Monthly Message Design Office Hours

Hey, uh, it's Tamsen Webster Webster.

You know what? And that's the first lesson in how not to start a live stream. We're like, hey, who the heck am I? Anyway, hello, I'm Tamsen Webster. I'm the founder of the Message Design Institute, and I am a reasoning researcher who studies how people think about new ideas. I am excited today because, well, I'm always excited when I have somebody who's got a specific question about their message or their idea to ask. So if you do, I will say for the first of numerous times, please feel free to pop your questions or thoughts in the comments. If you're willing to come up on camera, then let us know that too. But without anybody lined up ahead of time, I thought today would be a great idea to— great idea— it would be a great opportunity to show a little bit behind the curtains of how I develop my own ideas. And how that process works. So a little bit of context, uh, one of the— what, what I'm studying for my doctoral dissertation is what do new ideas, novel ideas, require, uh, to make those aha moments possible. Aha moments meaning that sudden shift in thinking of understanding the world after which everything is different and you start behaving differently because that's the case. And so I'm really curious, given the work that I do and the folks that I work with— academics, founders, folks with truly novel ideas— what is it that somebody else has to hear in that idea in order to make it possible for that kind of shift to happen? So hopefully that makes sense. If not, I'm still working on how to talk about it. Hey, uh, so let me know if you're like, yeah, that was great. Um, so part of any time we are establishing an idea, one of the things we need to do is establish how people recognize when the problem that we're talking about is in play. And one of the things that I believe, based on what I've started to see so far, is that We've spent so much time focused on the credibility of a source when it comes to a new idea that we don't spend nearly enough time, in my point of view, my current view, on the credibility of the idea itself. Uh, there's, there's good research and good science that says that if, if the idea itself is not understandable, it cannot be accepted. And even though we are often assessing kind of source credibility and idea credibility at the same time, it's really the idea credibility that will determine whether or not the idea goes forward and you start to question the source at all. So if that's remotely interesting to you, that's my next newsletter coming out, I believe, on the 2nd. Is that right, Jen? That's coming out on the 2nd? Um, I think so. Oh, woohoo! All right, yay Ian! And thanks for laughing, Payal.

File.

