Chapter 1
The Curse of Cassandra: Why the Messenger Matters More Than the Message
Ever wondered why some people command attention while others go unheard, even when saying the same thing? Consider Michael Burry, the eccentric hedge fund manager who accurately predicted the 2008 financial crisis. Despite making a 726% gain for his investors by spotting fatal flaws in subprime mortgages, Burry-awkward, one-eyed, dressed in shorts and t-shirts-remained largely unacknowledged. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank's Greg Lippman sold identical insights more successfully by fitting the "messenger profile" better, earning a $47 million bonus while Burry's correct message traveled only so far. This phenomenon, where the messenger matters more than the message, has captivated millions of readers worldwide, making this book a Wall Street Journal bestseller and favorite among tech CEOs and political strategists alike. From boardrooms to presidential debates, understanding why we listen to some voices while ignoring others reveals fundamental truths about human psychology that shape our everyday decisions and ultimately determine who we become.
Chapter 2
The Messenger Effect: How Status Shapes Influence
The messenger effect occurs when influence stems not from the message's content but from traits the messenger is perceived to possess. We form impressions of messengers in milliseconds, making snap judgments that research shows are surprisingly accurate. Stanford psychologist Nalini Ambady demonstrated that people watching silent 10-second video clips of teachers formed impressions that closely matched semester-end student evaluations.
These judgments come from observing subtle physical cues-animations, smiles, frowns, or downward glances-that signal confidence, warmth, and enthusiasm. While first impressions form instantly, deeper connections develop over time, though our initial perceptions powerfully influence whom we're willing to listen to and follow.
Hard messengers gain influence through perceived status, while soft messengers succeed through connectedness with their audience. Hard messengers possess elevated status through socio-economic position, competence, dominance, or attractiveness. Soft messengers achieve influence through warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness, and charisma.
Consider Twitter's seemingly democratic platform. Despite low barriers to entry, research by Gangadharbatla and Valafar reveals a tight-knit community of high-status opinion leaders dominates influence. Their study of 300,000 users showed that tweets cascade like champagne through a fountain-those with status get retweeted while ordinary voices go unheard. When Barack Obama tweeted about unity, it became the most popular tweet ever with 4.4 million likes and 1.6 million retweets, while similar sentiments from average users disappeared into the digital void.
This stark contrast demonstrates how status functions as a powerful "hard-messenger" effect, helping us determine who's worth listening to across all social contexts. These messenger effects fundamentally shape not just who we listen to and what we believe, but ultimately who we become.
Chapter 3
The Power of Position: Why We Listen to High-Status Voices
Socio-economic status profoundly influences a messenger's credibility and impact. Celebrity status grants enormous social power, though often with mixed blessings for the famous themselves. While celebrities gain adulation and influence extending far beyond their original domain, they lose the ability to move freely without constant recognition-as comedians like Eminem and Aziz Ansari lament. Their elevated status makes them powerful messengers regardless of their expertise in different subjects.
Doob and Gross's ingenious 1967 experiment revealed how socio-economic signals affect social interactions. They discovered drivers were significantly less likely to honk at high-status vehicles (a polished Chrysler) than low-status ones (a scruffy Rambler) when delayed at traffic lights-only 50% honked at the luxury car versus 84% at the economy model. Similar modern studies confirm people still defer to status symbols.
Status signals operate through conspicuous consumption-from luxury cars to branded clothing. Dutch researchers found a Tommy Hilfiger logo on a polo shirt dramatically increased perceptions of the wearer's socioeconomic status. More remarkably, people were four times more likely to participate in a survey when approached by someone wearing a branded jumper (52% versus 13%), and charity fundraisers wearing Lacoste shirts collected twice as many donations.
Like peacocks with their costly tails, humans willingly pay premiums for status markers-even low-income Bolivians chose higher-priced Calvin Klein perfume over identical generic versions. Those most sensitive to public perception are particularly susceptible to premium branding, as demonstrated in Bushman's peanut butter experiment, where status-conscious individuals strongly preferred "premium" labeled products regardless of content.
