In this episode, Kristi reflects on an unexpected insight sparked by a late-night podcast listen—and how it reshaped her thinking about goal-setting, motivation, and decision-making in business. Drawing from philosopher David Deutsch’s idea of “following the fun,” she explores the tension between long-term strategy and genuine curiosity.

The episode then shifts into a practical courtroom communication tip, unpacking how mismatched vocal and physical energy can quietly erode credibility—and how trial attorneys can use intentional energy to help jurors truly feel the weight of the case.

LISTEN HERE:

In this episode, you’ll learn:

1. Why over-prophesying the future can stall progress and decision-making

2. How “following the fun” differs from chasing ease or dopamine

3. What energy mismatch looks like in courtroom communication

4. How vocal tone and physical presence affect juror credibility and trust

5. Why desensitization to your own case facts can flatten your delivery

6. How to help jurors engage emotionally without performing or exaggerating

Key Takeaway:

The strongest communication—whether in business or in the courtroom—comes from alignment. When your choices align with genuine curiosity, and your vocal and physical energy aligns with your content, you create clarity, credibility, and impact without force.

Links & Resources:

1. Theories of Everything Podcast hosted by Curt Jaimungal https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/theories-of-everything-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802?i=1000730422818

2. YouTube video - https://www.youtube.com/@FosterYourVoice

Want more?

👉 Get weekly tips and techniques delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to "The Foster Files" Newsletter: https://www.fostervoicestudio.com/contact

👉 Follow me online for behind-the-scenes voice tips, mindset shifts, and strategies to help you lead with your voice in and out of court:

1. IG: https://www.instagram.com/fostervoicestudio

2. FB: https://www.facebook.com/fostervoicestudio

3. LI: https://www.linkedin/in/fosterthought

4. Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/fostervoicestudio/

If this episode resonated with you, leave a 5-star rating and review—it helps more trial attorneys find this work. And if you’re thinking about how your vocal and physical energy land in the courtroom, stay tuned. Next week’s episode builds on this conversation by exploring how to use your body to create intentional punctuation in your presentations.

Until next time, keep fostering your voice.

TRANSCRIPT:

—WELCOME & POINT OF INTEREST—

Helloooo!! Hello Foster Fam! Welcome back, I'm of course your host Kristi Foster. Hey! Did you enjoy the Word of the Year episode? If so, go ahead and leave a 5-star rating, and if you listen on Apple Podcasts, please consider writing a short review as well. It's such an encouragement to me when you do those two things. Another thing that encourages me is when I get emails from you. So, send me a quick note at [email protected] to let me know what word YOU chose as your theme for the year.

Today's point of interest segment comes from a podcast episode I heard awhile back that kept me awake one night. And the reason it stuck with me is because it challenged how I think about goal-setting, motivation, and the way I make decisions in my business.

Now, I'm in the habit of listening to podcasts when i go to sleep every night. I just find that my brain just takes too long to slow down because my own thoughts keep things stirred up. So, by listening to podcasts, I can focus on OTHERS' thoughts, instead of my own, and I can go right to sleep. Most nights, the content doesn’t really register—but this time, something slipped through.

One podcast I listen to is called Theories of Everything hosted by Curt Jaimungal. As you can imagine, it's philoosphy and science oriented, and...it puts me right to sleep. haha! Does the trick. So...recently, I started the episode with professor David Deutsch and his discussion on why Einstein would fail modern grant applications.

I zonked right now. But, I woke up briefly, turning over or something, right towards the end and it was enough to tune me back into the interview.

When asked his advice to prospective students and researchers, he said:

Go for the thing that is fun, rather than the thing that you think will lead to fun...The more prophecy you have to make to justify your present choice, the more error prone it's going to be and the more different from the reality that is going to happen.

In other words, the more future guessing you have to do to make today’s decision feel right, the shakier that decision probably is.

He gave the example of LLM (large language models) and Artificial General Intelligence, or human-like-AI to unpack his advice a bit more. He said:

If I decide to work on LLMs because I believe AGI is going to be terribly dangerous, then I am prophesying various things in the future according to some theory that I have now. But that theory is going to change...So it's better to make decisions according to the shortest possible time scale of prophecy.

Essentially, don't try to leapfrog ahead one or two decades, prophesying what you think AGI will look like, and then reverse-engineer it to define your current work because you could be incorrect in what you have predicted.

Now, even though, admittedly, I'm out of my intellectual comfort zone when discussing theoretical physics and philosophizing over scientific concepts, this particular snippet resonated with me and then i just couldn't go back to sleep, cause then i was thinking about building my business AND how I do goal setting. I don’t think you NEED to understand theoretical physics to take something useful from this—because what struck me had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with how we make choices.

