You Probably Shouldn’t Say That. And Yet…(Groundbreaking Science of Disagreeing Well) | Julia Minson

Summary

---

Good Life Project with Jonathan Fields

Episode: You Probably Shouldn’t Say That. And Yet… (Groundbreaking Science of Disagreeing Well)
Guest: Julia Minson, Harvard Kennedy School Professor, Author of How to Disagree Better
Date: May 4, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the art and science of disagreement—how to engage in difficult conversations without severing relationships or descending into arguments. Host Jonathan Fields and guest Julia Minson, a behavioral scientist, discuss why our instincts for disagreement often miss the mark, examine the roots of “naive realism,” introduce the actionable HERE framework for better disagreements, and offer practical ways to build disagreement skills in everyday life.

---

Key Insights & Discussion Points

1. The Disagreement Crisis

• Modern context: Societal changes (social media, remote work, post-pandemic openness) have made personal beliefs more visible, amplifying our awareness of potential disagreements.
  • "People are having a harder time than ever disagreeing about things that matter to them... We used to have these unspoken, kind of spoken rules about how, you know, you don't talk about like politics, money, and religion. Right? And now...you can talk about anything." —Julia Minson (03:12)
• Result: Increased avoidance of conversations that matter, sometimes at a cost to relationships.

2. Disagreement vs. Argument: Key Distinctions

• Disagreement: Divergent beliefs or preferences; can be a learning opportunity.
• Argument: A specific type of disagreement where the goal is to persuade or “win.”
  • "A disagreement is just like a thing where we have different perspectives and then you decide what to do with it. We could learn from each other. We could argue about it. We could just change the topic and not talk about it at all." —Julia Minson (09:39)
• Common pitfall: Most people slide into “argument mode” out of habit or the urge to correct.

3. Rethinking the Goal of Disagreements

• Multiple possible goals: learning, sharing, persuading, preserving relationships, or sometimes just sounding smart.
  • “The exercise of thinking about ‘why am I in this conversation?’ I think is a really useful exercise.” —Julia Minson (12:01)
• Strategic engagement: Not every disagreement is worth having; value-driven or relationship-driven conversations may warrant more energy.

4. Power Dynamics in Work Contexts

• Disagreements in hierarchical relationships (boss/employee, senior/junior) require sensitivity to dynamics; “speaking up” is only safe in healthy environments.
• Tactic for junior staff: Expressing curiosity and genuine interest in the other’s perspective fosters openness.
  • "There's nothing that makes people sort of happier and more appreciative than when they feel that you're truly curious and interested in their perspective." —Julia Minson (18:22)

5. Naive Realism: The Bias That Blocks Us

• The belief that our view is “objectively” correct is nearly inescapable but damaging in disagreement.
  • “People believe that their observations and assessments of the world are authentic and objective and reasonable. And...we naively believe that our views reflect, like, an objective reality.” —Julia Minson (24:42)
• Result: We assume disagreement reflects ignorance, malice, or irrationality in the other, cementing division.

6. The HERE Framework for Disagreeing Constructively

(Timestamp: 28:10–34:09)

H – Hedge Your Claims
Examples: “sometimes,” “maybe,” “largely,” “most physicians tend to believe…”

• Reduces absolutism, leaves room for nuance and the other’s perspective.

E – Emphasize Agreement
Examples: “we both want to…”, “I am also interested in…”

• Surfaces common ground to remind both sides of shared goals.

A – Acknowledge
Examples: “I hear that you’re saying…”, “I understand that…”

• Paraphrasing and reflecting back what the other has said before responding; demonstrates deep listening.

R – Reframe to the Positive
Examples: Instead of “I hate it when…”, say “I really appreciate it when…”

• Swaps negative, contradictory language for positive, inviting phrases.

Notable quote:
“All the components of HERE—H-E-A-R—they all sort of require you to have heard the other person. And you’re sort of showing with your behavior that you’re keeping their perspective in mind as you’re talking. So that’s sort of the magic; you’re demonstrating listening even as you’re speaking.” —Julia Minson (33:43)

7. A Practical Example of the Framework in Action

• Using HERE in low-stakes daily disagreements (family, chores, timing) builds fluency and comfort for harder conversations.
  • "Practice it on low stakes interactions so that it kind of becomes a default..." —Julia Minson (53:46)

8. Why Not Empathy? Why Curiosity Wins

• Empathy is ideal but rarely genuine in the heat of a real disagreement; it’s often faked or inaccessible.
  • "Even with people that I deeply love, I don't feel a lot of empathy. Most of the time I feel, you know, anger and irritation. And so somehow resetting my feelings seems very, very hard...what is far more effective is behaving in a way that conveys sort of curiosity and engagement." —Julia Minson (44:32)
• Actionable behavior trumps internal feelings for constructive conversation.

9. Personal Stories vs. Data in Disagreement

• Facts and data often dismissed by those who disagree with us; stories communicate trustworthiness and vulnerability.
  • "What tends to be, ironically, more trustworthy is stories that reveal something about how you came to hold your belief and usually, you know, reveal a little bit of vulnerability...it's a signal of trustworthiness." —Julia Minson (46:53)
• Stories are more memorable and relatable than spreadsheets—use your own experience to connect.

