Monthly Message Design Office Hours

Hey, hey, welcome. It's Office Hours with me, Tamsen Webster. I am the founder of MDI. Uh, that's the Message Design Institute, and the Message Design Institute is a community of practitioners, thinkers, doers who are focused on creating change in other people through whatever means, uh, or through whatever roles, but without the means or use of coercion, persuasion, or manipulation. Tall order? I don't think so. Um, so as people are getting involved today or coming online, uh, I thought I would chat a little about a juicy topic that I just discovered yesterday. So fun fact, uh, I am attending the Socrates program at, um, Aspen Institute in a couple weeks, and the session, 3 days, is on the topic, can we ever speak freely? Right up my alley. Um, and I was introduced, uh, to the writings on a new word, new topic— get to that just a minute— uh, by the, um, scholar— don't know kind of like which discipline he is, didn't do that piece of research right before— um, named Michel Foucault. Uh, but I get to pretend like I'm on Emily in Paris right now, so it's fun. Um, so here is the name of— here's the, here's the current— here's Here's the concept. Parrhesia. Huh, also sounds like Paris, but that's not how it's spelled. It's spelled P-A-R-R-H-E-S-I-A. Parrhesia is kind of how— or 'hreasia' because apparently that's part of what it is. So what is Parrhesia and why am I so excited about it? Well, Parrhesia goes all the way back to, uh, the time of Socrates and the original philosophers as they were thinking about um, how to speak the truth. And what parrhesia is, is oftentimes it's, it's described as truth-telling. But, and this is where I got really excited, it was created and spoken of as distinct from persuasion and rhetoric, right? Rhetoric are the tools of persuasion and how we use language to persuade people. And Parisia was, uh, described as being separate and distinct from that. And while I am collapsing it quite a bit, Parisia is very much about the idea of speaking your truth. Like, not in necessarily a woo way, but that's also included. But the idea that by, by transparently sharing your point of view on something at personal risk because it would go against the generally accepted practices, or you're doing that in a position where there is a differential in power, that, that kind of speaking one's truth, which, yeah, Socrates got killed for, but that they saw that as a distinct form of speech activity, as, as Foucault called it. Now, the reason why I got super excited about this was because I have been trying to figure out how to— and no, I'm not AI. Thanks, Jarek. I've been trying to figure out how to separate the work that I do and the research that I do from persuasion. Because we have so gotten used to persuasion being the only way to get someone to change their mind, think about something differently, or think about something new that It doesn't even occur to us that there's another way to do it. So what's fascinating here is that when it comes to— hey, Shana and no king, Joey, not AI. And I'm also thinking those are my— I think those might be bots. When it comes to understanding that there is in fact another way to communicate, where when you are able to clearly articulate what it is that you believe in a way that makes intuitive sense to other people, is transparent and complete, that it is possible to avoid the— it's possible to avoid the needing persuasion at all. And this, this is the whole philosophy and the intent behind my work and research, which is on how people think about new ideas and also on the approach of the Message Design Institute, which if you're familiar with our core case and rationale mapping process, if you've got a, you know, our ITBA, if you know that, if, then, because, and, it's designed to be a tool for bringing, bringing the word parrhesia back for parrhesia, this truth-telling in a way that, that can potentially present risk to the speaker. Now, you might be saying, Tamsen, change aversion is risk aversion. Why would I want to do something that puts me at risk? Well, this is something I talk about in the very last chapter of my second book, Say What They Can't Unhear. And so much of change— changing someone's mind, changing policy, changing behavior, etc. Falls apart at the perception of risk. And one of the things that I say in that very last chapter of that book is that I believe that based on all the research that I've done over 25 years, that one of the duties of us as leaders, as changemakers, as leaders of thinking, thinking leaders, is to take on the risk of the new idea. Because typically what we do is we put the risk of a new idea on the person that we're asking to make it. And you might say, no, no, that's not what I'm doing. But if you step back a little bit, it kind of actually is. And thanks, @Ashmit2461, thanks for acknowledging that I'm human. I appreciate that. Um, so the The idea of— I mean, think about it. When you come in and you have a new idea, when you have a new way of doing something, you have a framework, a model, a product, a service, etc. And it is different. It is new. It's novel. It's innovative. And you are saying to someone, hey, I know you, or I think you want this particular outcome. And I am telling you that this thing that I have will deliver that outcome. You are essentially asking people to take a leap of faith. Because we're