Once a messenger achieves high socioeconomic status, audiences often incorrectly infer their value extends to unrelated domains-explaining phenomena like Donald Trump's electoral success despite limited governmental experience, or why singer Kay Tse's vaccine misinformation outweighed medical expertise. This status transfer effect powers celebrity endorsements, a marketing strategy dating back 150 years. Companies eagerly provide free products to those who least need them because celebrities command extraordinary attention, appearing in roughly 25% of American advertisements and up to 70% in Japan.
Status hierarchies aren't fixed across cultures-while socioeconomic position dominates Western influence, other societies value different characteristics like humility, physical prowess, or selflessness. Status fundamentally represents one's relative standing in a group, determining the respect, attention and decision-making influence they receive.
Chapter 4
Competence: The Expertise Advantage
Our deference to perceived competence rivals our deference to status, often overriding rational judgment when experts speak. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices has documented countless medical errors where subordinates failed to question authority figures despite obvious mistakes-like the nurse who administered ear drops rectally because a doctor abbreviated "Right Ear" as "R.Ear." Similar deference led to airline disasters like the 1977 KLM/Pan Am crash in Tenerife and 1982 Air Florida crash in Washington DC, where co-pilots failed to correct captains' fatal errors.
We instinctively value expert messengers for their instrumental value-their specialized knowledge enables cultural transmission and social efficiency. Brain scans reveal we literally reduce our cognitive effort when experts advise us, as demonstrated when financial decision-makers showed decreased activity in probability-weighing brain regions when given "expert" advice.
We assess competence through simple visual cues like clothing and position. Stanley Milgram's infamous obedience studies demonstrated this power-ordinary people administered seemingly dangerous electric shocks simply because a scientist in a white lab coat instructed them to. When similar experiments were conducted with market researchers instead of scientists, compliance plummeted dramatically. Medical accessories like stethoscopes similarly enhance perceived expertise, even when unused.
Beyond reading emotions, we unconsciously judge competence from facial features. The "competent face" appears mature with higher cheekbones, angular jaw, and shorter eyebrow-to-eye distance-traits we associate with maturity and therefore expertise. These snap judgments have profound consequences. Studies show CEOs with "competent-looking" faces tend to lead more profitable companies, regardless of actual ability. Even more troubling, political outcomes correlate with facial competence judgments. Princeton researchers found people could predict election winners after viewing candidates' faces for just 100 milliseconds.
Confidence and competence form a self-reinforcing loop-we assume confident people are competent and competent people are confident. The Paulhus Over-Claiming Questionnaire reveals how readily people claim knowledge of non-existent topics, yet groups automatically confer higher status to these confident individuals. This explains why those who speak up early in discussions gain disproportionate influence regardless of merit.
Surprisingly, potential often trumps demonstrated achievement. Studies by Stanford's Tormala and Jia with Harvard's Norton show people frequently prefer candidates with promising potential over those with actual experience. In their experiments, recruiters rated candidates with high leadership potential but no experience as more desirable than those with two years' experience and proven leadership achievements.
With limited mental bandwidth and countless distractions, deferring to perceived competence remains our default strategy for navigating life's complexities.
Chapter 5
Dominance: The Force That Commands Attention
Unlike socio-economic position and competence which exist on a continuum, dominance functions as a binary outcome-one either wins or loses. Like dominant genes prevailing over recessive ones, social dominance establishes clear winners in competitive situations. Dominant personalities prioritize winning over fairness, focusing on self-interest rather than empathy. They're characterized as "D-type personalities": Dominant, Demanding, Direct, and Decisive-and when they display friendly behavior, they're actually perceived as less dominant.
Our sensitivity to dominance evolved to establish hierarchical cooperation and avoid unnecessary conflict. Studies with rhesus macaques show they willingly sacrifice rewards to view higher-status males while demanding compensation to view lower-ranking ones. Similarly, humans track dominance from infancy-ten-month-old children can recognize dominant relationships between animated shapes and show surprise when expected dominance patterns are violated.
Dominance manifests physically through expansive postures and gestures that claim space. Studies of judo athletes show these reactions appear innate: winners stand tall with chests out while losers slump with bowed heads. Even Paralympic athletes blind from birth display these same reactions, proving they're deep-wired rather than learned. When we see pride expressions, our minds automatically associate them with dominance and status, as demonstrated through Implicit Association Tests across diverse cultures.