So, okay, so we've got this idea of it has to make sense. So one of the— I'm kind of playing with words to describe that idea of an idea making sense. The newsletter is going to be framing in the court in the terms of standing, as in like legal standing, meaning, you know, before a case will go to court, it has to establish standing. It has to establish that it has the merits to— for the case to be heard at all. Um, I think the key to that, to being able to have that credibility, is something called coherence. Um, I'm calling coherence, um, and that is— I fully recognize— one of those academic words, meaning it's a word that encompasses everything that I, as somebody who's been studying this, understands, like, that I think is required. And so it's a good word from that perspective because it holds everything. But it's not a great word when I'm talking to humans about this idea, because coherence is the kind of word that, A, has multiple definitions. B, not every— it's not that common of a word. And so it's a word that risks people not understanding what I mean by it, not only because they may be thinking about a different definition, they may not be very familiar with it at all. Um, and C, it, it doesn't speak to the immediate recognizable nuance that is often in play when an issue of coherence shows up. Okay, so we've got coherence, and I would say the biggest problem when an idea fails, uh, in its earliest stages, in its— as people are talking about it, is that the idea is perceived as incoherent. It does not have coherence. Okay. So here's what I'm debating. Uh, working as I do as a practitioner and working with practitioners, one of the things we have to do is to help ensure that practitioners, like folks that are doing message design themselves, the leaders of thinking, the thinking leaders that I, that I tend to work with, can help like self-diagnose when there's a coherence problem with, with how they're talking about or thinking about their idea. So what I did was I spent some time thinking through, well, how does it show up? Like, what does— what are all the flavors of incoherence? And so where I am is that I've got the one word, incoherence, um, to represent the problem. I think that's not nuanced enough. And then I have 5 kind of flavors of it that articulate like how it shows up, which I suspect— which, while accurate, might be too overwhelming. So what I'd love to do is kind of just talk through this with you all. And because really what I'm trying to decide is, do I go with 5 or do I go with 3? All right, so incoherence can show up in one of— let me start with the 5 ways. Uh, the first is incoherent, meaning I can't understand it. Okay, and there's actually 2 reasons that can happen. Number 1 is the idea is literally incomprehensible. Because someone is using words or concepts that are not immediately understandable to somebody else. This is what I mean when I say incoherent may not itself be coherent to somebody else because they— it may be incomprehensible to them. Related but different is that there is something missing from the idea. Um, oh, Ian's got a problem. Great, let me get through these, Ian, and we'll come back to it. Um, incomplete, meaning the idea is missing something that it must have for someone's brain to make sense of it. So one of the things, for example, that I talk about a lot is that particularly an idea that we're presenting as a, um, solution to a problem or as a, as an idea to act on, uh, invokes what an if-then statement. It's, we're basically saying if you do this thing, then you'll get this outcome. Um, so anytime we say, if you want this outcome, or if you want to— if you do this thing, we are opening the kind of slot in somebody's brain to fill in the other part of that. And if we don't do that, if we present the thing we want someone to do without it being linked to the thing it will accomplish, that would be an incomplete idea. If we give people the thing they want to accomplish, let's say the problem they're trying to solve, a goal they're trying to achieve, but don't also link it to the thing, the idea we want them to do, then that can't happen, right? Like, that's also going to be incomplete. So we've got 2 of the 5. We've got an idea that's incomplete because it's missing a kind of one of those core ingredients that brains need to understand idea. It's incomprehensible. Maybe one thing to think about it— see, this is how ideas happen— that the incomplete is actually something that is sensed by our automatic brains, also known as System 1, fast brain, intuition, or whatever. Like, it's incoherent, it's the one looking for those pieces and parts. The incomprehensible is, is more of the analytic brain saying, I understand you're saying words, I don't understand what they mean. Okay, um, third one that I'm putting up here, uh, is that— and these can be combined or by themselves— but another kind of avoidable error of incoherence is the ideas perceived to be irrelevant. Right? That can happen because someone doesn't understand what you're saying. But it can also happen because it's linked to an outcome that that person does not actively want or does not recognize as being something that they would want or would benefit from. This happens when, for instance, I see this a lot with founders who start something because they want to save the world or save democracy. And so they start there and forget that the people they're talking to are like, shipping companies that are just trying to figure out how to like reduce their shipping expenses without having to mothball their fleet, right? Um, so the save the planet thing is not as relevant to the shipping person as the, the benefit that can come from this approach of reducing costs of shipping. See what I mean? Um, it can also happen if people follow the advice— bad advice— that's out there about, um, you know, tell people about the problem they don't know they have. Let's just think about that for a minute. If they don't know they have the problem, how can they remotely know or perceive this thing that you're talking about to be relevant to them? They cannot. Um, okay, so we've got incomplete, incomprehensible, irrelevant. There's two more. Uh, the next one is that it is indefensible. And what I mean by indefensible is that you cannot defend it. Um, it can all— that can take the flavor of overclaiming. I've talked about this on my newsletter fairly recently where I was working with a business intelligence software and they were claiming that you— that using the software could grow your business. You know, you could take it to the kind of climate tech companies too, that capturing carbon on board a ship will save the planet, right? It's not that it wouldn't help, but it's not actually doing that thing, right? So this idea of like it's unlikely that that will have a direct line to accomplishing— like, this idea will have a direct line to an outcome— is unlikely. Um, or indefensibility can come up— I've seen this a lot when I was doing work with TEDx— where someone has a great idea but they have absolutely no domain of authority to be talking about it. Um, in other words, like, so it might be great, but It's kind of like, you just— did you just stumble upon this idea? In other words, it's, it's hard for people to accept that source for the idea. Um, indefensible would also be, again, maybe the idea is viable, but there's nothing— or you have not done the work to show that it is— that there's a lineage to the idea, meaning that it's built based on things that people already know to be true. Um, or already believed to be true. Um, you're just kind of pulling it out of nowhere and you're just saying, well, yeah, just do it. And there's no support for it that someone can immediately understand, believe, or agree with. And that leads to the last one. So we— and that is that an idea is incompatible with somebody's current beliefs. Um, this invokes something that is oftentimes known as the Um, Semmelweis effect. I've talked a lot about in my days about Ignaz Semmelweis and how he told people to wash their hands. But Semmelweis effect is what is called when people reject a new idea simply because it conflicts with what they believe to be true. So incompatibility with somebody's current worldview will shut an idea down right away. So that means the challenge is we have to figure out how to establish and how to frame that, that, that idea in context that are compatible with how somebody sees. So I want to get to Ian Pyle. Yeah, I also see your comments as well. But you can kind of see where, like, I've got clarity about how the avoidable errors of ideas can show up. You know, they can be— an idea can be incomplete, it can be incomprehensible, it can be irrelevant, it can be indefensible, it can be incompatible. I worry though that 5 is too many, uh, and so my kind of fallback is rule of 3. Brains love 3. And so the debate I'm having with myself is, do I do all 5, um, and say, hey, they all fall under incoherence, Do I do 3? Because I think it's arguable that within incoherence, I could kind of clump a couple of the other ones together so that incomprehensible, for instance, could cover like the kind of unintelligible aspect of it. It could also potentially cover incompatible. Like, I just cannot comprehend how you could possibly believe that. So incomprehensible, irrelevant, which I think is still a massive one, right? Like, I just am not paying attention to it because I don't see why it connects. And Payal, this is to your comment. Yeah, you want to speak to the problem your clients are conscious of. What are they saying out loud? What's the language they're using around it right now? And then the third one still being indefensible, where the idea can't support its claims, whether because uh, they're overclaiming, or it's lacking, like it can touch incompleteness, etc. So my— that's my debate. Um, I'm fairly sure incoherence is not enough. I'm suspicious that the 5 are too many. Um, and I'm curious about how the 3 of incomprehensible, irrelevant, indefensible, if that covers enough. So if you've got thoughts let them know. In the meantime, as you're processing all that, um, anyone else hearing inconceivable? Yes! You know, I may just have to like replace incomprehensible or incompatible with that. Um, oh, you know, that might be a good— actually, if I do the 3 pile, that might be a great, uh, replacement for incomprehensible. Also, I love The Princess Bride, so you've just— you're speaking my language. Okay, let's talk to Ian, who, uh, says he's got a, uh, kind of a question, hey, about a parent's problem about your— that you'd like to workshop. So let's chat. Ian, how are you?

