Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: Hey there billionaire. Yep, I'm talking to you. If you expect to live another 31 years, you're already a billionaire. Not in money, but in the real.
[00:00:10] Speaker B: Measure of wealth, time.
[00:00:12] Speaker A: That's because 31 years is roughly a billion seconds. But most of us waste time in ways we'd never waste money. The currency of time billionaires is micro moments, the 90 second to 15 minute gaps hidden between the structured parts of your day. This podcast is about reclaiming them with quick, research backed ideas to help you feel more creative, productive and alive. Welcome to Time Billionaires. Let's make your next micro moment count.
[00:00:45] Speaker B: Have you ever walked away from a conversation thinking something like how can a reasonable, intelligent person care deeply about this and still completely miss the point?
It's tempting to explain that gap in simple terms by telling ourselves things like they're misinformed, they don't get it, they're selfish, they're brainwashed. But what if the real reason isn't belief at all?
What if it's that different brains are scanning the world for different things?
It turns out that some of us are naturally oriented toward looking for change, possibility, and what could be better, and others are wired to prioritize stability, protection, and preserving what already works. Neither is wrong, and both exist for very good evolutionary reasons.
But once I realized that, something important shifted. Because I realized that if people are genuinely experiencing the same conversation through different internal lenses, then persuasion isn't just about having the right facts, it's about framing.
When you introduce a point in a conversation, you're not just sharing information, you're setting the frame for how everything that follows will be interpreted.
In one of the fastest ways that conversations break down is when someone feels like their frame is being rejected.
If someone doesn't understand the way we're talking about an issue, it doesn't just feel like disagreement, it feels like a rejection of our version of reality. So when we're listening, that means we should try to understand why someone cares about the thing they're bringing up without diminishing it, even if it seems ridiculous to us.
But when we're speaking, there's a different responsibility.
It's not other people's responsibility to understand why we are passionate about a cause, it's our responsibility to explain it in terms that resonate with them.
And if we can't do that, if we can't explain why something that matters to us should matter to them in a way that connects to their values and priorities, then we need to be honest about two either we haven't found the Right framing yet, or it may actually be reasonable for them not to support it, which is uncomfortable, but also clarifying.
I didn't come to this idea accidentally. In college, I studied political science, and I fully expected to be building a career in education policy.
So I spent years learning how public opinion is shaped, how policy messaging succeeds or fails, and how people don't actually change their minds because of data alone, but because of the stories behind it and what it signals to them.
And then, somewhat unexpectedly, I found myself leading marketing at a tech startup.
Almost immediately, I had this realization.
A lot of the same principles that make a political campaign or policy message effective also apply to marketing products and honestly, to connecting with people more deeply in everyday life.
In all cases, you're still trying to earn trust, you're still working within people's existing beliefs and incentives, and you're still navigating the reality that if you introduce the wrong frame, you can lose someone before the conversation even really starts.
This has become even clearer to me since I married into a family with very different political beliefs than the one I was born into.
And I realized that even though my parents and grandparents and my in laws and my husband's grandparents vote for different candidates and issues in almost every way, they actually have very similar value systems.
Which means that every holiday has essentially become an opportunity to see how certain arguments immediately put people on the defense, even when the underlying idea aligns with their priorities.
And that's what led me to create a pretty simple way to pressure test my own framing before I speak. And I'm pretty excited to share it.
I just call it the opposite test. And it's pretty straightforward, but surprisingly powerful.
Anytime you make a statement, you implicitly acknowledge that the opposite of that statement is at least worth responding to. Because if the opposite weren't plausible, there would be no reason to say it at all. So the moment you speak, you're planting a seed.
And if somebody already knows that you disagree with them politically, philosophically, or professionally, there's often a default skepticism at play.
Which means that the worst thing you can do is accidentally introduce a frame that you don't want to defend. I know that sounds kind of abstract, so here are some examples.
I have never in the history of my life ever said to any friend of mine, it's unsafe to drive with a baby in the trunk of your car.
Because no one I know believes the opposite of that is true. And if no one believes the opposite, there's no reason to mention it.