typically— again, not always, but typically— not giving people the information they need in order to actually feel confident and reduce the risk of change. And so this idea of laying it all out there, of saying, if you want to achieve a certain outcome, then take, you know, then follow this core strategy because I believe this is true and I believe this is true, you are performing that act of parrhesia, truth telling. And that when that if is aligned to what somebody already wants, when those because and and, those principles are based in things that your audience already knows to be true, that then that you're recommending is likely in a Bayesian probability kind of way to deliver on that thing that they want and they can process that instantly, there's like that instant coherence, then what I have seen time and time again is that it actually removes the need to convince anyone. Because essentially, that package of ideas, that little system of ideas, serves to just overwrite in somebody's head the way they're thinking about it now. In other words, by making it make sense to them, and in fact by making it make more sense than whatever they're telling themselves now, by truth-telling, by parigeo, whatever the verb is for that, need to figure that out. You are able to create that shift and sometimes even, I believe, a transformational shift in perspective that is durable and quick and you've never had to overcome an objection or manipulate or coerce people. So that's kind of a thought piece to start. I know folks have flown in, have flown, in and out since we've started. Um, but if you've got thoughts on that, I'd love to see some of your comments. As always, these office hours are for us to discuss topics related to message design, um, what needs to happen so that you don't even have to persuade people, uh, how people think about new ideas, etc. So if you've got a question about any of that that you think I, as a reasoning researcher and message design practitioner, might be able to help you with happy to do that. Just type it into the comments or signal to that, and then Jen Hines, the, the behind-the-scenes master of ceremonies here, can help you get on screen. Or even if you are trying to figure out how to articulate something that you're working on right now, that would be helpful too. So let's go down some additional thoughts. Am I missing anything, Jen? You can like shake your head no or yes in the background there. So, um, okay, so related to this idea of truth-telling, I'm just going to keep going down this rhetoric rabbit hole here. Um, I— one of the books that I recommended at the end of last year is one of the ones that's really stuck with me, is a great book called, uh, The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself by Robin Reams. And it is in fact a history of rhetoric and While I haven't had a chance to go and look up parrhesia— actually, I think I did. I went into my Kindle and was like, does she talk about parrhesia using that word? Um, she doesn't. Uh, one of the most interesting chapters about that was about truth-telling. Um, and this is not political. Uh, she was posing the question, how is it that when there is somebody, oh say, in charge who has, who, you know, in a documented way, um, says things that are untrue, how is it that so many people can attribute to that person this idea of he speaks the truth? And what she was working on explaining was that there is something about the spoken word and the ability for someone to, to, to speak directly, uh, from to an audience in a way that doesn't feel mediated, sometimes to that particular speaker's detriment, but in a way that doesn't feel mediated feels more real to people, more true to people than something that is clearly prepared ahead of time. I thought this was fascinating because some of the work and the research that I've done over the years has really butted up against, you know, there's often in particularly in speaking about ideas, the two camps. There's the camp that says, oh, extemporaneous speaking, pro, it has that truth-telling kind of genuine feel to it. Con, and this happens most of the time, people go just way off the rails, um, and end up talking about just all sorts of crazy stuff, um, and they go and they end up talking about too much and, and too much depth, etc. Now, the response to that has been very script-focused. You'll see this often in folks that come from acting and theater backgrounds. Again, no diss on this. I'm not saying this is not the way to go because they do make it clear that, you know, most of the time when we're watching a play or a movie, those are scripted lines and we are not in that moment going, hmm, that person isn't real. And yet here's the difference, um, that when you go to a play or a movie, you know that it's a performance, and you know that that person, that actor or actress, isn't that person, that that's their job, right? Their job is to embody that person for the duration of the piece. And so therefore we kind of give it a pass because we're like, we know it isn't real. And one of the things that Robin was talking about in her book was that this sense that we have as humans that we're talking to someone who is AI or not, right? Or that the person that is speaking to us is speaking something that is not coming from the moment actually triggers a sense of distrust, right? And a feeling that somebody isn't true or isn't