10. How to Practice & Build Disagreement Skills

• Start small: Use the HERE framework in everyday, low-stakes conflicts.
• Cheat sheet: Write out HERE steps, keep them visible (e.g., phone background) for quick reference.
  • "I love the idea of starting small, low stakes. And then probably it sounds like having self compassion along the way..." —Jonathan Fields (53:46)
• Normalize process: Don’t expect perfection; process conversations with trusted friends for feedback and growth.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• On overestimating disagreement:
  “People dramatically overestimate how much they disagree with the other side...it turns out they're not completely out there. They're just, you know, a person like you.” —Julia Minson (35:30)

• On making mistakes:
  “I fail on a regular basis and then I'm like, oh, huh, okay, you know, let's try again. And, and I think that's the other thing is that I think people don't give other people enough credit for, you know, how forgiving folks can be. Right. So you can like just royally screw up a conversation and then say, hey, you know what? That didn't go as well as I hoped. Let's try again.” —Julia Minson (54:38)

• On the value of debriefs:
  “There's even more value in doing it with somebody who, you know, who's a trusted friend or colleague or family member. And you sort of talk it through and you say, you know, I said this and then he said that, and then this felt really weird. And then I didn't know what I should have said next, so I said something stupid. And like, what do you think I should have said?” —Julia Minson (55:28)

---

Practical Takeaways

• Identify your real goal before engaging in disagreement (persuasion, understanding, relationship, etc.).
• Use the HERE framework—Hedge, Emphasize agreement, Acknowledge, Reframe positive—for responding.
• Prioritize curiosity over empathy in moments of tension.
• Tell stories instead of only citing facts when making your point.
• Practice in safe, everyday interactions to build skill, resilience, and fluency.
• Reflect and debrief—alone or with a trusted partner—on conversations that didn’t go well.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:12] — The Disagreement Crisis: more visible beliefs post-pandemic
• [09:39] — Disagreement vs. Argument
• [12:01] — Determining goals in disagreement
• [18:22] — Power dynamics and the value of curiosity
• [24:42] — Naive realism and bias
• [28:10] — Introduction to the HERE framework
• [33:43] — “You’re demonstrating listening even as you’re speaking.” (HERE in action)
• [35:30] — Overestimating intergroup differences
• [44:32] — Why curiosity matters more than forced empathy
• [46:53] — Why stories convince better than data in disagreement
• [51:27] — Building new skills through everyday practice
• [54:38] — Forgiving yourself as you learn
• [55:28] — The value of debriefing tough conversations

---

Final Thought

A good life, Julia Minson concludes, is rooted in “having interesting conversations with friends and family.” (56:40)

---

For further learning:
Check out Julia Minson’s new book, How to Disagree Better, for more stories, science, and practical exercises. Practice HERE in your own life, and remember—disagreeing well is not innate, but a learnable skill.

---

Transcript

[Jonathan Fields]

So most of us are mildly to severely allergic to conflict, to disagreement. We fear the conversation going off the rails, getting hurt, misunderstood, or causing harm, failing to convince somebody to our point of view, or being maybe hated because we disagree. Problem is, there are times in our lives, moments where it's actually really important to disagree. But how we do it, having the ability to disagree with skill, it makes all the difference. And it turns out most of us were never actually taught how to disagree. Well, we were taught how to win or how to avoid. Neither one of those serves us or the people that we're talking with. My guest today is Julia Minson. She's a behavioral scientist and professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. And she has spent years building the actual science of how to disagree and stay connected, especially with the people who matter most. Her book is how to Disagree Better. And this conversation is packed with things I genuinely wish I had known decades ago. You'll learn why your instincts about persuasion often backfire, what a behavioral tool called the HERE Framework can do for your most charged conversations, why personal stories beat data when talking to someone who already disagrees with you, and how to practice all of this in ways that actually stick. So excited to share this conversation with you. I'm Jonathan Fields and this is Good Life Project.

[Capital One Bank Representative]

Today we're talking about how you don't have to earn more when you can save more. Okay, so you brought me this stat. T Mobile customers had the lowest wireless bills versus Verizon and AT&T over the past five years. That seems surprising.

[Julia Minson]

Surprising but true. Which, honestly, is what people need right now. Affordable wireless service isn't a perk, it's a difference.

[Jonathan Fields]

Savings based on Harris X billing snapshots from Q3.21 to Q4 25 compared to AT&T and Verizon, excluding discounts, credits and optional charges. For more details, see harrisx.comT Mobile Savings

[Capital One Bank Representative]

with no fees or minimums on checking accounts. It's no wonder the Capital One bank guy is so passionate about banking with Capital One. If he were here, he wouldn't just tell you about no fees or minimums. He'd also talk about how most Capital One cafes are open seven days a week to assist with your banking needs. Yep, even on weekends, it's pretty much all he talks about. In a good way. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See capitalone.com bank capital1NA member FDIC.

[Jonathan Fields]

Goodlight Project is sponsored by Amazon Health. AI so guys, we gotta talk about your secret late night Internet searches. You know the ones Bumpy leg Rash, hair loss, itchy burn. Trying to figure out your body by endlessly searching for answers. We all do it, and it never works. Thankfully, there's Amazon Health AI. It can connect your symptoms with your medical history to offer personalized care 24 7. So call off the search. Amazon Health AI is here. Healthcare just got less painful. You make a sort of, like a bold statement. We are in a disagreement crisis. Take me into this.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, I mean, I think people are having a harder time than ever disagreeing about things that sort of matter to them. And, you know, some of that has changed because we have changed our expectations about what a reasonable conversation is and what are all the sorts of things we ought to be able to talk about. Right. Like, we used to have sort of unspoken kind of spoken rules about how, you know, you don't talk about, like, politics, money and religion. Right? And now I think, especially post the pandemic, there's this expectation that you can talk about anything. Right? You sort of, like, bring your whole self to work, your entire identity. You know, people see your, like, zoom background, you know, the pictures of your kids, which candidate you're voted for, like, all of these things are sort of just out there. And so people are much more aware of disagreements than they used to be. Right. You sort of, like, have a good sense of where this person is coming from. And then there's a decision to make about whether you want to have this conversation or not have this conversation. And I think most of the time the answer is, no, I don't want to have the conversation.

[Jonathan Fields]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? That we are more almost like, situationally aware of where people stand on a wide range of things that may matter to each of us. Whereas in the past, maybe we kind of sussed it out, we're trying to figure it out. But also, it wasn't generally a reason to engage in a way that might cause friction or disagreement. I remember reading this study quite a while back that looked at parents of kids who were dating somebody new and how much of a concern their political affiliation was. And the two generations ago, they're kind of like, yeah, like, whatever, it'd be nice if they were sort of like, well aligned with me. But it's not a huge thing. Radically different now. I think also you don't have to go looking for it. Like you just said, it's just out there. Is that a good thing or bad thing or just a thing?