By mentioning it, you're actually giving this idea oxygen but here's another example. So if I say something like, climate change is real, the implied opposite is climate change isn't real. That framing pulls a conversation into a binary question about whether climate change is just a hoax. But when you say climate change is one of the biggest threats humanity faces, that shifts the framing. The discussion moves away from whether the issue exists and toward how significant it is without reopening the question of its reality.
So that's essentially a better jumping off place to have a conversation you want.
And if you think about this in a work context, if you were to tell your manager something like, I'm not trying to get out of doing work, you plant the idea that you might be, which probably hadn't even crossed their mind until you just said that. But if you were to say something like, I'm trying to make sure we're allocating resources the best way for everyone, you keep the frame focused on your shared intention and outcomes, not just what's best or easiest for you.
Ultimately, this means that before you say something, especially in a conversation where you care about being deeply understood, just pause and ask, what is the opposite of the sentence I'm about to say?
And then ask, does that opposite statement sound strong and reasonable? Or does it sound narrow, weak, or nonsensical? Because if the opposite of your statement sounds ridiculous, there's usually a cleaner, stronger way to make your point. One that doesn't make somebody ask, why did they even bother to mention that?
Whenever you introduce that statement, you're also introducing the opportunity to negate it. And sometimes you just don't want to give that any airtime at all.
So that brings us to today's micro moment exercise. You can use it today, but you can also keep coming back to it. Anytime you want to find shared ground with somebody on a complex issue, just think about one issue or cause that you care deeply about and then ask yourself, is my argument framed around what could be better or what needs to be protected?
Because remember, some people's brains are more risk averse than others. And then ask, if I reversed that framing, would my message still make sense? Put another way, what is the exact opposite of what I'm saying? And do I actually want to introduce that idea?
Here's one more example of how that could play out.
If I were to say vaccines are safe, the opposite of that is vaccines are unsafe, which pulls the conversation into a narrow debate about risk.
But if I say vaccines save lives and are one of the major drivers of increased life expectancy, the opposite of that statement is Vaccines don't save lives and haven't meaningfully contributed to life expectancy. That's a very different conversation.
That frame shifts to talking about real outcomes.
And something that's true cognitively for all of us is that repetition subtly legitimizes things.
So the more we revisit the wrong frame or the wrong question, we actually give it more weight than it deserves. The more we hear something, the more we think it might be true.
So whether someone is skeptical about vaccines or adamant about giving them to their kids, they're usually worried about the exact same underlying thing.
Keeping their children healthy and giving them the best possible chance at a long life.
When the framing is only about risk, the implied downside, the one that your frame has introduced as a reasonable possibility, is that a parent could make their child's life worse by giving them a vaccine.
The more that question is revisited even to deny it, the more reasonable it can begin to feel, even if it never needed to be addressed in the first place. And that's why framing is so important.
The opposite test is just the easiest way to figure out if you're accidentally focused on an unproductive frame and then giving you an opportunity to fix that.
I think this is so important because connection is one of the things that makes us happiest in life. All of the studies show that meaningful connections are what defines long and healthy and happy lives more than anything else. But we don't connect better by talking louder or faster or more forcefully. We connect better by recognizing that most people do have good intentions, but just very different internal orientations.
Different brains interpret the exact same situation differently based on their wiring and past experience.
So the next time you're trying to persuade someone, explain a position or advocate for something you care about, either online or in person.
Pause.
Run it through the opposite test.
Ask what's the opposite of what I'm about to say? And do I want to introduce that idea at all?
If not, is there a better way to frame this?
Sometimes the most powerful way to move a conversation forward isn't to say something smarter, it's to frame it in a way that keeps both sides willing to learn more in the conversation.
[00:09:47] Speaker A: Thanks for spending this micro moment with me.
[00:09:50] Speaker B: If you found it valuable, share it.
[00:09:51] Speaker A: With a fellow time billionaire and give us a rating to help others discover the power of micro moments.
For more ways to reclaim your time, check out timebillionaires.org and follow me. Rebecca Shattucks on LinkedIn. See you next time.