real. Isn't genuine. So I'm not saying I have an actual solution here, but I'm curious as to what other people have seen about this and what their thoughts are. So question on LinkedIn from Liz Doyle Harmer. Thanks for this. My question is about stacking Red Threads. Is that a strategy to break down the message in chunks or support the overarching message with these smaller threads and side roads? Yes. OK, so Liz, 100% yes, we can stack red threads. We can link them together. And kind of both are true or both are possible depending on what we're talking about. So one of the things that's often useful to think about is kind of any red thread where you are starting from an audience goal, something that the audience wants but doesn't yet have, a kind of an if, like if you want X, right? And then it essentially ends on the then, what I often call a change. It's the change in strategy, the change in approach, the change in mindset that you believe and that you are saying is more likely to produce that outcome, that first piece. In any given amount of time, space-time, whether you're speaking, you're writing, etc., people's brains can only handle generally so much. Like, they can only handle one of those at a time, first of all. And second, the amount of time you have dictates the complexity with which you can make that point. So if you've only got 3 to 18 minutes in a TEDx talk, for instance, you're basically only able to do one of those arcs. What that can mean, though, is if you've got more time, or if you are a leader of thinking, or aspirationally or not, and you've got— let's say you're putting marketing out there for something that is going to cover a specific arc. You can have kind of an arc that gets people to the main question that you are answering in your particular workshop, for instance. And then once it's done, oftentimes we say the next question after the change is, here's how. Actions, but that's really actually starting another link, right? So you can either do another Red Thread there or you can go into detail on the action. So we can link them linearly. Another way to think of them is, as you might be talking about, stacking them, which is there is kind of the simplest, most accessible version of your Red Thread where, let's say, I'm saying, hey, I want to build buy-in. And then I say, hey, the problem is we're focused on the change more than how we're getting there. But that's a problem because, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm using very accessible language. And then once that's anchored on people, I can essentially cover the same ground. But now in a more nuanced version, I can say, OK, we're not just talking about, you know, the stories are there for understanding. The beliefs are there for agreement. And then I can again cover the same ground on a yet more detailed version of that where I'm saying, all right, for understanding we're going to use logic, and for agreement we're going to use beliefs, and beliefs of a particular kind. So again, once you've got that, you can start to sketch, like, and stack it all up. So hopefully that answers that question. Again, if you've got questions about, uh, your specific idea, uh, or message and you want to put that out there, um, or anything I just talked about, please do that. Uh, and otherwise we can kind of get back to this idea of truth-telling and all of that. So one of the things that you'd know from if you followed the work of MD on a more regular basis, um, or if you've follow it on a regular basis, is that at the heart of everything that we're talking about here is this kind of basic and most fundamental unit of understanding. Because a lot of times when we're thinking, thinking about, you know, the things that we're oftentimes thinking about when we think about messaging and ideas is we're thinking about the deliverables at the far end of it, right? We're thinking about the marketing, we're thinking about the branding, we're thinking about the sales messaging, we're thinking about the ads and the taglines and the talks and the books. Et cetera. But each of those contains a message, right? And that message contains ideas. And one of the things I've been really thinking about lately is that we use the word idea to talk about more than one thing. So, um, a way I've been thinking about splitting these up right now, just in case it's helpful, is to say, number one, there are ideas that are just Concepts, right? They're pieces of it. They're basically like a story is an argument, right? It's a statement of— it's not necessarily fact, that's an assumption, that's a belief. It's supported very well by research, um, but it's just— it's a premise, right? In, in true logic and argumentation form, it's a, it's a, it's a piece of an idea. So let's think of that as like a concept idea. But then there's also ideas that are meant to drive action. Something like, to build buy-in, build a story people will tell themselves. That's also an idea. But you see how it has a little bit more to it, right? It has, if you want to do this, then do this. I am currently of the opinion, based on the work that I'm doing, is that you cannot use the peace kind of, that concept idea, when you're asking for an action. And that's because of, again, reasoning. That's what I research— how people decide what to do. When people decide what to do, the first piece of understanding they need is that link