We associate dominance with lower, more relaxed-sounding voices that signal confidence rather than anxiety. This connection is partly biological-a large larynx indicates physical size and testosterone levels. Both UK female prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, sought voice training to develop lower, stronger voices. Research confirms this preference: when listeners heard digitally manipulated speeches with identical content but different pitches, 70% preferred candidates with lower voices.
Those with a dominant disposition tend to be selfish, self-obsessed and far less likely to make sacrifices for others. In relationships, dominant partners rarely concede to their spouse's requests and often use aggressive comments. The less dominant partner typically adopts the views of the more dominant one, doing most of the "heavy lifting" in their convergence.
Despite its prevalence, dominance remains under-recognized in modern Western society. We prefer to believe the best ideas win rather than the loudest voices, yet uncooperative, egotistical behavior is often rewarded. We're reluctant to admit our tendency to conform to dominant others.
In modern society, our desire for dominant leaders depends on circumstances. During calm periods, warm, harmonious messengers are valued. However, in times of conflict and uncertainty-when people feel anxious or fear for their security-the motivation to seek dominant leaders rises. People assume dispositionally dominant individuals will make tough decisions, act assertively, and enforce group rules necessary during crises.
Chapter 6
Attractiveness: The Beauty Premium
Physical attractiveness serves as a powerful messenger attribute that influences decisions far beyond contexts where appearance seems relevant. The persuasive power of attractive people extends across advertising, social relationships, employment opportunities, and even political elections.
In financial contexts where economic factors should theoretically dominate decision-making, attractiveness plays a surprising role. Researchers from Chicago's Booth School of Business discovered that for male recipients, an attractive female photograph increased loan take-up rates equivalent to a 25 percent interest rate reduction-though women remained uninfluenced by such tactics.
We make attractiveness judgments in less than 200 milliseconds, and despite individual preferences, there's remarkable cross-cultural consensus about who is attractive. This recognition begins early-infants as young as two months prefer gazing at faces adults rate as attractive, and one-year-olds demonstrate greater positive responses toward attractive strangers and dolls.
Three key factors determine attractiveness: youthfulness, facial symmetry, and-surprisingly-averageness. We prefer "average" faces because they lack potentially problematic unique features. Symmetry and averageness signal genetic health, while familiarity makes average faces more comfortable. We're generally attracted to people who resemble ourselves, but only to a point-research shows the sweet spot is when a partner's face contains about 22% of our own features, as excessive similarity triggers aversion to inbreeding.
Attractiveness offers advantages far beyond romantic options. From childhood through adulthood, attractive individuals receive preferential treatment-teachers give them better grades, peers view them as more popular, and employers offer them more opportunities.
The "beauty premium" in employment is substantial-economist Daniel Hamermesh calculates attractive people earn 10-15% more annually than average-looking colleagues with identical qualifications and work ethic. Over a lifetime, a below-average-looking man might earn up to $250,000 less than more attractive peers. This disparity has led some, like Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode, to suggest legal protections against appearance-based discrimination similar to those for race, gender, and disability.
Attractiveness isn't always advantageous, particularly for women. As Dolly Parton's song "Jolene" poignantly illustrates, female beauty can trigger hostility from other women. While attractive men are less likely to be victimized by other males, attractive women face increased bullying from female peers.
Psychologist Frank McAndrew documents how women often undermine attractive peers through gossip and reputation damage, attempting to reduce their social status. Women face a double bind regarding appearance. Those deemed unattractive suffer professional penalties, with overweight women particularly disadvantaged in hiring and salary decisions. Yet those considered attractive risk social exclusion and hostility.
Chapter 7
The Power of Warmth: Why We Trust Kind Messengers
Warmth signals care and kindness, making it a powerful messenger trait. We're hardwired from infancy to prefer prosocial messengers who demonstrate benevolence rather than hostility. Dale Carnegie's classic advice to "become genuinely interested in other people" captures this principle, while John Gottman's research identifies criticism and contempt as relationship killers.
The stunning 1985 legal case where Texaco was ordered to pay Pennzoil $10.5 billion demonstrates how the "soft messenger" can prevail over the "hard messenger" when warmth becomes the deciding factor. Despite Texaco's superior status, experience and dominance, the jury sided with Pennzoil largely because Texaco's attorneys appeared pompous and rude, while Pennzoil's team seemed more likeable.