I'm doing well, thanks for doing this.

We met in Arizona, is that right?

We did, we did. Yep, you came and spoke to the NSA out here and it was awesome.

The NSA, for those paying attention, is not the National Security Administration but the National Speakers Association. And yes, I have nothing to do with intelligence or security. So Ian, what's going on?

Um, doing well, doing well. Um, so as I was listening to you, I kind of workshopped a couple if-then statements. So my first if-then statement started as, if you build execution infrastructure into your info product, then you will increase retention and lifetime value. But I've realized that that's probably pretty incomprehensible. Um, yay.

Okay.

Might be kind of incompatible. Because it feels like kind of a long stretch. So I simplified it. I tried to simplify it down to, if you can get more clients to do the work you tell them to do in your info product, you will create more happy customers, is where I'm at right now.

So, so yes, I think, A, I hear how you've simplified it and I agree that it is more immediately comprehensible. You've introduced, however, another form of irrelevance. So, and here's what I mean is that there's a nature of that, that new phrasing of it. Would you say it again, Ian, so I can have it in my head?

Yep. If you can get more clients to do the work you tell them to do in your info product, you will create more happy customers. Okay.

So it's interesting. I think that if I read that, I— it wouldn't have the irrelevance problem. Hearing it though, the way that I hear it, and this just may be me, so, is that the irrelevance problem can also happen if somebody thinks that they've heard it before. Do you know what I'm saying? And so the reason why I asked you to repeat it was I was like, well, of course, like, but hearing you say it again, it's like, oh, if they do what you are saying to do, they'll be more happy. And so that, if I were to have heard that like really distinctly in what you were saying, that would have kind of created that kind of coherence-driven curiosity, which is really what we want in all of this. Okay, so I think we need to— so I think the clients will be happier. Is great. Taking the if-then out of it, just tell me what you're trying to say.