[Julia Minson]

You know, I think it's. It's a big thing, right? It's sort of like, not just a thing, but then is it good or bad? Sort of depends on how we handle it. I think it's definitely bad when it causes you to sever relationships with people you really care about, you know, causes you to have, you know, avoid certain topics or sort of make assumptions about people. But it could be good because you could have these, like, incredibly interesting conversations. Right. Like, it could be something that really gives you insight into the world and gives you recognition for how other people think and how other people live. And I think we have this tension where on one hand we know a lot about people we disagree with, and on the other hand, well, we know who we disagree with. Right. We know, like, the person wearing that T shirt or wearing that hat is a person I disagree with, but then we actually know very little about them and how they think because we're afraid of approaching the conversation and we don't have sort of the right toolkit.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. Do you think that we tell ourselves that we do know them, though, and then we do know how they think and what they're thinking and like, everything behind it simply because we just assume that into existence?

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, No, I think that's absolutely true. I think lack of actual information. Right. Often sort of like, results in a bunch of stereotypes.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. Because I think we just, like, we have this. We love to pattern recognize. Right. Sort of. Like if you say this or if you wear this, I'm now going to say, like, okay, these 18 different things about you are true. And maybe some of them are, but so often they're not. Especially when we make so many assumptions about how people show up based on how they show up online, which is often just complete delusion. It's not just outright fiction or storytelling or just a partial representation. Use the conversation a number of times in a moment or an experience where people show up and they don't have the same point of view. I would venture to say that if they engage, most of them are not going to label that as a conversation. They'll probably call it an argument, a disagreement. Does that language matter?

[Julia Minson]

I think it matters because, you know, I think different. There's many, many different engagements we could have when we disagree with a person. Right. So I think of a disagreement, as, you know, I hold different beliefs or I hold different preferences. Right. Like, I like cats, you like dogs. Right. Or I like. I think that we should parent in a stricter way. And you think that we should parent in sort of a more loose, supportive, whatever way you want to call it. I predict that the stock market will go up, you predict that the stock market will go down. All of those are disagreements. We don't necessarily need to argue about it because many of those things, we could sort of go away believing our different things and have an interesting conversation and say, hey, you know, you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. That was interesting. Like, I understand now why you expect this thing to happen or why, you know, you believe this is the right way to parent or whatever the case may be. When we often end up in argument or in conflict, it's because we feel like it is, for whatever reason, our job to convince the other person. Right. And so that often happens in families. It also often happens in the workplace where your behavior is interdependent. Right. So we can't, like, have radically different approaches to parenting the same child or, you know, you can't do the same project two different ways. Right. And so when you have to convince the other person, it is more likely to become an argument because, you know, things have to be reconciled. But there are many, many situations in life where you can just have a conversation and sort of, like, learn about the other person's perspective and you don't need to change their mind.

[Jonathan Fields]

So would you say then that the. The main distinction between a disagreement and an argument is that in an argument, the. The goal is to win, whereas in a disagreement, the goal is more just to sort of, like, hear and be heard?

[Julia Minson]

Yeah. So I think an argument is a type of disagreement. Right. So a disagreement is just like a thing where we have different perspectives and then you decide what to do with it. Right. So we could learn from each other. We could argue about it. We could just change the topic and not talk about it at all. Right. Like, that's sometimes totally fine too, I think what happens, and it's very interesting, once you start paying attention to this, people sort of fall into an argument mode. Right. Like you hear something. Yeah, yeah. Like you hear something you disagree with and you sort of can't help yourself. You have to correct the other person and you have to sort of help to see them how things really are. And then often that is not, you know, it's not appreciated because, of course, they're quite happy thinking about the world exactly as they've always thought about the world. But noticing that tendency in yourself, I always find it to be a very interesting exercise because it just keeps creeping in.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. So then in an argument, when I use the phrase to win before, what we're really talking about there is to persuade somebody that your point of view is the right point of view, correct?

[Julia Minson]

Correct, yeah.

[Jonathan Fields]

Why is that a bad thing?

[Julia Minson]

Well, it's mostly an unrealistic thing, right? Because part of what happens is that if you are going to persuade somebody that you're right, that implies that they're wrong. And most people don't like to be wrong. And they usually have good reasons to believe whatever it is they believe, right? They have some life experience or some evidence or something they've read that convinces them to hold the beliefs that they hold. And so in any argument, once the goal becomes persuasion, that means that somebody has to be the winner and somebody has to be the loser. And so at best, your odds of success are 50, 50. But quite often you sort of have the argument and both people walk away and nobody's convinced. And so I think on average, winning is quite rare.

[Jonathan Fields]

So what is then a better end goal for a disagreement? What should we be working towards, if not necessary, to persuade the. The person that your take is the right take?

[Julia Minson]