Warmth can be cultivated through several key factors. First is positivity-research shows supervisors delivering messages with warm demeanor are rated as more effective leaders regardless of whether the feedback is positive or negative. Job candidates who smile during interviews are more likely to be shortlisted, and consistently positive employees experience increased cooperation from colleagues.
Second is social reward-Dan Ariely's semiconductor factory study demonstrated that praise and pizza motivated workers more effectively than cash bonuses, which actually reduced productivity over time. Similarly, fund-raisers who received genuine thanks from managers increased their call volume by 50%, and bus drivers given warm send-offs experienced fewer accidents.
Third is compassion-apologizing for circumstances beyond one's control (like President Clinton's "I'm sorry about the rain") makes messengers seem warmer and more persuasive. Finally, "appreciative humility"-celebrating others' accomplishments rather than boasting about one's own-enhances warmth and messenger effectiveness, as demonstrated by Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
Despite its persuasive power, warmth has significant limitations. Messengers who appear too cooperative or express guilt too easily risk being viewed as pushovers and exploited by others. Inauthentic warmth is easily detected and judged negatively. Disproportionate generosity can make others uncomfortable-studies show "hyper-altruists" may elicit negative emotions from observers, as seen when vegetarians' moral positioning triggers defensiveness in meat-eaters.
Most critically, warmth can signal lower status. In waiting room experiments, high-status individuals remain cool and detached while lower-status people display friendliness. This status distinction extends to physical appearance-warmth is associated with "baby-faced" features (round face, large eyes, small chin) that convey honesty but less competence.
Despite occasional status risks, warmth typically enhances a messenger's reputation and influence through greater connectedness. People want to be seen as caring and generous, especially when these qualities earn social rewards that reinforce such behaviors. Wikipedia volunteers who received public "barnstar" recognition increased productivity by 60% compared to unrecognized peers.
Chapter 8
Vulnerability: The Strength in Showing Weakness
Archana Patchirajan, an Indian tech entrepreneur who sold her startup Hubbl for $14 million, once faced a crisis when funding dried up. Upon telling her 25 engineers they would be let go, they refused to leave-instead offering to take pay cuts or work overtime for free. This remarkable loyalty stemmed from emotional connectedness, which research shows increases both employee wellbeing and commitment.
Brene Brown, whose TED Talk "The Power of Vulnerability" has resonated widely, argues that genuine social connection requires vulnerability-putting aside protective masks to be honestly open. Patchirajan's engineers stayed despite other opportunities because they valued her authenticity and willingness to share both successes and uncertainties.
Our impulse to help others when they appear vulnerable is powerful and develops early in life. Even rats will free trapped companions before helping themselves to treats, showing genuine altruism. In UCL research, participants typically chose to forgo money rather than inflict electric shocks on anonymous partners. Similarly, hospital signs that emphasized protecting patients from disease ("Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases") increased sanitizer use by 45%, while self-protective messages had little impact.
This compassionate response appears even in unlikely settings-economist Felix Oberholzer-Gee found that train station commuters would let desperate strangers cut in line when money was offered, but interestingly, most declined the payment. The higher the offered amount, the more it signaled genuine need rather than wealth, prompting free assistance.
Our emotional response to vulnerable messengers exists on a continuum. While identifiable victims like Sean O'Brien (the "Dancing Man") can trigger extraordinary compassion-receiving celebrity support and $70,000 in charity donations after being publicly mocked-we often ignore statistical victims. We react more strongly to individuals than groups, as Joseph Stalin noted: "The death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
This "identifiable victim effect" explains why Jamal Khashoggi's murder generated more outrage than thousands dying in Yemen, and why the film "Babe" created vegetarians despite millions of anonymous pigs being slaughtered daily. This innumeracy of empathy can lead to immoral decisions-helping one visible victim rather than eight anonymous sufferers.
Vulnerable messengers can overcome dehumanization by emphasizing commonalities with their audience. Research shows we're more likely to help those we perceive as similar to ourselves-Manchester United fans were nearly three times more likely (85% vs 30%) to help an injured jogger wearing their team's shirt compared to someone in neutral or rival attire.