of cause-effect, stimulus-response, if-then, which is where that action-oriented idea comes in. So it may be, for instance, if you've got an idea and you've come up with a new discovery, or you've created a, um, you know, a new product or new innovation, and you're like, that's my idea, great. But the moment you say to somebody else, so invest in it, buy in it, follow it, practice it, you've now turned it from a concept idea to an action-oriented idea. And that means you need to add more to it. And that, in other words, you need to say this thing achieves this other thing. And you might say, really, do I need— literally, yes. Uh, people, the basic format of understanding, the basic criteria for understanding for folks is really understanding that if-then cause and effect. And if a couple things are true, number one, if the outcome of that thing, whatever, like your idea is the then, the outcome they're looking for is the if, if that, if that outcome that you say is going to be there, if it's not relevant to them, what, what more up-to-date decision-making research shows is that people will just ignore the whole thing because they're like, not relevant, not paying attention. So it may be true that your, your premise idea, your concept idea achieves this outcome. But if that outcome isn't relevant to the people that you're talking to, they literally just don't pay attention to the whole statement becomes void. And goes away. Now, what does this mean for you? It means, A, making sure that whenever you've got a concept idea that you want people to act on, that you attach it, number one, to something that it will give them, that two, they are actively and knowingly interested in right now. All right, so that's not the real problem, a hidden problem, or anything. It is a problem they are actively trying to solve They've already attempted things to solve it. They're Googling it. They're asking AI about it. They're doing all of these things to try to solve it. And then we've got to make sure that it is likely to somebody's mind that, that your concept idea could achieve that outcome. Now you're probably like, well, I know it does. They don't. So here's another thing that's really important to understand about how people process ideas is that Again, the most current thinking about this and theory about this is that people unconsciously assess likelihood. I was having a conversation, for instance, with one of my clients this morning. And he said he was aware of this in his way, which is great. He was saying, I know that any time that I'm speaking to somebody, even if I'm the only one speaking, the whole time they are kind of processing, do I agree with this? Do I not agree with this? Do I agree with this? Do I not agree with this? And that's exactly what's going on, is that anytime you hear new information— so everything that I'm saying to you right now— your audience is often and usually unconsciously assessing for themselves, do I agree? Do I not agree? Is that likely? Is that not likely? Now think for yourself. If something— if they don't agree with it, are they going to continue to listen? Probably not. Now, sometimes they will, not saying they never will, but probably not. And if they don't think it's likely that your solution will, let's say, save the world— like, that's a pretty big gap— they're also not going to pay attention because— or they're going to stop paying attention because they're like, that's not likely, not worth my time. So this is where, when I'm working with folks on this one-on-one, not only do we need to make sure that we have we have an idea, what's the thing we want them to do, but that we've attached it to an outcome that they care about. And that outcome that they care about is close enough to what that out— like, kind of that product, service, etc.— is that people, without convincing— this gets us back to parrhesia— um, without convincing, can see that it— I can see why that would happen in principle. All right, so this is what that kind of key part is. So again, if you're just joining us, hello, I'm Tamsen Webster. I'm the founder of the Message Design Institute and a reasoning researcher. I study how people think about new ideas, and Message Design Institute is where we put that research into practice. Um, do you have a question about your message or what's working or what's not? Put it into the comments. Happy to chat through it, do some problem solving. Is there a question you have about people, ideas, how they think about ideas? Also happy to share there. So just kind of as, as that is the reset I mentioned for some of you who may have joined later, I mentioned this word parrhesia. I'm so excited about this word. P-A-R-R-H-E-S-I-A. If you read my newsletter last week, I was bringing back integrative adjective form of, uh, integrity, which apparently hasn't been used since 1784. Uh, parrhesia doesn't seem to be used outside of academic circles since like the 1500s, so I'm just getting older. Um, so parrhesia is this counterpoint to persuasion where instead of trying to convince someone to take on a new idea, you are actually of presenting the complete version of your idea from a point of, I believe this to be true, this is my whole idea, and I am taking the risk that you may not agree, but I believe in it. Here's why I agree with it. And the intent there is that if you want to achieve the same outcome as persuasion, which