Monthly Message Design Office Hours 📱

Am I live? It says I'm live. I don't know if I'm live or not. It can't hear me regardless. I see. Hey everyone, welcome. This is Office Hours Live with me, Tamsen Webster. I am the founder of the Message Design Institute, and I have spent pretty much my whole life studying how people think about new ideas. Mostly with the intent to help other people turn their ideas into those that people can't stop thinking about. Uh, so once a month we do these free office hours. It's an opportunity for people to bring their messages to me, uh, and whoever else might be here live and get some feedback, some answers and questions. Oftentimes, so if you have general questions about messaging, uh, message design, idea validity, or a new idea that I am noodling on, the idea of an idea having standing— oh, like, literally came up with that like 10 minutes ago. I'm very excited about it. Um, please pop those into the chat and we will put them in. Um, but what I'm delighted to do and share today, uh, is that we have Jerry, who has very kindly shared his compact case with us. I will define what that is, don't worry, and has been and is willing to have us kind of noodle with it live on air. So let's bring Gerry on up. Hey Gerry, how are you? Here I am.

Great to be here. Thanks.

Well, yay. Would you give us a very brief introduction to who you are? Like, where are you? Who are you? Where are you in the world? What are you most passionate about and what is the big question you have about your idea and/or message right now?

Sweet, thank you. Jerry Mikulski, live in Portland, Oregon, the wet one on the upper left side of the US. I used to be a tech industry trends analyst. I did that for like a dozen years. And then in the middle of that, two things happened that have colored my life ever since. One was one of the software startups that I saw had a mind map called The Brain, which I curate. So I now curate the world's largest man-made publicly open mind map. And if you go to jerrysbrain.com, you can browse it for free. Tamsen Webster, you're in there. Your Red Thread is in there. A whole, you know, you've been in there a long time actually.

And then that's very exciting. Wait, I'm so like, wait, okay. Oh, I'm just very excited. Like, oh my gosh. So I know that tool. I know that.

Oh, good.

That's what— sorry, I'm having one of those like, oh my gosh, I love that.

I was the first stop on their launch press tour in December '97.

Wow, that is so fun.

And many years later, the inventor told me, Jerry, I wish we'd known that the rest of the tour wasn't going to be like our first stop because Harlan opens his laptop, starts to demo the software, and my web brain goes, oh, why? That's exactly how I think. And so I wrote about them in our newsletter. I invited them to our conference. I gave them a little spotlight, but I started using their software, not realizing that 28 years later I would still be using the software and still be editing the same file that I started in January of '98.

That's amazing. I love that. I worked for a company— I know we're like totally off track right here, but what a small world this is. Also, I worked for a company called Oratium for a while, for actually quite a little— well, a couple years. This boutique sales message architecture firm. And that was the founder Tim Pollard's favorite way to actually present was to present from the brain for exactly the reason. Oh, wow. Like, because it allowed it to be a— I mean, he still had a linear way through, but it allowed it, allowed it, you know, any presentation to be much more dynamic in the, in the moment. So anyway, unasked-for endorsement of the brain software, which is like, I love that.

Cool.

But let's keep going, Jerry.

Okay, okay, good. And, and that tells you that my brain is very spatially oriented, not, but not 3D. I don't, I don't want to zoom around in 3D information space. I'm very happy with the 2.25D brain thing that I talk about. And then the second thing that happened to me was around 1994, I realized I didn't like the word consumer.

Ah, yes.

And it was itching and I didn't realize why it was itching. So I told my boss at the time, I said, you know, this word seems really strange. And this is the emergence of B2C internet marketing, right? So it's very germane here. And she says, oh, don't worry, it's just a term of art in the ad business. And my little inner voice said, that's a fact, that's totally true, but I think it's part of our huge social problem. And I stayed with that for 30 years, and it gifted me a whole series of things over the course of a long period of time. And one of the things that sort of barfs out of this metabolization process is this idea of design from trust. And because it dawns on me that I have a whole bunch of heroes, my contrarians I call them, from all different disciplines. And I suddenly realized, oh my God, they have a common critique of the world, which is You know, in my field, we lost trust in humans. So John Taylor Gatto says, you know, I feel we don't trust kids and parents anymore. So we put them in the compulsory education system. We force all these scarcities on them when in fact learning is abundant. Teachers, if you think of the cashier at Starbucks as a potential teacher or your gardener as a potential, like teachers are abundant, right? So we create all these artificial scarcities. And I realized that there was this red thread that went through all of my contrarians, and Design from Trust was the synthesis of that. And, uh, so the word consumer led me to the word trust because I realized that the consumer bargain involved a series of breaches of trust with us, and that we are now being treated as consumers by almost every institution out there instead of as citizens.

Yes. Oh, so love that.

Um, so there we are.

Yeah, I have a I love this. Okay. And so what— all right, just quick side note on that. So one of my— one— I mean, all my classmates are my favorite from my doctoral program, but, uh, one in particular, JC Glick, who is a retired lieutenant colonel from the Army. He was a Ranger. He did like 11 combat tours. Um, also the CEO of an amazing foundation called the Commit Foundation, and He is very— he has a— he loves the idea of citizen as well. I hope I'm not misrepresenting him, um, as opposed to something else, right? Um, and because it's— it, it, it speaks to this idea of agency and responsibility, which you could see how that works. Okay, my question for you though, Jerry, is what is— what do you— how do you describe the challenge that you're facing right now with your idea and/or the message that you're using to articulate it? So I can kind of frame everything from that perspective.