Reducing dehumanization can be achieved through meaningful interaction between groups, which increases trust and empathy even among historically divided communities. Even simple perspective-taking exercises help-asking children to imagine interacting with immigrant peers or having teenagers read about intercultural topics reduces rejection of outsiders.
Chapter 9
Trust: The Foundation of Influence
In 1961, a scandal erupted when Britain's Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, had a brief affair with Christine Keeler, who was simultaneously involved with a Russian spy during the Cold War. When rumors emerged two years later, Profumo lied to Parliament, declaring "There was no impropriety whatever in my acquaintance with Miss Keeler." His deception-not the affair itself-ultimately destroyed his career and contributed to the Conservative government's downfall.
Trust forms the foundation of all human relationships and transactions, enabling cooperation that individuals alone couldn't achieve. Trust comes in two forms: competence-based trust (relying on someone's proven capabilities) and integrity-based trust (believing someone will adhere to virtuous principles even when tempted otherwise).
Trust is essential for social cooperation, as demonstrated by the Trust Game experiment where one player decides how much money to send another, knowing it will be tripled but uncertain how much will be returned. This mirrors everyday exchanges-when we do favors or lend money, we're betting on reciprocity.
While social norms generally encourage trusting others (openly showing distrust can be insulting), trust levels vary significantly between countries. Scandinavian nations report 60% general trust compared to just 10% in some South American countries. Higher-trust societies show greater cooperation, democratic thinking and subjective well-being. However, scandals like Watergate or the 2008 banking crisis can severely damage public trust, with consequences extending beyond those directly involved.
Trust can be understood as social risk-taking-a calculation weighing potential gains against losses. Using Game of Thrones as an example, when Ned Stark must decide whether to trust Littlefinger, he should consider both possible outcomes of trusting (compliance or betrayal) and alternatives if he doesn't trust him. The calculation requires estimating not just your own values but predicting the other person's incentives-what they stand to gain or lose through cooperation or betrayal.
Rather than using complex game theory, we assess trustworthiness through general impressions of personality. Being trustworthy sometimes matters more than being truthful, as demonstrated by Donald Trump. Despite making thousands of false statements, his core supporters view him as trustworthy because he's remained consistent with his key campaign promises and principles.
Consistency is central to trustworthiness because it helps predict future behavior. Frank Flynn found that workers who maintained equal, reciprocal exchanges with colleagues were considered most trustworthy and productive. As these exchanges increased, so did collaboration, performance and trust. Trustworthy colleagues receive more leeway because they're relied upon to act in good faith, earning more attention and assistance.
When trustworthiness is questioned, messengers have several options. Outright denial-Donald Trump's preferred tactic with media allegations-risks devastating consequences if evidence later proves the denial false. Alternatively, one can offer justification (accepting responsibility while denying immorality) or excuse (acknowledging immorality while denying responsibility). Apology, however, remains the most effective approach when properly executed.
Chapter 10
Charisma: The Magnetic Quality That Captivates
Charisma remains one of the most recognizable yet difficult-to-define messenger qualities. As 94-year-old John Marks (grandfather of co-author Joseph) aptly noted, "It's easy to spot charisma. But impossible to define it." Despite its elusive nature, charisma profoundly impacts a messenger's persuasiveness.
Defined vaguely as "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion," charisma remains what researcher John Antonakis calls an "ill-defined and ill-measured gift." Yet most people intuitively recognize it when they see it, and self-assessments of charisma typically align with others' perceptions.
Charisma comprises a constellation of qualities-self-confidence, expressiveness, energy, optimism, rhetorical skill, risk-taking comfort, challenging the status quo, and creativity-though no charismatic individual possesses all these traits equally. What distinguishes truly charismatic messengers is their ability to articulate collective identity and vision.
Whether Martin Luther King Jr. espousing equality, Hitler channeling national anger, Churchill representing resilience, or Eva Peron championing underdogs, charismatic individuals tap into shared identity by referencing common history and articulating an idealized future. They excel at reducing complexity to binary choices that create strong in-group connections and inspire followers to prioritize collective goals over self-interest.
Surgency-a temperament characterized by positivity, high energy, and desire for rewarding experiences-closely links to extraversion and emotional expressiveness. Charismatic messengers engage audiences emotionally, spreading their enthusiasm like contagion. Research shows those most susceptible to emotional contagion read expressions well, pay close attention, and view themselves as interconnected with others.