is that somebody changes their mind in your direction, that, that well-presented idea is possible to do that. So again, when I found this, uh, in the work of Michel Foucault, I was like, oh, super excited. Jen is probably like rolling her eyes like, Tamsen, yet another Greek word that nobody knows. Fabulous. Um, but I'm excited about this because a lot of times, you know, there is— we get this feeling that there should be another way to do it, and we, and we don't feel like it exists, right? Um, so for instance, uh, a little while back, another of the books that I recommended, which was How to Think— How to Think Strategically by Dr. Julia Sloan, um, I mentioned that she separates the definitions and helps clarify the definitions between 3 kinds of conversation interaction. She splits out dialogue, from discussion, from debate. And they— and she defines them these three different ways. Um, and again, if you've got any specific questions, you disagree with me, anything, just pop it in the chat. Happy to chat. Otherwise, happy to opine just by myself. Um, but also I'm really excited to help you with like a messaging problem if you've got one. Okay, so dialogue, discussion, debate. Here's the difference. Number one, dialogue is about understanding. It is not about the intent. The intent is not to change someone's mind. It is to understand where somebody else is coming from and to do what you can do to help somebody else. So it is fully aligned with the— reaching back way back to Stephen Covey and, uh, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, one of which was seek first to understand, then to be understood. And that is what dialogue is all about. There isn't really any kind of information transmission mechanism associated with that. And that, I think, is part of what gets us in trouble. See, because what happens is we start to use the tools of discussion when dialogue is necessary. Now, so what does that mean? Dialogue, remember, this is about understanding. It's about generating new understanding. It is a divergent process. We're trying to put many things on the table. We are not trying to decide among them. That's where discussion comes in. Discussion is saying, now based on all of this, what should we do? And that's now a converging process. I'm hoping I'm using my words right. Um, converging process where we are in fact trying to persuade someone to one position or another, or we're just having that friendly discussion with folks to try to get to a, a mutual agreement. That is in itself sometimes confused with debate, which is much more kind of a classic thing where we're really trying to establish winner or loser, where I am dominating with my answer and yours is not sufficient. And that's primarily the difference between debate and discussion, which is we're trying to get to a mutual understanding, a mutual conversation, but Both of them are about reducing options, and both of them typically rely on those tools of— for discussion, we're relying on persuasion, we're relying on the tools of rhetoric, we're relying on all of those things that you are probably not taught but probably should be in, yes, debate, but also are part of what we're— what we teach in let's say sales, marketing, advertising. And then like argumentation, kind of like the kind, is the kind that comes into play with debate, where you're basically trying to find logical loopholes in, in people. You're trying to call out, uh, fallacies, logical fallacies, etc. And so I had this question, I'm like, well, what's the equivalent in dialogue, like what exists there? And then I was like, okay, there's just nothing. Uh, and having a little conversation with AI— if you happen to know, please share, I'm always looking to learn— um, was this is where I think parrhesia fits in, right? This whole idea of this whole school of thought which was separate from rhetoric, separate from persuasion, simply about let me tell you what I'm thinking. Let me tell you quite literally, in the Greek sense, what my truth is here. And if I am speaking truths that you also agree with, perhaps you will have a greater understanding of how I see the world, and it may in fact change how you see the world. But again, that's not my intent. I'm not doing it to change your mind. I'm doing it to really establish where we're all coming from. So this is my concept right now, right? Again, this is starting to feel like, whoo, crazy. The good news is I overthink so you don't have to. All of this, I believe, is achieved by understanding that truly, whether you're trying to persuade in the traditional standpoint or seek understanding, I believe that core case, this rationale mapping process that produces a core case, that produces what I call the IPBA, is a tool for doing both. I personally recommend really just trying to establish and get your perspective out there on the table as a kind of an open discussion. But sometimes we really need to come in and say, I have a point of view. I would like you to have that point of view. But here's why I have this point of view. And so, hey, what do you think? So again, this— that process, because it's based on how people make sense of the world, if, then, because, and is one of the ways to do that. Uh, again, checking in for the 3 of you watching live, um, but also I'll follow up in comments later. If you've got any questions about how people think about new ideas, about