Cool, thanks. So I try to keep my ego in check, but I have this relatively idealistic idea that design from trust could solve a lot of the problems we're facing. So my goal in life is to help us make better— to help humans, muggles I call us, make better decisions together so that we can have our children have a better future. And we've been doing a bad job of it. For quite a while. Okay, so that's great. That's kind of my motivation. That's my— that's okay.

That's motivation. And is the— is the kind of the— where the— where's the friction point for you right now?

Um, getting all these ideas out of my head and into the world, and then I guess making them implementable. I mean, for example, I'm, I'm lightly trained in design thinking, so I could, you know, I could help along with a design thinking workshop, and you could attach design thinking to any organization, and people would come up with prototypes and give you some, you know, they'd have some, something to do, but there's no moral compass in design thinking. And so they could just as easily invent a better guillotine or a better electric chair. And the process, unless you had a facilitator who cared, the process doesn't help you do that. And Design from Trust, because it's about trust, requires kind of looking into a mirror. And usually that means other people who can tell you stuff that sometimes you don't want to hear. And so as a methodology, I think it would require a community, which makes it harder to implement than your average thing like design thinking, but potentially more powerful. And I'm— I think I'm stuck on some of those kinds of implementation issues. And then I'm too curious about everything, which is why the brain is such a good tool for me. So I'm busy digesting everything in the world, and that doesn't really work so well.

Well, I'm the last person, and I don't think it's I'm never going to say that anybody's too curious. So that is— yeah, good, good, good, good.

I feel like I'm in the right room then.

Exactly. It's all good. Okay. So. All right. So as you likely know, or for those who don't, I mean, part of what I do with my work is I am actively researching even as we speak. What is it that an idea really requires as far upstream as we get it? Meaning I am not a neuroscientist, but as soon as it like kicks over into reasoning, that's where I really start to get interested because I believe it's that interaction that is oftentimes the first failure point of an idea, right? Is, is the moment that it, that, you know, that somewhere in the process of taking it from your 2.25D version of it in your head, having to get it into this like flat, almost linear— well, it is linear, um, order of language, which, which is using words that have multiple meanings to other people or may not have any meaning at all, to somehow get it to reopen in somebody else's mind in a way that doesn't get immediately rejected as a foreign object, right? And so, so there's, um, so that's— and that's— and I think there's— there— and there's a lot of failure points right there. Um, okay. So the first place I always start— well, not always because it's fairly new— is really starting at the, at the core, at, you know, at what I call a core claim. Like, what is fundamentally the claim that you're making? Um, and so one of the ways for us to look at that— and just as a quick thing, um, what I have up is the company one. Do you want— do you— or would you— if we had to choose, would we do to start between one of the two. Would you prefer— you sent me a company one and you sent me a community one.

A citizen one. They're both— I think they're both important and they're both strong. And let's start with whatever your instincts tell you.

What I have up is the one on organizations. See. Fun— I mean, fun fact that typically it's the back half of the claim that is where the trouble lies. Not always, but that's where we start. So This is the one where you're saying, if we want to build from, build organizations that are resilient, innovative, and high-performing, then we need design from trust. OK, so the very first place that I'm always going to look is just from that. And then there's a few immediate questions or tests that we can run the, run that claim through to take some pretty good guesses about what would or wouldn't succeed about it right there. So are you ready for this, Jerry?

I'm not sure, but I'm braced. I've got my seatbelt on.

I promise. OK. So this if-then, this claim, right, we're basically saying if we want to build organizations that are more resilient, innovative, and high-performing, then we need design from trust. That is the— so as you hear it back to yourself, does that feel correct to you? Like, what are your own observations of your hearing that claim back?

Yeah, yeah. So the if part seems pretty normal because I think companies are— those are things that sound good to companies. The problem is that nobody knows what design from trust is. So I think the then, the solution I'm offering is something that's unfamiliar to them and needs to be unpacked. So maybe a more muggle-friendly rendition of it would be, then we need to flip the design of our systems and offers from mistrust to trust of the average person. And that's a lot more words, but that's functionally what a big piece of Design from Trust does, is it reverses the default assumption we seem to have landed in that most people could be dangerous, terrible actors. So we design coercive systems to constrain them or manipulate them instead of most people are trying to help and make the system better. So why don't we enable them to jump in and let their genius find its way to their, their best contribution to the system?

Okay, super. So a few things that this starts to immediately bring up for us, uh, as now gives us a couple of different things to look at. Uh, one is you're, I would say, 100% assessed correctly, there isn't enough intuitive understanding of what design from trust means or could mean for it to pass one of those first tests, which is, do I know what this is? Do I care? Is it going to pass any kind of likelihood that that's likely to get me what this is? It is. I can— you can engage my interest, because if I've got some version of that question that you've got here, right? I mean, I— you could be saying like, yes, I do want resilient or innovative or high-performing. I'm going to come back to that. But because I don't know what Design from Trust is, or the alternative is I assume I know, and the minute I assume I know might get us in trouble as well. And what I mean by assume I know, which is if like design from trust as a phrase means something very, very specific to you, Jerry.

That's correct.

That specificity is not, is not, it's not sitting in those words.

It's not obvious.

It's not obvious in those words because those words have enough of an association for other people in other contexts that you put them together. And you know, my gut reaction doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be everybody's, is that I think a lot of people could be go like, of course, I know that trust is part of the problem. That's my problem. Okay. Yeah. So yeah, stop. Go ahead.