Like, yeah. So I'm trying to say that I think with info products, and that's books, courses, coaching programs, consultants, that there's an issue that kind of plagues the industry of you have an amazing product in your book, in your course, in your coaching program that you've thought everything through, and if people just consumed it and did the work that you told them to do, they would get the result. But there's a gap between knowing what to do and achieving the result. That is what I call the client execution gap, where they have to do the work, they have to take the action, they have to apply it to their own situation. Like what you're teaching us about how to communicate conceivable ideas, we have to take that, apply it to our own situation, and then we'll get the result. But there's a whole process of us having to do the work, close the client execution gap in order to achieve that result. And yeah, I think that closing that client execution gap, getting more clients to do the work you tell them to do, um, the way you tell them to do it, will get more of those clients to achieving the result, thus creating more happy customers, um, who wanna stay on for longer and buy more of your stuff.

Excellent. Super. All right. So, Thank you, beautifully clear. Um, and it, and it's, it, it reinforces— I'm happily submitting to confirmation bias here, uh, in my belief that, supported by other researchers, thanks very much, uh, that talk is data, right? There's something about when we talk something out to a person, like, that we're conscious that that person has to understand it and process it as we're talking about it, that forces us on the fly to tap into what we're actually saying. Does that make any sense? Meaning we don't have— we, when we're actually talking to someone, there's less opportunity for that slow analytic brain to take over and really process what we say before we say it. We're having to speak almost directly from kind of our automatic brains and out. There's— that can be, that can be a nightmare if you're not clear. Like, if you have no idea what you're talking about, right? That can happen. But if you do know what you're talking about, Ian, you clearly do, what ends up happening is better language comes out than if you were just writing it. So what— so for instance, you said there's a gap between knowing what to do and getting the result. That was gorgeous, right? Like, that's human language that anybody would say. And so That's the kind of thing that you want to— and you named it and you're like, and I call that the client execution gap. So that to me is already beautiful language, just like that, for either your if or your then, right? If you want more clients to close the gap between knowing what to do and achieving the results that you promise, right, as a, as a thought leader, thinking leader, I like to call them, then whatever you're putting out there. OK. Or it's the then. If, like, you want happier customers or happier clients, you want more success in, you know, if you want your, you know, your presence to be more, you know, prominent. Again, my automatic brain is not working so well. Um, then, right, we need to, we need to close the client execution gap, right? So this brings— does that make sense what I'm saying?

Yep, yep. Okay, I remember from the workshop too, you can kind of put them in either order.

That's, uh, yeah, you can put them in either order and then you want to test. Um, yeah, see, and then Payal also liked the client execution gap. That's awesome. And that's one of the things where, again, there's huge benefit from saying these things out loud, particularly to other people, because other people will tell you, ooh, I like that. That made sense to me. I understand even if you weren't to explain it in human language, I think a lot of people would get the client execution gap, right? Because I know what a client is. I know what execution is. I know what a gap is. So if you're telling me there's a client execution gap, there's probably a gap that the clients are making about how they're doing something. Right? And it's one of those things that on the surface it's close enough until you— they're going to understand it well enough that until you have more time and more space to give them more information, it's probably good. Okay, here's the big question for you though, Ian. Remember I said that the form of your— there is a form of irrelevance, which is the— no, you know, to, to, um, you know, paraphrase the fine folks on Parks and Recreation, There is the form of irrelevance that falls into the category of like, well, no shirt, Sherlock. Yeah, I know that, that if I were to be like, if they would actually do the thing I was asking them to do, of course they would be more, they would be happier. Okay. If you would get like, if someone would respond to the if then as like, yeah, I know. Then typically what that means to happen is the then moves— the then needs to move into the if, meaning it's not that if you want happier clients, we need to close the execution gap. People are like, yeah, I know that. Where the value is actually, if you have a way to help me close the client execution gap, now I want to hear that answer.

Got it.

So you see, and I— what I don't know is, is that where your idea is? Because if your idea is actually how do we close the client execution gap, like, that's where I want a "then," right? And remember, like, in my approach, I like to really constrain that answer, at least internally, to be a 2-word phrase where there's a noun and then there's a modifier of the noun, right? So, you know, whatever that might be. But again, that's where I'd want to talk that through.

Yeah.

So yeah. Thoughts, responses.

Yeah. So that is where my idea lives and how to close the client execution gap. It is what I teach in the, in the workshop, keynote workshop.