how adults learn, about message design in general, or if you've got a message you're working on right now and would love some, uh, input, we're going to be on for what, 10 more minutes, Jen? Is that right? Ish, whatevs. Um, you know, otherwise, you know, just chatting through these different concepts because the more I talk about it, the more useful they can be. So again, if you've got a question, uh, or a comment, just pop that into the comments and then we'll keep going from there. There's one thing related to all of this. So what I've been talking about today is, number one, this idea of, uh, newly discovered word that I'm, I'm super excited about called Parrhesia, P-A-R-R-H-E-S-I-A, which is an ancient Greek approach, uh, and practice that was separate from persuasion and rhetoric, where it was really about getting one's point of view, one's truth out, like, like in a, in a, in a logical way. Um, it could be belief-based, but it was about getting it out in a logical way. To expand other people's understanding. Two, we were talking about how that is rooted in this idea of, of spoken language, um, and how we still have, like, you know, I think sometimes we still feel the need for that spoken language because when we have that sense that someone is talking directly to us not with prepared remarks, etc., there is that felt sense of this person is speaking their truth in that moment, that this is more genuine, more real. There's good science behind that, by the way, because as you speak, you're— the kind of more automatic processes of your brain are the ones dominating. Your analytic side of your brain, which usually likes to debate and really wordsmith and craft stuff, can't be fully engaged when you're talking. So when you're talking, you tend to be speaking much more directly from your deeper concepts, deeper beliefs, etc. So again, I was opening the question, is that, for instance, why, uh, we feel differently about speakers, presenters, et cetera, that are either clearly reading or clearly performing from a set script versus the ones that feel, whether they are or not, more extemporaneous. And then finally, what I was starting to think about is this idea of all of this being said, why I personally believe our ability to speak in a way that people can understand our ideas quickly, clearly, and intuitively is one of the most important skills that we can have as AI takes a much more dominant role. Because so far, at least, you can't bring AI into a face-to-face conversation with you. Now, you might say, I've got the glasses. OK, Michelle Shaq on LinkedIn is asking, what if my mission is to educate and inspire people to get educated, not just believe big scary things they see in the media? Oh, Michelle, you're speaking my language. OK. So what I am sensing here— so actually, what I'm going to do first is quote my good friend Kate O'Neill, who talks about 3 levels of problems that we as potential leaders of thinking can potentially address. They're not mutually exclusive, by the way. The first one is a humanity-level problem. I am sensing here a humanity-level problem when people are believing big, scary things that they see in the media, whether or not they're true. And it's— I am making some assumptions here, but you are thinking about what a lot of us are thinking about. How can we encourage people to be more critical in their thinking and critical not in that kind of way, but actually critical as in questioning what they're seeing and hearing, asking slightly deeper questions so that we can get at like, well, how true is it? How, you know, how viable of a source is that, etc. So that humanity-level problem, like, you know, kind of if you take it all the way down, that also has an individual-level problem, right? And so, you know, this is where I work, um, because there are very specific things that have to happen in somebody's head before they would even engage with a question that would lead all the way up to that. And if you are somebody who is speaking or writing or publishing on this topic, then you also need to figure out how that humanity-level problem, human-level problem, again, to quote Kate O'Neill, KO Insights, author of What Matters Next, she would describe as we have to figure out how that manifests as a business-level problem. So for instance, that could be things like polarization in the workplace, which is well documented at this point as a big issue. And a challenge for leaders alike. So, but to answer your question, remember, if you weren't on at the beginning, one of the things that I said is one of the most foundational and automatic units of understanding is this kind of if-then package. It's known as a conditional, not on the test, but think about it as cause and effect. You know, this happened because this happened. If I do this, then this will happen. When this happens, then I do this. Those kinds of little stimulus-response, cause and effect, those little packages. If-then is the easiest one for people to, to be aware of. As soon as that is invoked, right, that if-then is invoked, like, hey, be, you know, get educated, right, which is an action. It, it demands that the idea be positioned and placed within that if-then. Because otherwise we, we discard it because it's just like, there's no reason for me to consider it, I don't know why I would. So the number one thing, Michelle, is to figure out how getting educated speaks