What was your— just, just very briefly, um, I agree entirely with what you just said. In fact, uh, some, some many moons ago I posted a video that says it's designed from trust, not for trust, and this is why. And there was an interesting nuance even there. Never mind that the phrase is— because I think I found a pattern that not that many people have noticed. It doesn't leap out, right? The good news is that this pattern exists in a lot of things that most people have used. So the path I take to acquaint people with Design from Trust is usually something like, who has used the Wikipedia in the last month, week, hour? And 80%, 90% of the room holds up their hands. Who remembers the moment when they figured out how Wikipedia works? And so since, since that's such a, a broad experience for people until now, when generative AI is gonna not send us to the website anymore, so I'm gonna lose that. Um, but, uh, for, for humans alive today, they've, they've probably experienced that and they've probably experienced like their throat tightening when they were like, what do you mean any idiot on the planet can make a change to the encyclopedia I just quoted? Yes, right. And that's, that's the, that's the moment of apprehension and insight that I want to capture, but it takes a moment like we just experienced to get there.

Okay, so a couple immediate thoughts on that. Number one is, it is one of the things we want to speak to is the, is that, is the thing that captures that design from trust type of piece, right? So, but the issue is, okay, let me break it back down. The first thing that we're trying to get to, let me just figure out where I wanna be. The first thing, the first place that we wanna get to is that we've got this kind of container of, let me make that thicker. We've got this container of if, right? And then we have a container of then. That's an H. Okay, so the first thing is, is that this if, right, needs to be an outcome. That's a T. Okay, I need to slow down.

An outcome. It makes the same sense.

I know, I've invented it.

So this is a German word.

Slow down. Outcome. This needs to be an outcome that somebody immediately recognizes as something they want, is in their mouths already, And they do not, they would agree they do not yet have an answer to that question that fully satisfies them. Right. So that's a lot of containers, but that's it. It really does. Like, that's how our brains process it and basically say, do I understand it? Do I care about it? Uh, do I already think I know, et cetera, et cetera. And then, then it needs to be an approach. Now we know. Right now that the, the, the two main words that are in there that most people are really going to hear and latch on to are the design and the trust piece. And neither of them is really speaking transparently to what you're trying to get across. So there's a couple of things we can do immediately to start to figure this out. And one of the first things I'm going to always do is that we start to, we start to create— one of the things that can help us to set up the constraints to make it easier for us to solve this problem. And one of the first things we want to do is right now, do you see how you have 1, 2, 3 different outcomes masquerading in that single question? Yes.

Yes.

So one of the first things that we need to do to start again, and it's— and I— is that we want to choose one of the three. Right. Or whatever it is, we want it to be one thing, not multiple things.

Mm-hmm.

There's lots of, you know, good brain science for all that. But for a very practical standpoint right now is that you and I need one thing to focus on so that we can make the approach a likely, probable, plausible solution or way to get that particular outcome.

So how much does it also have to be a unique solution, or is it okay to be in a crowded room?

Okay, so on the if, right, we want to be— we want to be in a— we want to be in a crowded enough room, right? So for one of the things that I often associate with the if question is that this is the question that gets you into somebody's consideration set. You generally, I would say, don't differentiate on the question. You differentiate on the answer, right? And particularly the, the answer with the question. So what we're looking for is we're, we're looking for something that gets people's attention, saying, yes, I have that question, no, I don't think I have a good answer to it yet, and an answer that when they hear it, they go That makes intuitive sense to me. I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I understand enough to go, A, haven't heard it before. B, huh, if this does in fact combine these words in the way that I think they do, then that might work. Um, and then, so then therefore, C, and I can also start to see how these two things actually work together. Right. So, so let's go back to this because the one of the trickiest things that I see over and over again is whether or not when someone's got a clear perspective on what they think the answer is, right? Design from Trust.

Mm-hmm.

The sneaky part is which box does it really belong in? And what I'm saying is the reason why it can go actually in either box, and that might be surprising to you, um, because, um, it often depends on also what are you trying to accomplish, right? So if we're trying to, um, here's what I mean by that. If design from trust or, or something about trust, right, exists here. And I'm just going to put design in quotation marks, like in parentheses right now, because trust is something that people are really interested in right now. And so it could go there. It could also be your answer. And what I mean, so what does it mean if it's in one place or the other? What it means if it's in the question is that you are deciding, or you feel called, whatever you want to— quoting my friend, Laura Belgray, and her woo-adjacent terminology— to say, I am talking to people that already understand that there's an issue of trust that is sitting in the way of these other goals of resilience, innovation, high performance. That's what I mean by it doesn't really belong in the if question, meaning are you really speaking to people who are kind of already seeing that there's some— something's up with trust? And part of what you're revealing to them is, yeah, we're coming at it from the wrong— like, we're not, we're not getting it because we're not giving it, right? Like that type of split, right? That's happening. So that's— so this is very common, Jerry, where one of the first decisions is, is it actually— are you actually talking to people who already sense there's something wrong with trust? And what you're trying to do is to say, yeah, you're correct that trust is part of it. What we're missing is a fundamental thing about how trust works that is not how we are going about it.

Exactly.

OK. So the other option, just to clear, like clarify it for the folks that are out and about there, is that if it's in the then column, then it really is that there's a question about how can we be more resilient? And you're like, surprise, it has to do with trust. And if it's, and if it's actually, and you see how for some people, again, I can't make a, like a sweeping generalization here because for some people who want to be leaders of thinking, That is the big aha, right, that they're trying to get across. They're like, hey, you don't understand that you can't get that if trust or something about trust isn't present. That does not— please push back. You do not strike me as the person who's trying to say, hey, we don't have trust. It's more, we don't have trust, correct, but because there's something about trust that we're getting fundamentally backwards.