Okay.

Definitely more workshop than a keynote. Uh, and that's what the execution infrastructure idea was, where it's, if you build out execution infrastructure into your program, you will close the client execution gap, which will create more happy customers. Okay.

So, so now we've got. If you want to close the client-execution gap, we need execution infrastructure. Okay.

Yeah.

So we're closer. Now we have a math problem. Okay. So if you— I know this can be painful. I don't know how you feel about math, but do you remember by any chance what happens when you have the same variable on both sides of an equation?

Yeah, they cancel out.

Correct. So guess what that means for execution?

Yeah, I can't say that.

Okay, so what that means is if something about client execution is in your if, it cannot be part of your answer.

Okay.

Do you see what I mean? Because otherwise you're just doing another version of like, yeah, I know I was asking you about execution and now you're telling me it's execution.

Got it.

Right? So infrastructure 100% can be there, right? You're like, okay, infrastructure, meaning I— there's, there's got to be, you know, a, a structure of infras. I know that's not what it is, um, to like help that, right? So, so it's a structure, it's an infrastructure. You're going to explain to me why, but there's probably something that's still very distinctly EN about either the nature of those infrastructures, right? Uh, the nature of the infrastructure what you need to do to the infrastructure, or infrastructure or structure is actually the modifier of something even more.

Yeah, the idea that's coming to mind right away is companion, companion infrastructure, because the idea is that— yeah, so what I build out are these companion GPTs, these companion AI models that are trained on all of the info products information, and they're trained to guide the users through doing the work step by step, the same way that the a creator would. So maybe the word companion could work there. Companion infrastructure is where my mind went immediately.

Yes. I see that. Particularly when you explain it. I think— so I think— yeah. Okay. I see what you're saying. I mean, to— so how else would you describe it? Like, if you were to put this— if you were to say, you know, what else is it like, right? Like, if you're like, oh, here's my idea, it's kind of like this.

It's like you sitting next to the client, or you being with the client, guiding them, that you doing the work with or for the client, right? You're going to work with them to generate the first draft of the idea. Work with them to refine it. It's like you working alongside your client to do the work that you tell them to do.

Yeah. Gosh, I think so. A, I think that's a really powerful idea, right? So it's like, because you're basically saying, how can you help people? I mean, you know, a lot of these answers always come back to the, to the question, how do we help folks close this execution gap between you know, understanding what you're telling them to do and actually doing what you're telling them to do. Um, so I, I hear what you're saying. I think it's powerful. What— the only thing you're seeing happen in my head right now is I'm, I'm trying to assess for myself where like, what's the best way to get at this? Um, because, you know, words that come to me that I don't think are correct are things like outsource, right? Um, um, but there's also this kind of instantaneousness there. There's this, um, this partnership, right? There's some of those words come to mind. And I'm curious if you haven't— so one of the questions that come to mind, because it can help us find the nature of your thing that you think is missing and that you think the, the, this kind of thing fills in is where do you think, why do you think that gap happens, right? Such that like, why would it work to have something that is like basically a, a step-by-step version of me in my voice with my content talking to someone, talking somebody through with that? Why do you, why would that work?

Better than anything else. Right. So in my own personal experience, right, there's obviously a big difference between learning and doing. And I think there's, because there's just a lot of friction, right? There's a lot of resistance that comes from, okay, you finished the chapter of this book, you finish a module of a course, you get off a coaching call and you have to go do this work. There's just a lot of friction there. You're kind of just staring at like a blank worksheet or a series of prompts that you need to answer. And there's just a lot of friction and it's hard to kind of get that initial momentum going and also going through the process of taking a lesson that has to be kind of taught to multiple different types of people, right? It kind of has to be boiled down and kind of broad, if you will, because it's created for the masses, especially in a book. And applying it to your own situation is a complicated process. So for example, the first one of these that I ever built was for myself when I was reading The Five Types of Wealth by Shaheel Bloom. He has this exercise called the Ikigai, finding your Ikigai, which is what you love, what you love, what you hate. You're good at, what you, what you need. And then you're just staring at the question of what do I love, and it's like, that's a hard question to answer.

So big old question. Yeah, okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it kind of like makes it more bite-sized and like removes the friction, I guess, and just like helps you get started.

