Every Thursday morning, I sit down with my good friends Ben Wilde and Chris Rock for an open conversation about coaching. We pick a topic, explore it from different perspectives, and see where curiosity takes us.

This week, I shared a story about how the method of introduction—the way we begin teaching or presenting something—can dramatically shape the learner’s level of interest. Here’s a short excerpt from my book, Dynamic Athleticism, that sparked the discussion:

As a sophomore architectural engineering major, I couldn’t wait to take my first physics class. I wanted to understand how formulas and math connected to the real-world structures that fascinated me. But the course was taught by a foreign teaching assistant whose English was limited, and whose passion clearly lay in his own research rather than in teaching.

I wanted to be inspired—to see how the concepts fit into the bigger picture—but instead, I found myself disengaged and frustrated. My curiosity faded. That semester, I changed majors to pursue my other passion…coaching.

A decade later, I encountered physics again in Dr. Paul Juris’ workshop, The Biomechanics of Function. His approach was completely different. He connected theory to movement, science to performance, and formulas to the way the body actually worked. Through his examples and applications, he reignited something I thought was lost—my interest in physics and biomechanics.

That experience changed the way I saw learning and teaching. I realized that the way we introduce a topic doesn’t just transfer information—it determines whether curiosity grows or dies.

Here’s a look into the conversation that followed.