Correct. Yes.

Okay, so in that case, what it means is that I would then say one of the first places— one of the first places to untangle here— I have my friend and client Erin King says she comes to me when she needs her idea necklace untangled.

So the first thing that we're untangling is to say that I've spent many hours with needles on the countertop untangling chains that are way too thin. Who made the chain that thin? How did that happen?

Exactly. Okay, so the first big thing I would say based on what we've talked about so far is that trust is actually in the first half of your claim, not in the second, right? I mean, it needs to— we need to speak to it in the, in the approach piece, but actually there is this element of we don't want to waste time. Um, uh, someone's saying that my drawing looks like a hippopotamus and I'm like If only I were good at drawing things. Um, uh, thanks, I appreciate it. We're just gonna— it's going on eBay next. Okay, but one of the important things is to say, like, A, it solves a lot of problems to put this in the right, in the right spot, right? Um, because one, number one, it makes it clear to you that you're not trying to define trust or redefine trust for people, which is part of the issue when it's the answer, right? Is that you're putting yourself in this, in the situation where it can't— like, it just— they can't— like, it's just, it's asking you to do a lot, and it doesn't pass that— doesn't pass that I haven't heard it before test, right? Because they're saying, Jerry, every— like, there's 17 other people saying the answer is we need to build more trust, right? And so you're basically saying Okay, I'm in one of the 17 other people that are saying we need to build trust, and I'm actually going to give you an understanding of how to do it because that's actually what, what I'm— what you're trying to do, right? So it helps you because now it takes you pressure of you having to go out there and redefine trust for the marketplace, which is not easy. Um, second, it starts you with a group of people who are already much more fundamentally interested in what you have to talk about than if you were starting further out.

Exactly. And I'm very interested in initial questions that sort of winnow the audience so that I end up people who are already leaning in to what I might offer. So I totally get that.

And that's the key. So what we're trying to do with this if question is, is start it as close to where your, where your approach solves for without crossing over into they don't know enough to answer that question, right? So one way to think about the if questions— and we talk about this, uh, I talk about this a fair amount sometimes— is that there's really— let me see, that may actually be in here somewhere— um, that there's really kind of 3 different positions that people take. Um, one is that— and I'm gonna do it from here— one is that they know what they want, right? But they don't— like, that the if question can be like, how can we be more innovative? How can we be more resilient? In other words, it sounds like there's something that they're trying to solve for, but that's— it's two ways to think about this. Number one, that that is as far across towards solving this problem as they've gotten, that they've understood what it is that they want. Okay, the next thing is to say I want that, but we understand that if we don't have trust, if people don't understand, don't trust us, we don't try— like, they know there's something about trust that's getting in the way. And so that's where the question is, and that's where yours is right now. And it doesn't eliminate what they want. You're basically saying, how can we build trust? How can we regain trust? How can we earn trust in a distrustful world? Like, that's a That's a fairly common if question right now. Again, not a problem. You are presenting an alternative new solution to that. So that we can be more resilient, more innovative, et cetera. That's how you loop in that other question. You say, how do we solve this problem so that we can get this other thing that we want? Right now, there is sometimes, and sometimes this is where you're leading people to, Sometimes people are already starting to say, all right, how do we not give in to the nanny state, right? And actually treat people with the agency and respect that we as an organization or whatever believe that humans actually deserve, because we already understand that will be a way to build trust so that we can get all those other things. But there's going to be a subset of people mind you, smaller than, you know, increasingly smaller as you go across this kind of bridge, that is actually asking that, that actually are that far, right? They're saying, how do we restore agency, right? They may come at it from like, we just don't want to like add to this nanny state. Again, that's not the best term for it, but, you know, um, but it's a nice, it's a nice force out there to bring into the conversation.

I get that. Yeah.

Is it something that people recognize? So one of the very first things, very, is to really decide, like, who are the people you want to talk to first, right? Like, and that is, you know, and there's, there's so many different— I wish I could tell you, hey, always start with the left. No, uh, because one of the things about doing this work is that you gotta go where your energy is, and because otherwise and where your energy isn't, right? Um, you know, I do this a lot with my work. I, you know, I started with how do you build buy-in because I really, I really don't want to talk to anybody who doesn't care about it. Like, if you don't already care about getting legitimate buy-in for, for a change, I really don't want to talk to you. Not because you're not like a good human, smart and capable, but because that's a lot of teaching I don't have time for when there's plenty of people who do. Like already get the whole idea by it.

You want to find people who are on the same quest.

Correct. Exactly. So that's kind of one of the first places I would start. So, Jerry, so let's, let's start from that perspective of, you know, where do you feel like right now is much— is, is which one feels where, where do you have most energy? Like, where is your energy right now? Is to helping people go, there's something wrong with trust, I'm not sure what it is, or to people saying how to like who are a little bit further, or is it people who are a little bit further away?