So I think that's actually sort of a very profound question with many different answers because. And I think that's something that people really don't think about very hard, right? You are in a conversation with somebody, you discover that you hold different beliefs, and then there's sort of a question of, what do I need to accomplish here? You know, and it could be that you don't need to have the conversation at all, right? Like you're at a holiday work party, you recognize that you disagree with somebody about, you know, politics or, you know, some, you know, scientific thing that you know nothing about, and you're like, you know what? That's interesting. I'm going to read up on this and then see if I want to pursue this or I don't care about this and let's talk about television, right? Or you could imagine a different situation where you say, I really value this person. I value this relationship. They might know something that's useful to me, and I'm going to try to learn from them. I'm going to try to understand where they're coming from. I'm going to try to understand their reasoning. And, you know, I might not change my mind. I might not fully kind of buy into what they're saying, but I could understand it well enough that, you know, like, if I said it back to them, they would say, yeah, that's my point of view. Right? Or you could imagine a situation where, you know, you really do need to persuade them because you have to find some path forward, right? So there's A multitude of goals you could have, and the exercise of thinking about why am I in this conversation, I think is a really useful exercise.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah, I mean, that makes sense to me. I'll often, if I think about a conversation that I feel like I kind of need to have, or I'm going to be in a social or a work situation where I just know it's going to happen, and I have a sense that there's going to be disagreement in points of views. Before I engage, I'll often ask myself, and I'm curious what you think of this approach. I'll ask myself, what is the outcome that I'm looking to make happen in this interaction? Like you said, if I'm a deep believer in a particular point of view that I think is really, really important for other people to buy into, whether it's in a business context, a social context, like an activist, whatever it may be, or just a family member, I really want you to see the world this way. I'll tell myself it really does matter to me a lot that I can convince them to my point of view. Whether I'm right or not is a whole different issue. To start with, I could be completely on the wrong page, and sometimes I am. But oftentimes it'll also be like, I'll have an answer where I realize the outcome that I'm looking to make happen really is not going to be possible, especially in the context. And at that point, I'm just kind of like, then why would I invest energy and angst and suffering in actually engaging on this level?

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, it doesn't even have to be. I mean, we talked about some outcomes, Right. There's other ones where you could be like, look, this person is a potential business partner or a potential manager, or is my manager. Right. My goal is to sound smart. Like, that's my only goal. I am going to just try to be impressive. Right. And so you could imagine that if that's your goal, you would pursue the conversation differently. Right. Or, you know, like, I have this happen all the time. I think in family situations, disagreements sort of sneak up on you. You know what I mean? Like, you are sort of in your kitchen making dinner, just like having a normal evening. And then your kids say something and you're like, oh,

[Jonathan Fields]

right, this never happened to any parent listening right now.

[Julia Minson]

Right, right, right, right, right. And so then the goal isn't like to tell them that, well, the goal might feel like it is to tell them that, you know, whatever it is they just did was a terrible idea. And they probably shouldn't have done it and it's probably going to whatever, ruin their grade in English. There's sort of a longer term goal, which is my kid is talking to me and telling me about her day. How do I, you know, convey some information while preserving the far more important long term goal of keeping her talking to me and keeping her sharing and sort of like maintaining the trust. Right. And so knowing again, like what you're after in the conversation and in the relationship, I think is a really big deal.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. And I so agree with you there. And as you're describing that, I love this idea of sort of like having almost like there's potentially a short term or more mediecal. But I'm also, I want to think about the long term impact like five iterations down the road or a month from now, a week from now. But I wonder if this also shows up in a tough way in a work context where there's a power dynamic where, you know, somebody has a certain amount of control over your destiny and this is like pretty much everybody who's in an entry level or first couple of years in their career. Sometimes you're really synced well. You share beliefs and you're on the same page and your values align and you feel like you can have open, honest conversations and they're receptive. Other times it's completely not that at all. And you're stepping into a conversation where your brain is saying, I don't really respect or even like this person, but they control my destiny in this organization, at least in the near term. And that may be a couple of years. So I have to show up in a very particular way and I believe something very different than what they believe and what they're telling me or asking me to do. But I need them to like me. That's tough.

[Julia Minson]

You know, so what's. It's interesting and we can kind of think about it from both the perspective of like, you know, the more senior person on the organizational hierarchy and the more junior person on the organizational hierarchy. Right. Because in the end, I think there's sort of a dynamic that's created within a particular team or within a particular relationship. Right. I think often we talk about these, we talk about these behaviors as if it's sort of like an individual choice. Right. Like, you know, be more receptive or be less argumentative or, you know, do this or do that. Whereas in reality, I think people are very, very responsive to the environment that we all shape together. Right. And so quite often, you know, we expect People who are more junior or we want people who are more junior to sort of speak up, right, and sort of say, like if you, you know, if you see something, say something, right. But creating the environment where that, where people truly believe that that's appropriate and welcome, I think takes a lot of work and a lot of time and you know, and then like on the flip side, right, if you are the junior person and you disagree with something, one thing that I have sort of found in my research is that there is nothing that makes people sort of happier and more appreciative than when they feel that you're truly curious and interested in their perspective. And so if you disagree with your boss, but you can bring yourself to say, hey, you know, I am really concerned about this approach to this project, but I'm very curious about why you think that this is the right way to go about it. Like, you know, these are the risks. I see. But I, I'm, you know, I'd like to understand how you're thinking about those because I'm sure that like you thought hard about this. So can you, you know, can you tell me more? Right. And so there's a way of articulating your disagreement but also asking with, you know, what appears to be genuine curiosity that people just love.

[Jonathan Fields]