So the word that— so, so, um, riffing further from companion, based on what you just said, I would invite you to consider something like individualized. Infrastructure, right? Because some people are gonna like that big question, no problem, right? But like, depending on how you are suggesting these are built, right? Like, it sounds to me like it's possible. I mean, here I'm bringing in my own experience with my own GPTs and AIs that, you know, I've cobbled together for myself. I know you're helping on this one, thank you so much. Um, where there are some times where I'm like, no, no, I don't need all of that right now. This one, I've already figured this part out. I need help over here, right? And so that— so again, I don't say that that's the right thing. I'm just curious, like, what— here's a good thing to— here's a good way to test it. What would be lost if we called it individualized infrastructure that's really important to you? Would we, would we miss out on something that is really foundational to the kind of the nature of the solution that you're offering?

No, that execution had or companion had. I don't think so. I guess maybe we're losing with individualized kind of the, hey, this is a thing that's going to be like a helper, kind of a companion. Sounds like it's going to be helping you along the way of doing it and individualized maybe loses that.

Um, so, so, okay, here's another thing where we can, we can use the message math to our advantage. And you can consider putting the word help in the question. How can we help clients, right, help people close the execution gap, right, between understanding the information that you're putting out there and applying it, right, and executing on it? By putting it in the question, we have already said that we've already characterized, then we can also map even by the time we're saying individualized infrastructure, it will carry over because it should apply also over there, meaning the helper mechanism is individualized infrastructure. Do you see what I'm saying?

Mm-hmm.

Like, yeah. I mean, I'm curious. We've got like a, you know, we've got at least 2 people watching and listening along. I mean, if I said, if, if, If you were to say, if we were to say, if you want to help clients close that action to execution gap, then, you know, provide, you know, an individualized infrastructure for applying your stuff, right? Give them an individualized infrastructure for applying your stuff. I'm curious of the folks who are listening, would you consider that to be a helpful thing? We're gonna just wait and see what they say. Um, so again, because it's one of those things where it also has to be comfortable for you, but like, it's, it's— we've got to kind of tie it back, back and forth. Um, right, you know, about like, you find that balance between what feels like it's representative to you. Um, commented is me. Um, right. And, and the way that Jen as me is answering is that she needs more information about what individualized infrastructure is, right? So, right, of course, the good news is it's kind of like— and the way that she said it is precisely what I'm trying to talk about. Like, in theory, I could see how that could be helpful if I am understanding it correctly again. So, um, are you— so I'm assuming that Payal is asking for the whole thing, like, if if you want to help people close the gap, right, the execution gap between understanding the information that you as a thought leader put out there and applying it, right? That's what we mean by the execution gap. Um, if you were to say, you know, that, that requires individualized infrastructure, and yeah, you could, when you're explaining it, say, in other words, a kind of companion something that individualized to that person that walks them step by step through your material, applying your material? Like, would that help? Um, uh, and so, you know, with, with Jen's response was, yeah, I, in theory— and you heard me like kind of tag it on right there, like, ask that, like, just give that tiny extra bit of information. Don't know if that helped or not. But it is also doing what I like, what I am theorizing is what the process is for someone understanding, which is I get that and I immediately want a little bit more information. Who says, you know, that's where those principles come in. So Ian, like, you know, that's one of the things I introduced at the end of that workshop in Arizona. And, you know, we need to say, okay, because You know, execution is individual, right? What's going to work for one person is not necessarily going to work for another, right? And infrastructure, you know, why does infrastructure need to be there for closing the gap? Because structure creates connections. Well, I don't know. That's like one of my go-tos for structure. Doesn't mean that that's correct here, right? But you could say, We need an individualized infrastructure because execution is individual, you know, every— and structure creates connection. So that's why if you have this individualized infrastructure, you know, a way for an individual to structure your information in a way that aligns with how they like to do stuff, it's much more— do you now see in theory why that would work? Um, so that's the kind of thing where, like, again, we're just trying to, like, establish that at the highest level. And then, you know, the other point that I want to make before moving on— and I know we've got a comment from Jeanette, uh, from Instagram— um, is that this court case, this, this core claim that we're making, which is the if-then, and the court case, which is adding those two principles to it So that's the whole thing. If we want this because this is true and this is true, then, um, they are first and foremost internally— that's an internally facing rationale. It's your ability to articulate in kind of universal-ish language and concepts your own theory about why this is the best solution, right? You're kind of putting words to it so you can explain it to somebody else. It is often not sufficient as the only thing you need to tell somebody. It is, it is very much the route overview when you first ask for directions in Google Maps, right? It's giving you the, if you want to go from here to here, we're gonna, we're gonna take this route, right? Because it, it's the, it's the one with the least tolls, right? Like, that's what we're creating there. And then After that, we're trying to like, then if they're like, yeah, I want to go there, I agree with that as an overall route. Now give me the turn by turn. Yeah, that's, that's where the kind of more narrative and the more words and the more details and the more examples start to come in. And that's where we move from this kind of core case ITBA structure, if, then, because, and structure to my red thread structure, the narrative structure. Does that help?