That's a great question. And it's, uh, I've done some thinking about what are the benefits of using Design from Trust. And there's a, there's a whole series of them. Part of it is you can light up your staff, your employees. It can be inside the company. Uh, a bigger thing is that you can, you can change your competitive landscape entirely. You can, you know, one of the stories is Airbnb, where hotels thought people are always going to want to stay in hotels with everything that a hotel implies. And it turns out that every empty room and ADU and whatever on the planet could be liberated to become like a hotel room but different. And that flipped an industry and created a strategic opportunity. And I love— and that's the reason I did two forms, one for business, one for citizens, is that that's an interesting business strategic advantage. But then if you're trying to fix what's broken socially out there, which is causing a whole lot of havoc in the world, then you're into a different set of questions. And how do we get citizens to actually be concerned and come back into discourse and decision-making and participate in democracy? How do we revive democracy is an interesting goal, but that's real separate from the corporate thing. And Design for Trust could apply to both.

All right, so yeah, you are, uh, yes, so I am a huge fan of what the nerds call, of which I am one, the fractal theory, which is if we could just figure out this one thing, if we just took this one approach, it applies to all of this stuff, right?

Right.

So it, it sounds like that's where you are with your idea. And being someone who has a very similar challenge opportunity with my idea, part of the first thing we have to do is A, we can't start talking about all the other things it can do until we've actually earned the right to even talk about why it's there in the first place.

Right. So we have to make some choices and throw, throw some things off the table temporarily in order— temporary would do exactly, not for good. We actually not throw them off the table, but just put them over on the shelf for a second.

That's right. So, I mean, one of the ways to kind of think about like, just because we've talked about the brain and whatever, and I've used this analogy before, like, we have— we, when we try to give them everything all at once up front, this is what happens when, you know, you— we've got everything like, uh, in the— when everything is— when you've got multiple things hanging out in that question, right? Essentially what you're doing is you're handing people the entire bowl of pasta and say, eat it in one bite. When actually what we need to do is if we just gave them the end of a single noodle, eventually they'd get the whole thing too. And that's really what we're doing. We're just holding back like the things that literally can't get through their working memory, their, their kind of instinctive what, what checks, what doesn't check kind of thing. So yeah, one of your biggest questions, Jerry, is What is the smallest question that I would be satisfied being known for? Right. And what I mean by that is, yeah, you could save democracy, but there's not a lot of people walking around with— I mean, actually, there are quite a few people walking around with that. But what I mean is, especially these days, they're easily distracted by, by questions that are further down on the hierarchy of needs. Not that that's the end-all be-all, but like You know, we saw it in, you know, the 2024 election. People were like, why weren't people caring about saving democracy? And it's like, just because they were voting for the economy doesn't mean that they weren't paying attention to that. In a capitalist country, money is the root of any power to do anything else, right? So it makes sense. So this is where I say, what's the smallest question, right, and that you'd be willing to answer? And so this is where it's like, if we're looking just— again, let's just restrict strict to the, the what you've given us, which is, are you looking for like, what is the question about trust, right? Either as, as individuals or as organizations that you are like, yeah, I, this is the question that I know a lot of people have an answer for, like want an answer for. Design from thinking may not be the answer, but it's the best one I've come up with so far. Right. It may not solve all of it, but it can solve this piece of it. Right. This is the beautiful thing about complex problems. And, and oh, by the way, it's a question that individuals have. It's a question that businesses have. It's a question that, you know, scale up, you know, maybe we use slightly different words, but it could also apply to humanity. Right. Yeah. So, I mean, honestly, I know, you know, that's really one of the first places to start. So when I'm working with folks, you know, privately and one-on-one, I mean, we spend usually a good 2 hours just trying to figure out this question, um, because everything else builds on it, right? It is, you know, at least from a idea viability standpoint and kind of from the structural engineering of how we talk about the idea, the if is the first piece of it. It goes back to Bayesian probability theory. I'm sure it's in your brain somewhere, um, which is that if, as you know, if the— if, if the condition that we are naming is not immediately instinctively automatically perceived as relevant, the whole— everything else that comes after is considered to be null and void and irrelevant. Yep. So this is why if you start with, how do I want to say, democracy, people are like, yeah, I care about that, and right now we've got to make our quarterly earnings report, right? And so it doesn't mean that you have to make your idea about quarterly earnings at all. Let me be clear about that. But we have to start, A, where some, somebody is like, ah, yes, that's a persistent. I like to think of it as a persistent irritant, first of all. And second, that what you actually mean by kind of design, you know, design from thinking, excuse me, design from trust, um, where again, from an automatic, irrational analysis of it, someone goes, for whatever reason, I could, I, I could see why that could, could work. Those kind of fit together. The, the gestalt of those two things are like, yes, okay, if I want to solve for trust, I have to, you know, give it first. That's not what you're saying, but like, that's a piece of it, right? And then you can go so that, like, even if we just use that little one little piece, right? Now people go, oh, okay, how? Right. And as soon as they go, oh, okay, how? You've, you've passed that test. But it really does come back down to like, it's this little package of the if-then and saying, you know, sometimes you're super clear on the then, right? And for you, that's designed from trust. But again, it felt like as we're talking about it, that that's actually It's potentially more in the question. And then what you actually mean by designing from trust is, you know, design may survive, but it's kind of like there's something else about how trust arises in your worldview that is actually part of that strategy in the first place. And again, I know that sounds very heady and weird, but that's best I can give you. You're doing great.