And we'll be right back after a word from our sponsors. Good Life project is sponsored by Drift Drop. So I used to think that electrolytes were kind of just for athletes crushing tui days. And I do use it on the trail on a regular basis when I hike. But here's what I've learned. After years of long recording days and travel and just trying to stay sharp for the conversations that matter. Water alone often isn't just enough. That's where Drip drop it changed everything for me. It's become my go to reset. You know, brain fog, long travel day, afternoon slump. I just reach for it and genuinely feel the difference fast. I literally keep a thermos of it with me on my desk all day. To sip from drip drop is Dr. Developed hydration with science based formulas that give you three times the electrolytes of leading sports drinks. It's trusted by firefighters, medical professionals and over 90% of top college and pro sports teams. Because it's engineered to hydrate you more effectively than water alone. They also just released zero sugar plus an advanced formula with six key electrolytes, 15 essential vitamins and nutrients, zero sugar, zero artificial sweeteners. My personal go to is lemon. It actually tastes great, which matters when you're making this a daily habit and not just a workout thing. And right now Drip Drop is offering podcast listeners 20% off your first order. Go to dripdrop.com and use the promo code good life. That's dripdrop.com promo code good Life Good Life Good Life project is sponsored by BetterHelp. So May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and I think it's worth pausing for a second because if you're anything like the many people in our community, you're probably caring a lot these days. And the questions are real. The transitions are real. The moments where you lie awake at 2am wondering what's actually next for me, those are all real. And here's what I've come to learn over the years. No one, not the researchers or the wisest guests I've sat across from that are listening or viewing committee. Not me. Me. None of us figure this out alone. The people doing the deepest, most intentional work on their lives. They have someone they can actually talk to honestly and without judgment. And that's what therapy can be. Not a fix, not a hack, just a real human being in your corner, helping you see more clearly. And BetterHelp makes it genuinely accessible. Over 30,000 licensed therapists, a matching process that actually works, and more than 6 million people who've used it, with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5. If your first match isn't the right fit, you just switch. It's simple as that. So if this month is prompting you to check in with yourself, to ask honestly where you are, I'd encourage you to take that seriously. You don't have to be on this journey alone. Find support and have someone with you in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com goodlifeproject that's betterhelp.com goodlifepruject or just click the link in the show notes this episode is brought to you by Best Western Hotels and Resorts. So spring has a way of whispering instead of shouting. Quiet nudge that says maybe it's time to step away for a few days, breathe different air, and remember there's more to life than the calendar on your wall. I've been thinking a lot about how spring break has changed as we change. It's less about cramming everything in and more about choosing something that feels spacious and worth it. A reset that doesn't take weeks of planning or leave you more tired than when you left. That's what I love about what Best Western is inviting us into this season. A simpler kind of getaway that still feels rewarding something that fits into real life, not an Instagram fantasy. And here's a nice little nudge to make it happen, too. This spring, stay three nights and get a $50 Best Western gift card. It's an easy excuse to finally take that well earned break you keep postponing. A chance to remember that life really is a trip and it's meant to be lived along the way. Life's a trip. Make the most of it at best Western. Visit bestwestern.com for complete terms and conditions. It kind of brings us to this topic that you talk about and you write about, this notion of what you describe as naive realism. We love to believe that we are objectively right. Just like from what's happening here.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah. I mean, it's not even that, like, we love it or we hate it. It's just. It's hard to be any other way. Right? So the idea about the idea of naive realism is that people believe that their observations and their sort of assessments of the world are authentic and, you know, objective and reasonable. And, you know, we naively believe that our views reflect, like, an objective reality. Right. Like, there is a thing out there. And I get it. And part of the reason why it's so hard to not believe that is because it would be incredibly, incredibly inefficient. Right? Like, how can you possibly stop every five seconds and say to yourself, well, you know, maybe I feel that way today because I didn't get enough sleep. Right? Like, I'm really cranky, not because this person is super annoying, but because I'm very tired. Right. Or, like, I feel great about this not because this project plan is brilliant, but because I had a wonderful lunch. Right? So we are very used to going through life kind of acting on our beliefs and our impressions. And, you know, it's like the thing they say about how the fish doesn't know it's in water. Right? And most of the time it works fine, right? Most of the time, we are mostly right about most things. The problem is when we run into another person who disagrees with us, and we then have to reach a conclusion about what is the cause of that disagreement. And so if you start with the assumption that I am right, because I get it, because I'm a reasonable, objective person who sort of sees the world in a reasonable, objective way, then the most reasonable inference is that the other person is wrong. Right? Like, and. And then, and then the question becomes, what? What flavor of wrong are they? You know, and it can be, you know, they're misinformed Right. They haven't been told, they haven't read the right things, they haven't thought about it hard enough or it could be, you know, they're lazy, they are self interested, they just don't care. They can't afford to see the truth because it would reveal something terrible about themselves. So, you know, we kind of make up this whole story about why it is the other person believes whatever it is they believe.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. And I mean, I think we all do this even though we'd like to think that we don't. You know, it's like there is one objective truth. I know what that truth is. And anyone who doesn't see that, all those reasons that you just listed, it's got to be one of those or maybe a collection of those. Okay. So if we, when, not if, when we experience a situation where, you know, we're face to face with somebody who shares a different point of view and we feel like we actually want to express our point of view and we want to table this, we don't necessarily want to raise it to a level of an argument, but a disagreement feels like something that done quote. Right. Could be healthy. You have a framework, a way to step into this, to help make this unfold in a way that feels more constructive than destructive. Take me into this.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, absolutely. So one of the ways I think about conversation as sort of a researcher, right. I think about in kind of like a fairly mechanistic way, and I think about conversation being made up of two activities. One where you're sort of soliciting information and you're trying to understand the other person, and the other when you're trying to explain your perspective and you're trying to convey information. Right. And so the first part is that I think most of the time we are way, way, way too eager to state our perspective before we have any idea what exactly we're disagreeing about. Right. So the first piece of sort of advice that I give to folks, which is very much in line with our earlier conversation about goals, is, you know, spend a lot more time trying to understand what it is the other person is all about before you try to argue for anything. Right? But let's say you spend a decent amount of time trying to understand what they're all about and you feel like you get it, and you feel like, you know, they have affirmed that you get it. Then there's sort of this time to say what you came to say because, you know, people normally want to share their view, not only be sort of somebody's unpaid Therapist. Right. And so then there's a risk. And the risk is that you're going to start making your own argument and you're going to lose all the goodwill that you have built up in the course of, like, all the listening and all the question asking and all the curiosity. Right.

[Jonathan Fields]

And I think we've all done. I'm raising my hand. Of course I've done that.