Got it, 100%.

So Payal thinks that individualized infrastructure makes sense though, so yay.

Okay, right, sweet, love it.

Okay, um, so, so anything else, Ian? Because I'm gonna— I wanna otherwise turn to Jeanette. You good?

Yeah, no, this is great. Thank you so much.

Excellent. You're welcome. Thank you. All right, so Jeanette, thanks, uh, Jen, for sharing this. The infrastructure of messages can feel both inherent complex. We need to make it insight. Well, so Jeanette, for— so could be, but I would suggest that based on what Ian was saying, that the insight in this case is a byproduct of the infrastructure based on his point of view. And so one of the things that's really important to me personally as I'm doing this work with other people is that I am trying to capture as accurately as possible what they are saying and what their point of view is and resisting at every point my attempt to put an interpretation into what they're saying. So what this is a great example of, Jeanette, is that for you, infrastructure is a key towards insight, right? It helps to be— it is creating the— I am hearing in what you're saying that infrastructure because it is a simplifying thing, infrastructure kind of enables easier insight. I don't know. But I think that given what, in the context of what Ian was talking about, like he is moving towards an AI-powered product that is stepping somebody through, let's say, your thought leadership or my thought leadership, that is a structured approach, right? And so I think in the context of what Ian was talking about, I think infrastructure is probably the right thing. But I think the feedback about perhaps that, you know, as an N of 1, your association with infrastructure as a path to insight, um, could be a thing for him to consider. So that all works. Cool, cool, cool. All right, well, typically we run these for about 45 minutes, um, so this was, this was a fun mixture, uh, from kind of that mixture of should Tamsen use one word, three words, or five to describe the avoidable errors of ideas. I also like— that's walnut being contributing to the discussion here with this paw. Um, and, uh, I, I'm not sure yet. I think I'm gonna try in the, in the next newsletter video, etc., to go with 5, though that even sounds like a lot to do in a video. Um, maybe 3, I don't know. Jen, I'm sure, has an opinion. Um, and, uh, we can get that in there anyway. And also, you saw how, um, You know, what I observed and what I appreciated was that it immediately gave both me and Ian language to put on what was working or what could have— what could be improved or strengthened about where his message was at that time, right? It was— it made it easier to say, ah, okay, now we've introduced an issue of inconceivability, to use Payal's suggestion, or of irrelevance, meaning I think I've heard this before. And so I think that there's a little— there's something there, and now I just need to noodle on how many words it should be. So as always, thank you all for joining the office hours. You can always do more or less from— more or less, I don't even know what I'm saying. This is what happens when I try to read a private comment at the same time that I'm talking to you. Multitasking, not my gift. If you ever want to know more, you know, feel free to join on a future one. You can always access the, what we call the Compact Case, which is how to get started with that core claim and core case. It's always available, information wall, paywall-free at getthehandout.com, my proudest URL purchase of all time. You'll see if you go to getthehandout.com, you will get to a PDF without any kind of no barrier to it. All you need to do is download it and you will have your own customizable fillable PDF form. It also includes a little checklist to help, help you get closer to a strong court case and compact case from the beginning. So as always, I'm Tamsen Webster. Lovely to see you, Ian. You're welcome, Pyle. Thank you for being here, Jeanette. Thanks for watching on Instagram and look forward to seeing you all on one of these in the future. See ya, bye.