding these geopolitical challenges, this seems to be a space which is very, like you would put every foot very carefully because you might tread on lines that may not make people happy. Where do you find the courage to have these conversations openly right now? Irina Tsukerman (15:07.83) You are going to make mistakes. If you're doing anything that is high stakes, you are going to mess up. There is going to be a point where your judgement fails you, you don't have enough information, other people get in the way, you get frustrated and mishandle something. It's going to happen. The question is not to be... The question is are you going to be so risk averse and afraid of making an error that it's going to paralyze you and keep Utkarsh Narang (15:15.015) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (15:37.726) from acting when the situation calls for it or whether you are going to say what can I learn from this experience, how can I do better, what steps can I take to make sure that in the future this does not happen, what people am I going to surround myself with, whose judgement I respect, who I can consult with before doing something and... who can inspire me and whose example I can emulate or whose mistakes I may try to avoid. So you're never going to get that perfect answer. Very rarely you're going to have the outcome that's exactly what you want. But you can generate a lot of goodwill by approaching it in good faith, with open-minded, with humility, willingness to listen more than talk sometimes. Utkarsh Narang (16:09.127) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (16:32.095) Also, willingness to correct your course when you realize you're off the mark somewhere. You're not going to be perfect. But the question is, are you going to be operating in good faith, and willing to challenge yourself, and willing to be self-aware and to grow? Or are you going to double down no matter what happens just to get what you want or what you think you want? Utkarsh Narang (16:56.123) Yeah. These are, these are some powerful questions because they're, very beautifully reframing the, the attachment that we have to outcomes that whatever I do should be perfect. This perfection, perfectionism that comes in. And so you're asking that instead of when you fail, which is bound to happen when you're doing something that's, that's important, that's critical for the world. What can you learn from the situation? What can, or who can you consult with? Who can be your inner circle? Who can guide you? And are you operating in good faith? think these are really powerful questions. What also comes to mind is like sometimes human rights and national security are like, like opposing features, right? That you have to let go of maybe human rights to protect national law versus make sure that somewhere that national security is getting impinged. How do you, how do you handle the paradox between the two? Or is there one? Like that's what I'm assuming. Irina Tsukerman (17:53.742) I don't see it as a paradox and I don't see the conflict. In my opinion, some of the worst human rights violators also tend to be national security threats for other countries and people. Or if they are organizations, play a malign role because the people who don't respect basic... or who don't try to at least improve on the basic rights of human beings will also not necessarily in their own country or with whoever challenges them will also not be respectful of other people's concerns and will act accordingly. It's a range. There is no perfect quote-unquote human rights metric. There is always a balance and there is going to be disagreement what is and isn't a human right and to what extent you are obligated to preserve it. But there is a basic understanding that you can't simply kill everybody who disagrees with you for whatever reason, that makes you a bad person and a bad government unresponsive to the citizens. At the same time, you simply cannot... allow people to simply ignore laws and to do whatever they want whenever they feel like it. So there is always going to be a regulation of how much force you need to use to prevent something from escalating. At what point are you facing a legitimate threat and how do you handle it legitimately and at what point there is some room for criticism that you're just going to have to accept and some room for disagreement and some room for activity that you don't particularly care for, that you're just going to have to live with. It's always going to be as a balance. But again, the question is the process. Is there a process to determine what actions represent your values and what message you want to convey? Versus whether you are simply being reactive, whether you are operating out of fear and paranoia and... Irina Tsukerman (20:06.872) whether you're prioritizing on your own immediate self-interest above everyone else's and ignoring other people's concerns and rights. So, nobody is going to be perfect, but, you know, the countries that are law-abiding and generally respectful of the concept, they will be making a very clear and obvious effort to improve, to figure things out. And I think, I think sometimes people try too hard to, you know... Utkarsh Narang (20:13.969) Hmm. Utkarsh Narang (20:26.865) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (20:36.238) to say, oh, well, if you haven't done that perfectly, you're a hypocrite that you're demanding. And nobody's going to be a prophet. And people will have different disagreements of what is and isn't. So that's not necessarily hypocrisy. What is hypocrisy is that if you are throwing any idea of a legal mechanisms down the chute, then you expect everyone else to... comply with your demands, then you are a hypocrite. But