[Julia Minson]

Right, right, right, right, right. Yeah, that's exactly right. So. So what we have developed in our research is a toolkit that we call the HERE framework, which is an acronym that helps you remember some behaviors that you can use when you're arguing your own point, but you sort of don't want to set the conversation on fire. And so the HEAR framework is, you know, H E A R, as in I hear you. The H stands for hedging your claims. So it's words like sometimes, maybe some people perhaps. Right. So, for example, I might want to say, Covid vaccines are safe and effective. Right. True. Strong statement. You know, I believe it. It's the kind of thing that I am liable to say in a conversation. But I could also say most physicians tend to believe that Covid vaccines are largely safe and effective. Right. So I hedged in three different places. I said most tend to and largely. And the ironic thing is that the statement is actually now more true because it sort of captures, like, the nuance of the real world. The E in here stands for emphasizing agreement. So it's phrases like we both want to, or I am also interested in, or I agree with some of what you're saying. Right. And the. The logic is that we don't want to switch teams. Right. We don't want to sort of show that we have changed our mind, especially if we actually haven't. But we want to highlight some things that any two humans can agree on. Right. So we both want to work in an organization where all employees feel fairly treated. Right. It's like, that is hard to disagree with. And it sort of puts us on the same page. The A stands for acknowledgment. So acknowledgement is basically taking a few seconds to restate your counterpart's point of view before you leap into your own argument. Right. And acknowledgement is usually sort of flagged with phrases like, I understand that, or I hear that you are saying that, or, you know, you seem to believe, you know, x, Y, z. Right. So a lot of the time people say things like, I hear you, but here's why. You know, we can take Jerry to school at 10 o' clock in the morning. Right. Instead of actually showing with your behavior that you heard the other person. Right. Like I hear that Jerry's been up doing homework until, you know, midnight. And you are really concerned about the amount of sleep that he's not getting. But I don't think it's good practice to, you know, let him Skip school until 10 o' clock in the morning. Right. So I showed my counterpart that I really was listening when they were talking. And then finally, the R stands for reframing to the positive. So it's replacing some of the contradictory and negative words like no, can't, won't, terrible, hate. Right. With more positively valenced words like great, wonderful, thank you. Appreciate. Right. So I might want to say I hate it when people interrupt me. Please don't. Right. Or I could say I really appreciate it when people Let me finish my sentence.

[Jonathan Fields]

Framing the positive.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, framing to the positive. Right. And all of the, all the components of here H E A R. Right. They all sort of require you to have heard the other person. And you're sort of showing with your behavior that you're keeping their perspective in mind as you're talking. So that's sort of the magic you're kind of, you're demonstrating listening even as you're speaking.

[Jonathan Fields]

I mean, that all lands is really true. It feels like it also, it's like you're making space for them to exist in the conversation.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right. Which is literally the opposite of what we normally do in an argument.

[Jonathan Fields]

Right. I mean, the hedging part of it. Also, part of what I heard when you were speaking is rather than using absolutes, you know, create the space, create wiggle room, you know, so that they can, they, they can see that there's room for their point of view to exist. Even if you're not saying you agree with it, emphasizing it sounds like what we're really emphasizing here is, is common ground.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah.

[Jonathan Fields]

You know, so if you, like, you want this policy and I want this policy, but if underneath that, the fundamental belief is we both want our families to be well and taken care of and safe, we can agree on that. We just maybe see a different path to that. But at the end of the day, isn't this really what we both want? Right. You're going to both acknowledge, you're going to both nod along with each other. And I feel like, I wonder if you see this in research also when you find that common ground, it just makes it easier to see the humanity in the other person, rather than objectify them as a point of view, like a walking, talking point of view, which we. We so often do.

[Julia Minson]

Right, right, right. So there's, you know, it's funny because there's. There's actually a lot of research, especially in political science. Right. So, like, you know, a lot of. A lot of what we know from research has to do with political disagreements because it's just easier to study because there's so many people on both sides and they feel so strongly about it. But I think the kind of psychology of it is the same whether you're arguing, you know, like, you know, between whatever legal and marketing, or whether you're arguing between, you know, this parent and that parent or whether you're arguing about Democrats and Republicans. Right. And so what we know in political science is that people dramatically overestimate how much they disagree with the other side. So you can have. Yeah, so you can, like, ask people to predict the views of a typical member of the opposing party. And then you can go and you can ask, you know, a randomly sampled member of that opposing party what their views are. And what we see is that, on average, we overestimate disagreement. And what that leads to is a real antipathy right towards them and an unwillingness to interact with. Because, you know, why would I talk to this person who is just, like, completely out there? And it turns out they're not completely out there. They're just, you know, a person like you.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. The A in your framework, acknowledge this sounds like just deep listening, active listening, but not just active listening, but then reflecting back to them. Some version of this is what I heard you say. Is that right? And we love it. I mean, it's so rare that I think so many people feel like somebody actually gives them the share of mind to genuinely, like, let them be seen or heard. That when it happens, I feel like it presents almost as a gift. And even if you never agree, simply knowing this person actually just really paid attention and they listen deeply and them sort of like reflecting back to me and getting it right, that it does something to us.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, I think. I think that's right. And I think, you know, acknowledgement, when it's done well is incredibly powerful. I think a lot of us are really lazy about it, you know, and there's a lot of, like, you know, nodding and smiling and saying aha, you know, and you sort of pat yourself on the back for being a good listener. But the thing, the version that really does the job is the version where you go through the very awkward exercise of paraphrasing the other person's views and, you know, taking the time and then asking them if you got it right. And then they're like, well, kind of. It's sort of. But like, here's the five other things I forgot to mention. Right. So real acknowledgement is pretty labor intensive.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. But so powerful. Right. I mean, it's got to be one of the most powerful things that you can do to feel some form of connective tissue with another human being, whether you agree with them on an issue or not. That last step. Also the R's for a reframe. I feel like this is really interesting because culturally so many of us are sort of, we've grown up or surrounded by people in a community where we just default to the negative frame for so many things. It's kind of become our go to. And in fact, sometimes it's celebrated. You're rewarded for sort of like interacting from a negative frame. So it feels like such a simple thing. We frame it as a positive. But it's actually my sense is for a lot of people, it's probably reasonably. You got to be really intentional about this because it's actually not your default mode.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, I think you're right. I think culturally it's not our default, but there are some interesting gender and status dynamics around it. Right. Because I think a lot of what we think of as sort of leadership behavior and high status behavior is very male coded. And in fact, if you look at sort of the use of the here framework, like, naturally women tend to do this a lot more. And so people say like, well, you know, aren't you asking like everybody to hedge and you know, not be sort of direct and certain and you know, all of those things that we've been taught to do? And the answer is like, yeah, that's exactly, that's exactly what I'm advocating for. Because a lot of the communication advice that we have been fed are the wrong tools for the wrong, for the wrong thing. Right. So if I am, if I am standing up in front of a, you know, boardroom and I'm giving a presentation, certainly sounding confident and direct is good advice. But if I'm in a conflict, then that's a different job. Right. That requires sort of a different toolkit and sort of defaulting to this thing that we've been told is like the right way to communicate doesn't help in those types of contexts.