Great. I'm, I'm, you're exactly in the, in the zone. So I love that. There's a piece of this which goes toward our relationship to our clients and customers. And the word consumer is the thing that sort of led me all the, all the way here. So I think of them not as consumers, but I don't mind the words customer and client. Those are great words because there's an exchange of value, right? And part of it is, do you want to be more trustworthy to your customers and clients? Is possibly a goal if we would like to be more trustworthy. Or more radically, maybe our goal is to earn back trust because we are already convinced that we're in a kind of a broken landscape where trust is really scarce. And, you know, if you look at the Edelman Trust Barometer every January, the trust just keeps plunging. It's a little bit like the Doomsday Clock. It's like, well, can it get any lower? Well, look, next year.

Oh, look, it did. Yeah.

Oh, look, gosh, it slipped even more. So, so there's something about that. And this is one of multiple lanes to explore, but this is a big one, I think.

Yes, I would agree. And again, like, you know, whatever, for whatever it's worth, because I hear so many people right now saying the answer is we need to earn trust. I'm like, y'all, that's the question. So I would say that I would agree that something about how do we How can we be more trustworthy? How can we be seen as more trustworthy? Is a— or earn it back is a great way to go. Just a quick, fun rhetorical device. Of the two, I would vote more for this one, number one, than number two, because number one, like, number one could include number two, but the reverse is not true.

Yeah, and, and you're right. And also, number 1 is not very offensive at all. It's like, hey, you're pretty good now, you could get better. And number 2 is like, damn, somehow you broke it, how do you get it back? And it makes a— number 2 makes a lot of assumptions, um, that make it stronger and a little bit more fiendish. I don't know, more— yeah, and that's probably less appealing.

Yeah. And so some— so, but For some people, that's what makes it more appealing, right? So again, I'm— well, this is one of the things I come over, you know, over and over again with clients. Like, sometimes they're like, just tell me. And I'm like, I am not going to tell you, um, because you can be equally successful with either version of these. But one of them, again, you're gonna have more energy for it. Like, some people love to ruffle the feathers, and that's good. You— we need those people. And then there are people who say All right, I like the idea of framing it this way. And then depending on the audience, I can either be very specific, like, or I can give a range of situations that I'm addressing. You know, who here does not want to be seen as more trustworthy, either because you lost it and you want to earn it back, or because we're in a distrustful society, or because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Rhetorically, like, meaning like when you're talking to other people and you have more time and more content, you can give more context. But so that's part of why I try to find something that is specific and yet magically general at the same time. Do you see what I'm trying to do? So let's say, yeah, we want to be more trustworthy. Yeah, go ahead.

It feels, it feels also like the choice— let's just simplify to the choice between these two sentences or parts of phrases— will have some direct bearing on who I think I want to be working with, who I, who I would like as my, as my client. And strangely, the harsher filter might be a better filter from that perspective in the sense of, I kind of want to work with people who already know realistically that trust is broken and want to figure out how to get around it, as opposed to people who just want marginal improvement. Because part of what I have for them is the bad news that trust is really quite broken. And if the third, fourth, fifth statement are going to be, oh, and by the way, you know, we're way down here, maybe, maybe we earned the, the right to talk to them that far. But in some weird way, I like the idea that there's a bunch of people out there who already know that trust is, is in a, is in really bad shape and want to fix it more radically. And maybe the, the more difficult phrase is the better filter.

There you go.

But I don't, but I don't know, I'm thinking with you.

Well, it's a thing to test, right? I mean, that's the thing too, is that sometimes like we don't really know how we will react to an idea until we start to see how other people react to it, right? And this is, you know, here I'm quoting, you know, Arjorus and Schoen, amongst others, that really think of talk as data. And what I mean, what I mean by that is, I mean, you probably already know, it's probably in your brain. But because when we're talking, we are having to, we're, we're not really operating from working memory, we're operating for more of that kind of automatic system. It, there's a more direct connection to what is actually back there and what we're feeling. And so that's why so much of the work that I do is like, let's talk it out. Because even as you were starting to talk about, you started in one place and then by the end of it you're like, actually, I like the one that's doing this. Great, right? Because the more that you start to talk it through, the more you're starting to think, okay, yeah, this is good. This helps me qualify. I want the people. Who understand that there's something broken. And again, you can say, earn back trust. You can say, fix the trust issues we're facing. Again, it can be kind of— so the key here then is that once you've got that, and I know we're like at time and you're like, but where do we go now? The key then is to say, all right, now that we've got that, what must be, from your point of view, the way that you think of the world, um, you know, obviously it's going to be captured in this phrase that you use of designing from trust. What must be part of the strategy of earning it back, right? And the good news is— this may not be good news to you— trust cannot be part of the answer, because this is— now we're starting to create— because if then automatically creates a logical structure and we can't violate that logical structure or else we'll violate that automatic test that this idea is going to go through. So, you know, one of the first things here is to say like, okay, what must be part of this? Like if we're trying to earn back trust, what are people doing? What must be part of it that they are under-attending to right now? We want to take the things that people would take— expect off the table. We're looking for things that are, as Chip and Dan Heath would say, post-dictable. I like to say unexpectedly obvious. But like, again, it's not like, you know, be more trustworthy. You're like, no shit. Excuse me, family. Sorry, sorry, livestream.

I—

we need to like put me on a 5-minute delay. Um, No shirt, Sherlock. Um, do you see what I'm saying? So what would— like, what starts to come to mind when you're like, okay, my perspective on this is we must do X and people aren't paying attention to it enough?

There's a, um, this is sort of a relatively safe general answer, but like, we need to— you might then need to rethink how you design your offers.

Okay, so that's tactics. Why would I need to design my offers if I— what about redesigning my offers? How about you need to redesign them in order to earn back the trust? Do you see where I'm trying to get to now?