as long as you're making a reasonable effort, and it's very obvious that you are trying, having differences of opinion with others and trying to advance your own perspective and your own arguments and your own values, there's nothing wrong with that. Utkarsh Narang (21:19.079) That's interesting. In a couple of, in that sharing, you use the word disagreement. I'm also seeing that it seems that the world is countries as their own states, they're polarized, but, this ability of human beings to disagree intelligently, to disagree with empathy, I think has, in my perception, gone down. How are you seeing this change over the last few years? Irina Tsukerman (21:47.086) There's a combination of factors. You have the boundless freedom of social media combined with a lack of appropriate introduction and still building at an early age that would prepare people to with this overwhelming new social communication mechanism. So it's the combination of those two things intersecting that is creating a moral confusion, intellectual confusion, lack of critical thinking skills, lack of basic moral compass, lack of guidance, wrong priorities combined with a mechanism that can be used for good but is easier to use for not so good, for manipulation, for deception, for disagreements. That's what's creating this current havoc. It's not just social media. It's also other institutions being misdirected, weaponized in various ways. But the bottom line is, if you do not have the basic ability to ask yourself critical questions about what do you believe in, who benefits from a particular perspective and messaging and points of view, and are you willing to challenge the information that you've been presented and to look for alternative explanations or are you simply buying into whatever you see at face value? Unless you have that basic attitude, you're inevitably going to be dragged down a black hole of confusing, conflicting messaging priorities. You end up being echo chambered, isolated and overwhelmed. Utkarsh Narang (23:41.106) Yeah, I love this term. the boundless freedom of social media you spoke about and that's intersecting with what is the second thing that you spoke about the second angle there. Irina Tsukerman (23:50.574) Lack of preparation, of moral compass, critical thinking skills, essential ability to separate the human from the question, from the issue. To be able to respect human beings and their right to have different opinions from also having disagreements and also questioning motives and figuring out whether or not the people Utkarsh Narang (23:53.48) Mm. Irina Tsukerman (24:20.154) talking to you in good faith, where is that argument coming from, who is benefiting from it? Basically being able to think critically but also to act humanely at the same time. Utkarsh Narang (24:32.34) And this boundless freedom and the boundless content that's being created without the ability of critical thinking, without sharing and understanding it properly is going to lead to all that confusion that you're speaking about. Irina Tsukerman (24:46.69) I would say so. I think it's inevitable that people when faced with unfettered information and messaging, they're going to be disoriented. They're going to follow what's easier and they're going to naturally gravitate to what they think is emotionally fitting and what appeals to their instincts and to what they're used to. And that's not always the right thing to do. Utkarsh Narang (25:07.463) Yeah. Utkarsh Narang (25:14.008) As you're seeing technology go faster and faster, content being created, now AI just exploding all of that, how have you seen this information spread, the need of traditional media? What's the shift that you're observing? Irina Tsukerman (25:32.654) Look, at the end of the day, this is not the first industrial revolution we've been through. And we've had many times, at least in the US history, but also internationally, media that failed to do its job, media that was sensationalist, that thrived on scandals and false rumors and hearsay, that is nothing new. What's new is scale and scope and, you know, the people who should be, who are, you know, Utkarsh Narang (25:53.416) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (26:02.026) educated or think have access to the greatest level of free information in the world making the choices to Focus on I don't know cat videos and tick tock or something like that You know, so it's almost We've at various points in time. We've had clearly delineated Moral intellectual political leadership now those boundaries are being blurred alongside those mechanisms So on the one hand, there's a lot more freedom for different people to take part in the social system, in figuring out that leadership, in figuring out their roles in society. But on the other hand, when everyone is trying to be a leader, no one actually ends up being one. And I'm seeing a failure of people to clearly stand up for the right thing, to clearly show a better way to deal with... this whole mess. Conceptually nothing is new, maybe the scale is different. We have more people now than we've had a hundred years ago. We have more diverse societies, you know, faster technology, greater and more integrated communications. But the issues have not changed. The way the media has tried to capitalize on all of that has not changed. Trying to figure out what the truth is, that's always been there. but the fact that people are confused about what defines a leader, what is the right thing, this sort of confusion that comes from a lot of focus on feelings and not a lot of focus on substance, that's something that's creating a dangerous situation. Utkarsh Narang (27:56.069) and you're speaking about media, know, it's really hard also, I feel