In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, Casey explores what happens when people are reduced to labels instead of being seen as whole. Starting from personal moments of tuning out, subtle dismissal, and everyday microaggressions, the conversation widens into a deeper reflection on attention, neurodivergence, trauma, race, education, and lived experience. This isn’t an episode about diagnosing ADHD or explaining trauma, it’s about how complex human realities get flattened, and what that flattening costs us in connection, focus, and understanding.

Drawing on insights from Scattered Minds, recent conversations on trauma and the nervous system from the Huberman Lab featuring psychiatrist Paul Conti, and research on attention, multitasking, and educational inequity, this episode argues for something simpler—and harder—than better labels: permission to be complex. Because when people are truly seen, attention doesn’t disappear. It stays.

⸻

Sources & Influences Referenced

• Scattered Minds — Gabor Maté

• Huberman Lab, Essentials: Therapy, Treating Trauma & Other Life Challenges (Jan 22, 2026), conversation with Paul Conti

• Research from cognitive psychology on attention and task-switching (multitasking vs. switching)

• Sociological and economic research on educational access, student debt aversion, and inequities tied to class and race

• Anti-racism frameworks on microaggressions and cumulative harm

Stablecoins are digital currencies designed to hold a steady value, usually pegged one-to-one to traditional money like the U.S. dollar or the Canadian dollar. They move on blockchain networks, allowing money to be sent quickly, globally, and often at lower cost than traditional banking systems.

In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, Casey B steps back from the headlines and asks a quieter but more dangerous question: what happens when the rules that govern nations start to feel optional?

Drawing on her undergraduate studies in criminology and Caribbean studies, and approaching the moment not as an expert, but as a citizen of the world, Casey reflects on recent global events that echo the very case studies many of us learned about in school: violations of sovereignty, the use of force without clear international authorization, and the erosion of norms designed to prevent escalation.

Joined by her AI co-host, Jazz, the episode explores:

• What sovereignty actually means under international law

• Why the prohibition on the use of force exists in the first place

• How international legal frameworks are supposed to function — and where they often fail

• Why major powers are rarely held accountable in the same way smaller states are

• And why so many people feel a deep unease before they can fully explain it

This is not an episode about taking sides or predicting catastrophe. It’s about pattern recognition, the slow normalization of actions that international law was built to restrain, and the risks that emerge when legitimacy gives way to raw power.

At a time when global institutions are under strain, this conversation reminds us that international law doesn’t survive on treaties alone. It survives when people understand why the rules exist, and notice when they begin to fray.

⸻

Key Sources & Legal Frameworks Referenced

Foundational International Law

• United Nations Charter (1945)

• Article 2(4): Prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state

• Article 51: Limited right to self-defense

• International Court of Justice

• Nicaragua v. United States (1986): Landmark ruling on unlawful use of force and non-intervention

• International Criminal Court

• Rome Statute provisions on crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity

International Humanitarian & Human Rights Law

• Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols

• Civilian protection, proportionality, and distinction in armed conflict

• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (1973)

• Protections for heads of state and senior officials

Regional & Multilateral Norms

• Organization of American States Charter

• Principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality

• Customary International Law

• State sovereignty, diplomatic immunity, and non-interference

Trade & Political Context

• North American Free Trade Agreement / USMCA

• Economic integration alongside divergent foreign-policy responses

• Illustrates how trade alliances can shape — and sometimes mute — political accountability

Supplementary Analysis

• United Nations General Assembly resolutions on use of force and sovereignty

• Academic commentary on enforcement gaps in international law

• Human rights reporting on civilian harm and extraterritorial use of force

In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, Casey B takes a clear-eyed look at Universal Basic Income (UBI), not as a theory, but as a real policy idea tested in real places with real people.

Drawing on evidence from Ireland, Finland, Manitoba, Alaska, Ontario, and Canada’s COVID response, the episode breaks down what actually happens when people are guaranteed a basic income floor. The data consistently shows improvements in mental health, stability, and well-being, without large-scale withdrawal from work.

Rather than arguing for a one-size-fits-all cheque, the episode explores a more realistic model: updating ineffective and punitive income assistance programs into a guaranteed minimum income or top-up system, while keeping critical supports like disability in place. The focus is on reducing bureaucracy, removing fear and instability, and allowing people to work and earn on top of a stable income floor.

The episode also tackles common fears head-on government control, fairness, cost, and and reframes the conversation around system design, incentives, and how people actually behave in real life.

The central question isn’t whether people deserve support, but whether we’re willing to redesign systems that repeatedly fail to produce stability, health, or opportunity.

Source: Homelessness and Housing Insecurity Among Im/migrants in Canada: A Scoping Review”

When the Vibes Are Off at Work

You can feel it before anyone says it out loud.

The side conversations. The tension in meetings. The quiet after certain people speak. In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, we talk about what’s really happening when the vibes are off at work—and why it’s rarely “just personalities.”

Using peer-reviewed research from organizational psychology and workplace behavior, this episode breaks down how gossip and chronic negativity quietly erode trust, damage morale, and spread through teams like a social contagion. Studies show that negative gossip is linked to increased stress, reduced performance, lower organizational commitment, and higher turnover intentions (Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Wu et al., 2018; Küçük et al., 2025). Research on workplace incivility also finds that even low-level negativity reduces cognitive performance, collaboration, and psychological safety (Porath & Pearson, 2013; Leiter et al., 2011).

We explore how these behaviors influence entire workplace cultures—not just the people directly involved—and why organizations often underestimate the cost of “toxic talk.” We also talk honestly about what it’s like to work in these environments: why people stay silent, how gossip drains energy from teams, and the coping strategies employees use to survive when leaving isn’t an option.

Finally, we look at solutions backed by evidence. Can people who gossip or contribute to negative workplace cultures change? What actually works—training, coaching, accountability, leadership modeling—and where organizations often get it wrong. Research on civility interventions and emotional intelligence training shows that workplace culture can improve when negative behaviors are addressed directly and consistently (Leiter et al., 2011; West & Brassey, 2022).

If you’ve ever walked into work and thought, “something feels off,” this episode is for you.

⸻

Key References Mentioned

• Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review.

• Wu, L. Z., et al. (2018). The effect of workplace gossip on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology.

• Küçük, A., et al. (2025). Workplace gossip, loneliness, and turnover intention. Journal of Management & Organization.

• Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review.

• Leiter, M. P., et al. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on workplace culture. Journal of Applied Psychology.

• West, T., & Brassey, J. (2022). Addressing toxic workplace behavior. McKinsey Health Institute.

In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, Casey B challenges the workplace myth that the best hires are the most outgoing, social, and familiar. Through research on cultural fit and the costs of homogenous teams, we uncover how organizations hurt themselves by choosing comfort over capability.

Casey highlights why shows like Netflix’s The Residence matter for representation. Uzo Aduba’s Detective Cordelia Cupp is brilliant, awkward, introverted—and exceptional. A character like this reminds us that excellence comes in many forms.

This episode is an invitation to rethink what talent looks like and to question who we overlook when we only hire those who feel familiar.

In this episode of Me, Myself & AI, we unpack why retreating from Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) isn’t a “neutral reset,” but a risk, for people, for culture, and for business. We explore what academic research reveals about the impact of microaggressions, lost diversity, and dismantled inclusion efforts. From real-world DEI rollbacks to data on firm performance and organizational health, we show how exclusion isn’t just a social problem, it’s a business problem. If you care about fairness and sustainable success, this episode is for you.