Yeah, I am. How about you might need to rethink your assumptions about your customers and, and the market?

Okay, what are— is there a specific set of assumptions that you think are getting in the way when it comes to trust? She says, leadingly.

Exactly. Well, I'm trying to avoid the word trust, per your coaching.

Aha. Yes, exactly.

Because some of our assumptions are that everybody's a bad actor and that we need to defend ourselves against our customers, et cetera, et cetera. There's a whole series of things that come out of that. But those are some of the assumptions I'm questioning. Other assumptions are about how we protect or use intellectual property, whether we open source or not, or defend the assets of the enterprise. That's another set of assumptions. Another set of assumptions are about how we operate inside and how open we are with our own employees about what's up and where agency and authority rests. Those are all things you could easily redesign that would improve trust.

OK, so just a couple of points here, just observations. Number one, what— one thing I want to point out for the purpose of anybody who may be watching is is first, the leap from question to tactic is a very common one, right? So that's not a fault. It's just it— except for the fact that it's— it is asking people to take too big of a leap, right? So you're like, well, if we just do this, we're going to earn back trust. But what we've left unanswered is why would that work, right? And so One of the things that we're trying to do here is you're saying, well, if we were to design it in this way, which by the way, we haven't quite heard from you, right? So again, that's an indicator of what the kind of information would need to be here. I would need to, I would need to go, oh, well, why would that work to do that? And so that's point number 1. Point number 2 is one of the things that I'm doing when we're listening for, I'm doing when we're listening for talk as data is listening for a word that, A, you haven't said yet, if that happens, or B, a word that I hear more than once in a very short amount of time. And you see, I wrote it down. You may not be able to read it, but it was defense.

Defense.

Right. And so you use it in the context of kind of what we don't want to do. Right. And so when you are presenting and when you're thinking about these things and this is, this is where I'll leave us today. What I'm going to suggest is that there is something that in your mind is the opposite or the counterpoint to a defensive stance that is absolutely necessary as far as you're concerned. Um, and that's one of the first things that I would task you with as you're starting to think about that and say, okay, what is my opposite of defense, right? And because it's probably— I'm just going to take a wild guess here— it's probably a word that Jerry once you find it, it forces a rethinking of assumptions.

Let me, um, there's a, there's a draft post I have that's, uh, you want to be undefended, not defenseless.

Ah, okay.

And I talk about the difference. And to be undefended means you know how to defend yourself, but you put your guard down and make yourself vulnerable. So being undefended is actually quite central to design from trust.

So I love that, except that it's not a noun. So one of the things that I love to get to is, and I'm trying to figure out, like I was having my own conversation with my, my own favorite LLM, you know, about the difference between irrefutability and unassailable ability. And I'm trying to figure out if there's, if there is an ability kind of version of undefended, because that's what you're trying to go for. And I know it can sound like really arcane to like argue like, what's the difference between unassailable and irrefutable? And I'm like, well, actually they do carry, yeah, important distinctions. And I think the thing is same is true for you. And again, notice that it's, it's very normal to describe what something isn't, but when we're trying to establish an idea's validity and its standing, its right to be heard in the first place, again, yes, it's going to be in the, in the mind, the, that decision of right is actually up to the audience, not you. Um, it— we have to be arguing for something, not just against it. And so, exactly, you know, so I mean, the closest I heard you get was vulnerability, like that, as that piece of it. But again, just, this is me taking a wild assumption. So it's— it— that doesn't quite feel like your word, Jerry. Like, it doesn't feel like undefended. Yes, vulnerable is part of it, but it's not really—

vulnerable is Brené Brown's word, kind of. And I lean on her some as well, right?

Yeah.

Um, there's a— I went through the same exercise you just went through about irrefutability and so forth with the difference between mistrust and distrust. Do you know the difference? Oh, good. I did not.

No, I don't actually. No, I'm like saying yes because I'm like, I love these kinds of conversations. And no, I don't know the difference.

And you said yes, and I'm like, damn, you already knew.

No, I don't.

So typically—

I want to know, tell me.

It's real easy. Mistrust is generally your instinct. Distrust is generally based on data. Like, I distrust that person because they ripped me off 4 times, or they lied to me 4 times. I mistrust this person because I get a bad vibe.

Yeah.

So mistrust is more vibey, distrust is more factual.

Okay. So here's— so this is a, this is a potential line of exploration for you, meaning do you, in your mind— so again, sometimes we have to unpack our own ideas, and it seems silly, but like, again, we, we are convinced that they're awesome, right? And we see confirmation bias of our ideas everywhere. I am sure it is, and I'm sure it's valid. I always start from that perspective, but we have to make that obvious to people from the outside. So One of the things to unpack is, is there something that speaks to— what is something that solves for distrust? And what is something that solves for mistrust? Right? Because you might say, hey, it's actually really important. I mean, my brain goes, oh, it's dual process theory and System 1, System 2 and blah, blah, blah. And, but, and so I'm like, totally vibing with this because I'm like, yes. But that's one way to go, right, is to say, is there Like, do I need to solve for each of those? And then therefore, when I put them together, ah, okay. So it's like, so is it what solves for mistrust, right? Is it alignment? Is it openness? Is it vulnerability? Is it, is it, um, is it extension? Is it, I don't know, whatever that might be. And is there something that I'm, that I think is, is in there that's solving for distrust, right? Like, is it verifiability? Is it, um, is it experiential. And you're— that's one option, right? Is like, whenever you're like, oh, actually, I think it's— there's these two things that are part of the problem. Is, you know, do you have— like, is Designing from Trust really based on kind of uniting these two things? Like, I would just say, like, my approach is like that. Go ahead.

