The belief that sabotages every conversation you have (with Tamsen Webster)

Socrates was executed for it. The ancient Greeks called it parrhesia: the practice of speaking truth openly, even at personal risk. The form of conversation it made possible, genuine dialogue aimed at mutual understanding, has quietly disappeared from the way most of us communicate today. What replaced it was debate. And debate, it turns out, is one of the least effective tools we have for actually changing minds. In this episode of Inner Propaganda, I sit down with Tamsen Webster, design expert, persuasion researcher, and doctoral candidate, to explore what it actually takes to change minds ethically and durably. Drawing on Habermas, sense-making and sense-giving theory, Bayesian probability, and the ancient Greek concept of parrhesia, we get into the real mechanics of how beliefs shift and what that means for anyone trying to communicate, lead, or connect. What you will discover: Why debate, discussion, and dialogue are three completely different tools with three completely different goals, and why entering the wrong one makes genuine understanding impossible How carrying a persuasive intent into a conversation can be the very thing that prevents persuasion from happening The two-word phrase that can shift how you experience disagreement in real time Why the if-then structure underpins all human understanding, and what that means for anyone trying to land a new idea The one belief Tamsen thinks too many people carry, and why it may be the single biggest obstacle to genuine connection Pre-order Inner Propaganda: <span style= "font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;