Body language amplifies charisma through genuine smiles, eye contact, and animated gestures. Studies using stick-figure animations of speeches demonstrated that figures judged to possess surgency employed significantly more hand movements with brief moments of stillness-and these ratings accurately predicted applause the original speeches received. Analysis of TED Talks revealed the most popular presenters use nearly twice as many hand gestures (465 versus 272) as less successful ones, appearing warmer and more energetic.
Contrary to common assumption, research shows little correlation between charisma and general intelligence. Many brilliant minds like Einstein lacked charismatic communication skills-his lectures were notoriously boring, with classes so poorly attended they were eventually canceled. As organizational psychologist Adam Grant notes, "the best doers are often the worst teachers," while the most charismatic educators are frequently junior academics who communicate clearly and enthusiastically.
Dr. Konstantin Tskhay's research reveals charisma comprises two fundamental factors mirroring messenger effects described throughout the book: the hard effect of dominance and the soft effect of warmth. Charismatic individuals assert themselves and command presence (dominance) while simultaneously making others comfortable and conveying positive regard (warmth). They're dominant enough to attract attention without appearing aggressive, ruling by charm rather than coercion.
Charisma, like intelligence, is a natural gift possessed by a lucky minority, but that doesn't mean we can't learn techniques from charismatic messengers. We can develop skills in group communication, employing appropriate metaphors, using effective non-verbal cues like hand gestures and facial expressions, and tapping into shared emotions and community feeling.
Chapter 11
Becoming Better Messengers: The Path Forward
In 1981, when the British Home Office issued a pamphlet on civil defense preparation for nuclear attack, government officials suggested soccer star Kevin Keegan and cricket hero Ian Botham as ideal messengers-not because they had any expertise in civil defense, but purely because of their status. This deployment of high-status individuals from one domain to deliver messages in completely unrelated fields is a common tactic, from Warren Harding using Hollywood stars in the 1920s to Taylor Swift's political endorsements in 2018.
Swift's Instagram post supporting Democratic candidates in Republican-dominated Tennessee demonstrated the complex power of messenger effects-while her endorsed Senate candidate lost, her intervention triggered a 663% increase in early voting among 18-29 year-olds compared to 2014, with over 212,000 new voters registering within 48 hours.
Is there one messenger trait that trumps all others? Research suggests trustworthiness might be the most powerful. A meta-analysis of celebrity endorsement studies ranked trustworthiness first, with competence second and attractiveness third. Similarly, global surveys of valued traits consistently place trustworthiness and competence near the top. However, context matters enormously. Hard messengers typically impact audiences seeking tangible benefits like resources or information, while soft messengers appeal to those valuing personal bonds or mutual respect.
Society has traditionally cast men as hard messengers-authoritative leaders suited for positions of power-while viewing women as soft messengers: caring, consensual and emotionally sensitive. This stereotyping disadvantages women in situations where hard-messenger effects dominate. Professional women with children face a double penalty: childless women are seen as competent but cold, while mothers are perceived as warm but less competent. Men with children, however, maintain their perceived competence while gaining warmth.
Cultural differences significantly impact which messenger traits prove most effective. In interdependent cultures valuing group cohesiveness, soft-messenger traits like warmth and trustworthiness are prized. In independent cultures, hard traits lead to greater messenger success. Latin American countries typically favor soft traits like warmth and generosity, while individualistic societies like North America value dominance and socio-economic position.
The book's investigation into over sixty years of research reveals eight messenger effects-four "status-driven" hard effects and four "connectedness-driven" soft effects-that underpin daily social interactions and explain three key processes: who we listen to, what we believe, and who we become.
Hard messengers, particularly those perceived as powerful and dominant, capture attention most quickly due to their potential impact on our welfare. Similarly, attractive individuals draw attention rapidly because of their evolutionary and social value. While capturing attention doesn't guarantee acceptance, it ensures consideration.
Our willingness to believe depends on how well the messenger's traits align with their message. Most importantly, these messengers shape who we become-from teenagers influenced by peers, to adults' career choices, to political allegiances. Though our fundamental personalities remain relatively stable, almost everything else in our lives can be influenced by the messengers we choose to listen to.