to something those people are already curious about. Now this is where we get into trouble because to some extent you're like, yeah, but they're not actually they don't actually care. Uh-huh. This is one of the hardest things for people to understand, is that if, if people aren't interested in the thing that you are, unless you can find something that they are looking for right now that you can tie back to getting educated, it's a much harder road to hoe. Um, So, but there are, I believe, options for that, right? So if people are scared of the things they see in the media, right, um, you could say, hey, what can you— you know, if you're curious about what to do about those things you see in the media, then get educated. And then you would support that with that because and the and that I talk about, uh, that we talk about at the Message Design Institute. But do you start to hear how Like, it's only gonna work without convincing or persuasion if it's anchored in something somebody is already wired to pay attention to. So if somebody's not wired to learn right now, be curious about something, um, already— if they're not already asking, how can I get educated? Then you've got to figure out what's the next closest question they're asking that would reasonably lead to that. Because one thing we can count on, um, is that most people— and I actually mean this, there's like multiple things that support this— most people believe they are reasonable people. And so if you can kind of start from that, well, and it's not a reasonable person would get educated, it's basically they're going to start with the perspective of, yeah, I can see it's reasonable that if I wanted to be less frightened and feel, you know, feel more empowered against the things that I see in the media, I can start to see how getting educated might be a reasonable way to do that. So hopefully that's helpful. All right, from Michael Aspenwall, um, can you elaborate about tools and techniques that can be used to prepare for unstructured dialogue rather than prepared sales messages and scripts? Absolutely, this is one of my favorites. Um, so As you might be unsurprised to learn, Michael— also, thanks for watching, um, good to see you here— um, I believe that both the ITBA and the Red Thread are good ways to mentally structure, like, even extemporaneous talking, right? So for instance, you've just given me a question: can I, you know, can— how can I, you know, be more structured, uh, in my dialogue and, you know, with sales messages, etc. How can I do that without a script? You've just given me an if, right? So what I can do is say, hey, let's kind of proceed through. Now, if I automatically have an answer, in this case I do, I could say, well, the key is to build a story that people can tell themselves and to structure it that way. But even if I didn't, I could say, well, what do we do right now? We could use the Red Thread pattern of it, which is what's the question? What's the thing that you want? What do we do now? What do I believe is a more useful focus? Why do I believe that's a more useful focus? That's probably not going to be enough. So what else do I believe is necessary? And so therefore, what do I think is true? OK. For instance, how can I still have, you know, structure a dialogue for sales that's extemporaneous and yet still achieves the clarity of like, let me transmit my point of view in a way that I can hope changes somebody's mind? You've already named it. Typically, we focus on the exact words to say more than on what somebody needs to hear. Here's my contrast in order to change their mind. Yeah, and that's a problem because that shift in perspective doesn't happen as a result of words. It happens as a result of meaning. Meaning-making drives change. OK, so what does that mean? We need— we means that we need to make sure that whatever we're saying carries inherent meaning to what people are talking about. What does that— well, as it turns out, every decision has a story behind it. So if we can structure our sales conversations along with those kind of universal structures of those kinds of stories, which would either be kind of reasoning logic— if, then, because, and— or narrative logic— goal, problem, truth, change, action— we're much more likely to be able to drive the meaning we're looking for. In an unstructured— in a structured way without having to rely on a script. So that's how I would— that's how I would answer that. Um, hopefully that's helpful. Uh, Michelle or Michael, if you've got any follow-ups, let me know. Um, we are now at— I don't know how long do we schedule this for? We're good. Yeah, we're at time. Um, so thank you all for joining. For those of you who joined, please go ahead and put some additional comments if you watch later. Uh, welcome to do that. Um, I was just— Parisia is the first thing I was talking about today. You may see that in an upcoming newsletter as a result. Um, but as always, if you've got additional questions, we do these free, uh, Message Design Hours once a month. We have a Message Design newsletter which you can sign up for on LinkedIn or, uh, through the Master's Design Institute website, messagedesigninstitute.com. And as always, these ideas are all baked into my two books, Find Your Red Thread and Say What They Can't Unhear. So until next time, thanks so much, and may you share those big ideas in a way that people can't unhear.