[Jonathan Fields]

And we'll be right back after a word from our sponsors. Good Life Project is sponsored by adt. So have you ever had one of those days where everything just finally feels aligned? You're out enjoying a beautiful dinner, leaning into a moment of just pure presence, and suddenly the phone buzzes. You look down and you see an alert that a window has been broken into at home. In an instant, that sense of peace, it just evaporates because you're miles away. For me, living a good life means also creating a foundation of safety so that we can actually show up for our creative work and our families and our lives. ADT helps provide that quiet confidence with 24. 7 professional monitoring. Their systems are installed by trained technicians so you know everything is set up correctly from day one. With the ADT plus app, you can check in on your home from virtually anywhere. It's about moving through the world with a little less weight on your shoulders. Give yourself that extra layer of protection. Visit ADT.com or call 1-800-ADT ASAP or just click the link in the show Notes when every second counts, count on abt Good Life Project is brought to you by Instacart. So here's something I've learned living out here in Colorado when you're deep in a creative groove. Whether I'm in the shop working on a guitar or building something with wood or metal, or heads down working on an episode for the podcast, the last thing I want to do is break that flow to drive to the store because we're out of eggs and olive oil. And honestly, it's rarely ever just eggs and olive oil. It's the whole list. The good pro, the specific brand. Stephanie and I actually use the stuff that matters when you care about what you're putting on your table. That's where Instacart comes in. It connects you to thousands of stores with just a few taps. You can shop from your favorite spots and have quality groceries carefully selected and delivered to your door in as fast as 30 minutes. What I love is that you can be really specific. Communicate directly with your shopper about exactly what you want so you're not compromising on quality or convenience. You're getting both. For me, Instacart solves a real problem. It gives me time back to focus on the work, the people, the things that actually matter instead of spending an hour wandering aisles. It just takes one thing off the plate. So you're free to take care of your life. Download the Instacart app now and get groceries just how you like. Good Life Project is sponsored by Blue Lizard Australian Sun Care. So I spend a lot of time outside. I'm literally hiking on the trail four days a week for hours. And I have been using Blue Lizard for about a year now. Whether I'm on the trails here in Boulder or just going about my day, what really caught my attention was their smart cap technology. The cap actually turns blue when harmful UV rays are present. It's a simple, just smart signal that it's time to apply sunscreen. As experts in mineral sunscreens, they provide broad spectrum protection that's trusted by dermatologists. Their formulas are free from parabens and fragrances, making them a great choice for sensitive skin. Whether you use their easy to apply sprays or the sticks for on the go protection, they just help you stay protected. Be fearless in the sun. Go to bluelizardsunscreen.com to find out more information. Which sunscreens are right for your family and where you can buy in store or visit the Blue Lizard Australian sunscreen store on Amazon. One of the things that you explore also which touches on this is I think when a lot of us are sort of like, if we've been told anything about how to step into a conversation that could become a disagreement, maybe even an argument, if it makes sense, is that, well, it's really important to come from a place of empathy. You don't necessarily agree with this.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah. So I think, you know, I mean, I think empathy is wonderful. Right. We should all have more empathy. I just don't think that telling people to come into conversations from a place of empathy is very useful advice because it's way too easy to fake. It's too easy to fake and it's hard to know how to do genuinely when I'm in the middle of a heated disagreement, even with people that I deeply love, I don't feel a lot of empathy. Most of the time I feel, you know, anger and irritation. And so somehow resetting my feelings seems very, very hard. And I've been, you know, doing this for a long time and you know, I can find the empathy later, sometimes hours later, sometimes days later. But in the moment it is awfully hard. What is, you know, far more effective is behaving in a way that conveys sort of curiosity and engagement. Right. Even if you're sort of super annoyed on the inside, your counterpart really cannot read your mind. And that is both good and bad. Right. So if you are, if you got the empathy kind of, you know, chugging along, chances are you won't get credit for it because they can't tell. But if you got no empathy, then it's okay because they still can't tell. What they can tell is what are you saying? Right. And this is where, you know, the here framework, right. Is all about words. It's not at all about sort of body language or feelings or, you know, everything. Everything that we do in my work is really based around language.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. It's very practical. You might not necessarily be able to control your inner experience in the moment, but you can develop the skill set or use these sort of like, specific strategies to at least have the interaction come out in a way that feels much more constructive. One of the other things that you talk about is the difference between disagreeing and leaning on facts versus stories.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah. So, you know, that's another one of those things that's very, very much focused on language. Right. What is the content that you're conveying? And again, kind of is a strategy that we can use when we're trying to make our point. Right. So I have a set of beliefs that I know is different from your beliefs. And so how do I convey my beliefs in a way that is maximally effective? Our normal toolkit relies on facts and data. Right. So certainly in kind of, you know, in science and, you know, corporate and leadership settings, you know, people sort of like, we have always been taught that you come with a big spreadsheet and people will believe you. And again, that's true when you're speaking to sort of an objective audience that, you know, is there to sort of, you know, make up their mind. That's not true when you are talking to somebody who already disagrees with you. Because one of the things that happens is they discount your data. Right. They say, well, you know, you fudged it, you twisted it, you're omitting part of the story. They are skeptical at the get go. What tends to be, ironically, more trustworthy is stories that reveal something about how you came to hold your belief and usually, you know, reveal a little bit of vulnerability. Right. So, you know, a challenge you sort of had to deal with or a loss you experienced or a failure is often taken as, oh, if she's willing to tell me about that, then she must be an honest person. Right. It's essentially like it's a signal of trustworthiness, and it's sort of an expensive signal of trustworthiness because I am, you know, exposing something vulnerable about myself. And it doesn't mean that you can't also use facts and data. But adding in that kind of vulnerable personal touch seems to really increase Trust.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder if there's also something in there. I wonder if there's data on this about the recall of data versus stories. Because I don't remember. I read a lot, I listen to a lot, I talk to a lot of people. And I get, taking the amount of metric ton of facts and data and numbers, I remember almost none of it. But if somebody tells me kind of like the equivalent in the form of a story that in any way moves me, I will probably walk around and remember that story without trying to remember it and then also probably retell it.