like to differentiate between media that's like legitimate and you can trust versus media that's propaganda, paid for, whatever like, whatever that looks like. What's something that you can share with someone who's listening right now to differentiate between what's real versus what's maybe fake news? Irina Tsukerman (28:17.098) Be skeptical because even outlets that try to do a good job can make mistakes, you know, and even outlets with agenda can have information that is of value if only to understand the objectives and agenda of whoever is passing it on. But that doesn't mean... but always use your own mind, verify and have an approach of asking what is the record of this publication? Are they generally... What is their approach? Are they generally asking critical questions? Are they using sources that are consistent? Are they using diverse sources or are they relying on the same type of regurgitated material? Who benefits from their perspective? Who finances and funds this medium? What is it that I'm not seeing in the story? Yeah, questions like that, questions that force you to examine what kind of information you are actually getting and what is missing. Has the journalist done their own investigation or are they just relying on social media quotes that somebody else wrote and they're just recycling? Utkarsh Narang (29:32.968) That's very, I love this advice. Always be skeptical because then you're questioning and then you're curious to learn more, which will then uncover the truth for you at some point. In your work, you've interviewed diplomats, you've spoken to so many people, right? And is there a story that you feel or an experience that you feel like was really transformational or left an impact on you, which you can share? Irina Tsukerman (30:00.718) In terms of talking to people, it's not that there is one specific incident, but the entire process has been transformational because it forced me to interact with people whom I wouldn't necessarily always choose to have spoken to. Because when I come into an interview, I don't know exactly what the person is going to say. I do not script my conversations. I mean, I can come up with a list of questions to as prompts, but I certainly can't... you know, don't pre-write the discussion. It's free flowing because I want to have that freedom to ask follow-up questions and to hear what the person will say at the moment when they are confronted with a surprise discussion. So it has challenged me in many ways. It has forced me to confront people who who view the world in a very different way, who I disagreed with very passionately. And at the same time, it forced me to learn a lot. Utkarsh Narang (30:45.128) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (31:00.458) in ways that challenged my own assumptions and beliefs. And I realized after a while of doing this, it did not happen quickly, but over time I realized that it was making me a better interviewer, a more informed person, and someone more open to actually different perspectives and more prepared to face different sort of discussions and conversations, including ones that were that would normally be highly contentious and that I may have been tempted to walk away from, But it also forced me to consider that even people I'm extremely disagreeable, disagreeing with may have a point that I may wish to consider even as I, you know, for ethical reasons, for reasons of simple informational, you know, difference, and tempted to otherwise put aside and not... you know, accept. Even having a discussion with each person, you can always learn something. You can learn whether they're... You can learn what they put into the interview, what they want to bring to the table. So it's always something new and I think I've become less focused on the outcomes and kicking the points that I want to get out of the interview and more... Utkarsh Narang (32:01.661) Hmm. Utkarsh Narang (32:14.408) Yeah. Irina Tsukerman (32:27.626) interested in the process itself and in what I can learn and the surprises that await me and how that discussion changes me and changes my perspective and informs me. Utkarsh Narang (32:41.16) That's really interesting. You're speaking about the future. What is your perspective of the future? Is the future more peaceful, more conflicted? What's your perspective? Irina Tsukerman (32:57.794) I think it's going to be both. I think as human beings we have tremendous opportunities and means for problem solving, for creating our own messes but also fixing them. And I think we'll see that as many people as there are creating problems and using opportunities of poor leadership, confusion and all of these things. Utkarsh Narang (33:07.848) Mm. Utkarsh Narang (33:12.935) Mm. Irina Tsukerman (33:26.53) to cause bigger havoc and to advance their own interests at everyone else's expense, will be just as many people emerging looking to solve those issues and figure out better ways. That gives me hope because I think eventually problem solving prevails. know, human beings evolved over time. They managed to survive great upheavals due to these inherent abilities and this gravitation and even when everything seems dark and hopeless and confused, there will always be people with moral compass and curiosity trying to solve problems, trying to learn from each other, trying to figure it all out and connect with each other and find each other no matter how far apart they may seem to be and how different than they seem to be. The people with that moral compass and with that attitude, they'll find each other sooner or later, even if it seems isolating, difficult and so forth. Those character traits, they bring people together from wherever they are and together they're a much more