When I think of "following the fun," it's not that i'm chasing dopamine hits, indulgences, and just easy, carefree living. But I'm so deeply rooted in responsibility, thoughtful strategy, and discipline that I'm conditioned to be asking questions like:

1. “What should I work on this year?”

2. “What will move the business forward?”

3. “What would be smartest long-term?”

Those questions aren’t wrong—but they often keep me stuck in analysis instead of movement. And, if you listened last week, this year is all about ACTION for me.

If I follow Professor Deutsch's advice, instead I would focus on questions like:

1. What am I genuinely curious about right now?

2. What topic do I keep circling back to even when I don’t ‘need’ to?

3. What teaching moment lights me up even if it’s messy or unfinished?

And, I think he would argue that this second group of questions would probably get me to a better long term result than when trying to prophecy a year, 5, 10 years in advance without considering that I will change and evolve within that year, 5 or 10 years, which will render my prophecy meaningless.

I don’t have a tidy conclusion here—and I’m actually okay with that. It's something I'm still mulling it over, but I'm curious...

What do you think? I don't want to negate the value of dreaming and vision-casting, but I think there's a lot of overlooked value in the challenge posed around "following the fun." Maybe there's a balance? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Send me a quick note through email or send me a DM and let me know if you're a prophesier or a fun-follower.

—COMMUNICATION TIP—

Let's talk a bit about energy. Not woo-woo energy, but the actual physical energy that you display, or don't display, when you're talking to the jury. I’m talking about what your body and vocal tone are communicating and if they're congruent with WHAT you're saying.

When I'm working with my clients in a coaching session, and they're explaining their case to me, more often than not they give me a very even, unaffected, factual reporting. And, I don't think it's a stretch to think that that's how they would explain their case to others as well.

But as a first time listener, I need a little bit more. What they're talking about are topics that I have virtually NO personal experience with, or they're things that we're socially expected to NOT talk about, so there's a lot of internal awkwardness for your listeners, personal intimidation with certain subjects, or maybe your case facts are pretty graphic so stomachs might even be turning over a bit. Your jurors are not unlike me. This is exactly how they experience your case—like first-time listeners trying to find their footing.

The point is, you need to match your vocal energy and your physical energy to the weight of your content. Energy mismatch is one of the fastest ways to lose credibility in the room.

If you're talking about grave, serious issues — drop your pitch, slow your vocal pace, and still your body. Reduce that frenetic need to move around or fidget. That is a mismatch to the solemnness of your message.

If your case content broaches into those socially awkward conversations—like, sexual function or body parts that are "private"—you need to acknowledge the potential awkwardness. Not by saying explicitly "some of you might feel awkward or embarrassed talking about these things." That points the finger on the jury and causes them to do some silent comparison. Instead, just presume that everyone is feeling that way, and nonverbally set it up. Scrunch your face, physically withdraw a little, represent the topic vocally with a little unevenness in your rhythm. These awkward topics should be treated to help everyone get comfortable early on. You’re not calling attention to the discomfort—you’re modeling how to move through it.

But on the flipside, when you're telling the story of your client, especially in the "before" part of their story, give generous physical energy. Keep your face lifted and bright, keep your vocal tone also lifted, using a lot of your middle voice to capture expression and life. That not only accurately represents your client, but it also gives you somewhere to go vocally and physically when you DO want to create the contrast for the "after" part of their story.

When you deliver everything the same, everything loses it's meaning. Now, I know in your day-to-day, you can't afford to be as emotionally and energetically invested as what I'm talking about. It'd be too much. I understand that you need to be black & white, surgically precise, strategic and shrewd with how you craft your content. Plus, you are spending a lot of time on your cases. By the time trial rolls around, all this is old hat to you. That’s human—and it’s completely understandable. You've talked about all these case facts ad nauseam to the point that you're completely unaffected by them. So, of course you tend to just flatten everything out and report to the jury.

So, just keep in mind, that even though you're desensitized, you have to pretend that you're not. Pretend that it's your first time saying these things out loud. Put yourself in the shoes of a first time listener, and again, match your vocal energy and your physical energy to your content. This is how you build credibility, gain permission, and build impact. Your job isn’t to perform—it’s to help the jury feel the weight of what you already know.

Next time we'll build on this a bit more as we discuss how to use your body to create the punctuation you need in your presentation. So, tune in next Monday for a new episode.

Until next week, keep fostering your voice.