Tamsen Webster

“The action scientist is an interventionist, seeking not only to describe the world, but to change it.” (Argyris et al., 1985)

#YESSSSSS

I'm declaring email and social inbox "bankruptcy" this week—marking everything as read and then archiving.

It's the only to figure out what actually needs my focus.

Also: if you're waiting on me for something, it's probably a good idea to send me a new message. ;)

I’m looking for folks who study formal logic, and/or the role of axioms in mathematical reasoning and the creation of theorems.

Yes, that’s pretty much the definition of “niche,” but I figure asking is the fastest way of finding.

So, who do you know? Who should I know?

Hearing a TTC should be a trigger for you to START thinking, not stop.

Because even when something is true, sometimes, it may not be RIGHT for you or for people you care about.

###

Is it possible that people are now taking some "thought-terminating clichés" about "government efficiency is an oxymoron" as fact? Also yes.

You may agree that a statement is true.
But is it ALWAYS true?
Is it TRUE in this instance?

☟

Issues that were and are important enough or that affected enough people to warrant considering them more deeply.

Have people taken advantage of that and created a bunch of bloat and needless bureaucracy? Yes. And.
☟

One of the major reasons our government is structured the way it is, with three branches of government, with both a Senate and a House, was to make sure that emotions *couldn't* take over. To make sure we could stop—and think—about issues.

☟

There IS a lot of inefficiency in government (where I've never worked) and in academia and higher education (where I have).

But some of that inefficiency is there *on purpose.*

That may not make sense at first, but think about it:

☟

You may find that you agree after all, and if so, that's fine. At least you thought about it.

But you may also find that you don't agree with it. Because these statements aren't fact. They're opinions. And they're also context-specific (which is why SOMETIMES they *are* true).

I mean, I get it.
☟

Or to intentionally stop someone from thinking about a subject any further.

But because you can't really ever truly know someone else's intent when *they* use one, when you hear one

When you hear one of those phrases, QUESTION IT.

☟

DO those means really justify those ends? Are there other ways to accomplish those ends? How important are those ends in context with other possible outcomes? And again, WHO SAYS?

Does that mean if you use one, you're also a totalitarian? No.

Not, that is, unless you do it *on purpose*

☟

To see what I mean, let's look back at the examples.

> IS something what it appears to be? Does it have to continue to be what it is right now? Why or why not?

> DOES time actually heal all wounds? Who says? Are there some wounds that can't, don't, or shouldn't heal?

> And the last one:

☟

That's where the "thought-ending" piece comes in.

Because the intuitive parts of our brains recognize these phrases as (a) ones we know and (b) something we've probably said ourselves, our brains often accept them unquestioningly.

🧠: "Yep, sounds right, so it must BE right."

☟

> "The ends justify the means."
> "Time heals all wounds."
> "It is what it is."

These, my friends, are examples of "though-terminating clichés" (TTCs). What is that? It's a familiar phrase used to end a discussion or argument.

It's also a major tool of totalitarian regimes.

☟

Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: Fundamentals of Message Design Workshop. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting. Ready to unlock the secrets of persuasive communication? Join Tamsen Webster, acclaimed author of "Say What They Can't Unhear," for a game-changing webinar on the Fundamentals of Message Design. In t...

If you've ever said to yourself, "Self, I'd like to know more about this message design stuff Tamsen's always talking about," today's your chance!

At 11:00 a.m. ET TODAY I'm doing a *free* webinar that'll introduce you to this field I'm trying to create.

zoom.us/meeting/regi...

Anyone here a fan or scholar of Habermas and/or communicative action theory?

Would love to talk with an expert as I work on early drafts of my dissertation proposal.

There aren't many people who awe me, but Kate does—always. She turns her relentless curiosity and kindness into knowledge, insights, and action plans that can help us all.

We need a LOT more people like Kate.

But in the meantime, we can all be more like her, and this book is SUCH a great start.

If you:

- Believe in achieving "the best futures for the most people" (Kate's mission)
- Have ever wondered how to decide what to pay attention to—and what to ignore—in this ever-changing world
- Want to understand what your future options are—and how to decide among them

This book is for you.
👇

This is my friend @kateoneill, and today, you can order her incredible book, "What Matters Next."

I hope you will. Here's why:

👇

📷 @davidleyes2

A little #Bluesky throwback to January's #NSANYC meeting where I got to meet @tamsenwebster.bsky.social and hear some of her brilliant wisdom! #NationalSpeakersAssociation #ChrisFitzpatrickSpeaks #TamsenWebster

Do you see what we did? We said the quiet part out loud. 📣

Adding WHAT ABOUT the data connects the action (focus on 50+) to an outcome (make more 💰) AND gives stakeholders the story they can tell themselves—one that makes sense based on BOTH their experience, their intuition, AND the evidence.🔚

❝When you focus on more people who have more money to spend, YOU'RE much more likely to make more money. Because there are more people in the 50+ market than in the markets we usually focus on AND they have more money to spend, so they represent a huge, untapped opportunity to increase profits. ❞

☟

2. We answered WHY the greater number of people 50+ was important to that (“more people = more money”)

3. We answered WHY greater capacity to spend was important to that (“more money to spend = more money spent”)

And then we put it all together:

☟

...It's used to illustrate and validate an underlying—and ultimately, irresistible—idea. Here’s how we excavated her impossible-to-ignore message in 3 simple steps:

1. We defined the outcome her audience already wanted (“make more money”)

☟

She did what a lot of people do at first… she gave me data. 📊
She told me exactly how big that market is and how much more money they have than the market her clients usually focus on.

Don’t get me wrong, data is important, but it can be all too easy to to ignore. Unless, that is…

☟

Yesterday, during one of my live training sessions 👩🏻‍💻, a client was struggling to get traction for her idea: convincing her stakeholders that targeting the 50+ market was worth it.

So I asked her why *she* thought it was worth it, so I could hear the case she was making to others.

☟

For example, the complement to “rational” is not “emotional,” it’s “intuitive” or even “primal”

Some emotions decidedly work against changing perspectives.

There’s often a reason it doesn’t! The more I research this (esp for my doctoral work) I see that so much of what conventional wisdom is based on either hasn’t been updated to reflect what we’ve since learned about how people make decisions or its misinterpreted what we have learned

That’s a great way to put it, Justin. If you’re with people who understand you, and whom you understand, you’re already doing a lot of things right

It turns out, honesty really is the best policy.

There IS a different way, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. There’s a TON of research that supports all of this.

Message your way. Your people will find you.

🔚