So, so this is a nuance that isn't central to Design from Trust. It's okay.

And that's an important point too.

Exactly. And it's not a distinction I'm trying to build or use. It's one of those small things like being defended, you know, defenseless or undefended. It's an interesting point for people to absorb. And then they're like, OK, now what's next?

OK, so I mean, I think that one of the things I would clearly say is that design is probably one of them. Because there is an intentionality, there's a structure, there's a, you know, there's, there— one of the reasons why I have found in this process that going for nouns is really important is because nouns carry a bunch of adjectives with, with them. And when we only go for an adjective, it's just the adjective and it could mean a whole bunch of other stuff. But when you're talking about design, you know, and then kind of that, that you mean certain aspects of design, which kind of in the next stage where we try to say, we try to essentially warrant, justify why design is necessary. That's where you're going to really speak to the specific nature. But I'm going to say that design is part of it. But I, but now I know it's going to like, I hope it doesn't break your brain, Jerry.

I'm sure it won't. Oh, God. Oh, God.

But we've got to figure out that really when you're saying designing from trust, what you're really saying is that we, this is something-based design or design-based something. And it's not thinking. It's something else, or it's, you know, it's, it's undefended. Again, one of the ways to kind of test this in the moment is to just smoosh them together and kind of do the— what is the—

does that work? Weirdly, the phrase that comes to mind is optimistic design.

Oh, okay.

And I've never used that phrase.

See, it's So now what we've got here is it— I can't spell optimist. That's an M. There we go. So what we're saying is like, OK, so now you've got something to play with. You're like, optimism. Oh, because that does— to me, that aligns with what you've said. And she's like, we want to earn back trust that we needed. We need to kind of optimist by design. We needed to be design optimism. And again, you might be like, OK, that's close, not quite. Once you've got those two words, you can start to say, yes, nobody else may understand it perfectly, but at least we understand a little bit more than something like design from trust. And I'm like, I don't know what that means. And when you say, well, it's really about designing from the position, like it's optimism-informed design, right? Or optimism-informed execution or optimism-informed action or whatever that might be. Or yes, All of the above. That's where you're trying to get to. So, yeah, I know we're like right at time. Hey, Jeanette, thanks for thinking it's a great session. But thoughts, responses? Jerry, where's your brain? How are you feeling about all this?

I'm feeling great. Thank you. You've really expanded my head, my thinking about this whole thing. Earlier, I was thinking one way to expand the then answer, which for me was design from trust, was a simple thing that I do a lot, which is design from the assumption that most people are trustworthy. And it just, it just breathes the thesis into design from trust and on from there. But I, but I, but I know that design from trust needs a lot of explanation and doesn't, doesn't, it isn't self-explanatory. And optimistic design might be more, more self-explanatory. It might be like, oh, I can sort of see what that means. And then you could easily get into a tussle about, well, but the world is, is, is like crap these days, et cetera, et cetera. But that's an interesting argument to get into. And now we're in conversation.

Yeah, exactly. And again, other words just play with. I mean, it's one of those things to kind of get that sense of, you know, again, you mentioned the worthiness. And it's a thing to play with. Is there enough of a distinction in people's mind between trust and trustworthiness that you could actually say, that you could say, how do you earn back trust? You need to design for trustworthiness, right? I don't think that quite passes because again, I'm not quite like, I'm like, yeah, that's my problem. Because if the average person would go, yeah, that's what I asked in response, then you're like, OK, you're not at it yet. But when you say, OK, how could we, how can we kind of, you know, be seen as the trustworthy people that we think we are? And then you're like, OK, this is what you've got to do from an approach standpoint. So we have to think about that. So I'm glad that we can— like, thank you for allowing us to kind of poke and prod and pull.

Um, because thank you for the poking and prodding, and I'm glad it wasn't painful. And oh yeah, it was challenging though. That was great.

Well, that's— yeah, I mean, it's one of those things where it's, it's— I mean, I love ideas. I hope that's obvious. Um, and I love that Dean, who was saying he's like, he's really kind of really loves the fact that we're drilling into the kind of the word nerd pieces of it. Um, because this, uh, you know, it's, it's the words are our only— in so many ways they're not our only way to communicate, but they are the ones that we go to the most often. Um, and so it's really important, I think, sometimes. And we just use words a lot of times without actually thinking what we are imbuing into them and what that, and what that means. So thank you, Jerry. You know, A, you've got such interesting things to pull apart here. B, it's always, I think, useful for people to see where there is a— there's, you know, these are consistent friction points for people. You know, the name, you know, namely is just to recap the like, where is the— where is your idea, right? Is it— are you asking people to start from there? And then you've got a really distinct way of getting like answering it? Or in your case, is it a little split, right? You're like, actually, trust is in the question. We've got to figure out what the answer is that when you basically use— once you teach people that, then you can layer on that phrase of designing from trust, and then people will know what you mean. But until then, right, we've got to build it up from there.

So, yep.

It's been a pleasure. Yeah, absolutely. For others that are interested in asking questions, joining, etc., as always, we are here once a month. Keep an eye on various social platforms for when it's happening. If, like Jerry, you want to have kind of some live on the air feedback and some thinking about your message, let us know and we'll see you in the future. Jerry, what a pleasure. Thank you so much for coming on to Office Hours.

Same here.

All right.