powerful force than the forces of entropy causing this kind of chaos and destruction. Utkarsh Narang (34:41.68) Yeah, so we'll create the mess and then we'll be the ones who'll clean it up. And there'll be forces in the world who will be more responsible towards building this mess. But then there are people you're saying who will have that moral compass, who will have the curiosity, who will come in and continue to improve things. And both of us hope that the strength of these people is much higher than the first one. Irina Tsukerman (34:46.67) You Irina Tsukerman (35:05.196) I think so, because the people who are looking to create mayhem, know, being destructive is easier than building something up, it's also... Creating disorder also doesn't lead you anywhere at the end of the day. Whereas when you're trying to create something, you're more motivated and you have a sense of order that helps you... make sense of things in ways that is exceptionally powerful, in my opinion. Utkarsh Narang (35:38.364) Yeah, love it. As you're talking about the future and as we come towards closure of this conversation we're having, say the 80 year old Irina now, the Irina from a few decades from now, if that 80 year old self were to come and speak to you right now, what would her advice be to you? Irina Tsukerman (35:57.794) I think care a lot less about what people think and about comparing yourself to what everyone else is doing and just do what you need to do and focus on what you can bring because the only thing you can control at end of the day is your own response, your own initiative, own ethics and your own choices. You can't control what everyone else is doing, how they will perceive you. Utkarsh Narang (36:11.869) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (36:25.304) how they will judge you, what they will do for you, and whether or not they'll be helpful or, you know, good. Only, you can control only yourself. You can change only your own attitude towards things. You can try to be helpful. You can try to reach out. You can try to manage things. What you can not do is force anyone else to do what you want. All you can do is adjust yourself and figure out different ways and... Figure out whether it's worth it's a course worth pursuing, whether you want to go in a different direction. That's entirely up to you. Utkarsh Narang (37:00.22) Hmm. Yeah. Love it. I think that's such, such powerful advice. And it's really easy to give that advice out to self, but it's so hard to practice. Irina Tsukerman (37:09.646) Yes, I am actually the only reason I'm saying that is because I keep I honestly keep losing track of that and I'm often so frustrated about different things and I'm always wondering well I mean I haven't reached this in my career to compare to all these famous and high profile individuals so that means I'm doing something wrong but what if I'm not doing something wrong maybe the reason I'm in the brain is because Utkarsh Narang (37:30.664) Hmm. Irina Tsukerman (37:35.872) what I'm doing requires this and will have those natural consequences and I have to give up some of those things in order to be able to focus on whatever it is I chose. Utkarsh Narang (37:45.705) Hmm. That's amazing. And to all our listeners who are with us in the 40th minute, you know, it's the 80 year old Irina is really wise and has a lot of wisdom. So listen to her. Stop comparing yourself to others. Don't think of what others would perceive of you. All you control is what you can do. And I think that's the path we want to be on. The second thing that you shared, Irina, which I think I want to kind of reiterate is that people with moral compass and curiosity will save the world. So we don't have to be too worried about what's happening and we can in whatever ways we can try to improve things and always be skeptical. We can be those people. Irina Tsukerman (38:21.324) be those people because that's exactly because anyone can choose to be curious and anyone can choose to figure out the right way to treat people and to go about it may not be easy but you can get on that path at least that's something that's up to anybody you don't have to have special powers you don't have to be a genius you have to be ultra rich anyone can do this in their own way Utkarsh Narang (38:31.954) Love it. Love it. Utkarsh Narang (38:36.562) Yeah, love it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Utkarsh Narang (38:47.548) Yeah, start small, be skeptical, be curious, be open-minded. And that's why, you know, the question that we ask in the podcast, the eight-year-old and the eight-year-old, I think these are the two people that we're always, I think we should always aspire to be answerable to because they were the true versions of who we are and where we're going. Amazing. Yeah. Irina Tsukerman (39:10.434) I... I agree. I just hope that I can live up to my own advice. Utkarsh Narang (39:17.19) Yeah, yeah. One day at a time. Stay skeptical and keep asking what am I learning? What am I learning here? Amazing. To everyone who's listening, we'll put in all the links about Irina and where you can find her on the show notes. If you're still here, that means the conversation was helpful to you. Share with someone who you think will enjoy this. If you're on YouTube, subscribe to the channel. It really means a lot to us. We want to get to where we get to. It's the journey that we're enjoying. But share this with someone who you think will... Irina Tsukerman (39:20.268) Yes, exactly. Utkarsh Narang (39:45.554) will benefit from this conversation that Irina and I had. Irina, thank you so much for being here. I truly appreciate it. Irina Tsukerman (39:51.192) Thank you so much. This was great. Utkarsh Narang (39:54.066) Thank you.