[Julia Minson]

Right, right, right. And you know, and people have used storytelling in, you know, marketing and advertising forever. Right. Like people know this really the kind of recent new twist is thinking about how that works in a disagreement context.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. We're having this whole conversation in the context of assuming that disagreements are sort of like, are and can be a normal functional part of human interaction. Rather than saying, I'm going to walk around and do everything I can to try and minimize the amount of disagreement that I have in my life. So if we assume that disagreement is going to happen, it's going to happen on a relatively regular basis. I'm somebody who has a point of view. I'm going to bump into people who don't see the world the same as me. And I would love to actually have these conversations without being in fear of them, just turning into battles every time and just even if it walks away saying like, you know what? I shared my peace, they shared their peace. I think we both felt seen and heard. We both, we don't agree any more than we did before. But I feel good that we both said what we needed to say. And I actually kind of understand and like this person more than I did before. This is a set of skills that you've just shared with us. This is not something that you have or don't have. This is like a basket of strategies and skills. So somebody's joining us and I would love that to come more naturally to me in these moments. What would you tell somebody just sort of like on a regular day to day basis about thinking about, is there a way to, to practice these in some way so they start to come more naturally?

[Julia Minson]

Yeah. So, you know, so I have, my book just came out, how to Disagree Better. And one of the things that I really tried hard to do in the book is give people a lot of insight into what we know from behavioral science about these dynamics, tell them stories so that they remember the science as we just talked about and then have very concrete exercises at the end of every chapter of, you know, saying, okay, let's be real, people are busy. You know, there's only so much time you're going to devote to this. So if you had, you know, 10 minutes a day or 10 minutes a week, like how would you spend it? And you know, the way I think about it is any kind of skill you're going to do better building it in little chunks over time if it's not too unpleasant, right? So if I said to you, you know, go find your uncle that like you always fight with over Thanksgiving and talk to them about, you know, immigration, nobody's going to do that, right? Because it's too high of a bar and it's sort of too scary and too much of an investment. Right. Whereas if I say, okay, you know, memorize the here framework and you know, next time your teenager says they don't have time to take out the trash, use the here framework, right? Or next time you want to get up at 6 and your, you know, spouse wants to sleep till 6:30, use the here framework, right? Or like so small, low stakes, daily disagreements, so it becomes a habit. And you know, I do this a lot. Like I do this in class, I do this in workshops I teach where we put people through drills of it essentially. And it's really simple on the face of it. It's hard to make yourself do it and it's hard to get to the point where it feels very fluid. So really practicing it on low stakes interactions so that it kind of becomes a default is the right place to start.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm wondering also, even memorizing it even is a step that I think a lot of people wouldn't take. I wonder if even just taking the A C, A R and what they each stand for, it's almost like type it out on your notes, Apple, take a screenshot and just make it your wallpaper on your phone. So it's just kind of like always there in the moment. So you can just kind of, okay, this is a moment where I should be doing that thing, that here thing. And you can just kind of glance at, okay, let me hedge a little bit, let me not use that. So it's just right there all the time. But I love the idea of starting small, low stakes. And then probably it sounds like having self compassion along the way because like you just described, it's not going to just feel natural in the beginning. It's a matter of practice over Time until it starts to feel more just intuitive to you.

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, and, you know, and it's harder in, you know, higher stakes conversations, you know, when you're under stress, when you're tired, when you're cranky, when you had a cocktail, you know, when there's people sort of watching you. So, you know, I mean, I fail on a regular basis and then I'm like, oh, huh, okay, you know, let's try again. And, and I think that's the other thing is that I think people don't give other people enough credit for, you know, how forgiving folks can be. Right. So you can like just royally screw up a conversation and then say, hey, you know what? That didn't go as well as I hoped. Let's try again.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah. Is there value in your mind of doing your own sort of like private postmortem on a conversation that went badly?

[Julia Minson]

Yeah, I think there's a lot of value in it. I think there's even more value in doing it with somebody who, you know, who's a trusted friend or colleague or family member. And you sort of talk it through and you say, you know, I said this and then he said that, and then this felt really weird. And then I didn't know what I should have said next, so I said something stupid. And like, what do you think I should have said? I think having that extra mind is really, really helpful. And we, you know, we do that all the time in sort of informal ways. But if you say, look, I'm trying to work on this particular skill set. Right. I'm not trying to figure out how to score a point. I'm trying to figure out how to become more receptive to opposing perspectives. If that were my goal, what do you think I should have said? Right. And see what your, what your, you know, friend or colleague can come up with.

[Jonathan Fields]

Yeah, I love that frame. Instead of like, what should I have said differently so I could have really won kind of completely different Ask. There feels like a good place for us to come full circle in our conversation in this container of good life project. If I offer up the phrase to live a good life, what comes up

[Julia Minson]

to have interesting conversations with friends and family.

[Jonathan Fields]

Thank you. Hey, before you go, be sure to tune in next week for our conversation with Dr. Nicola Pera, new York Times best selling author of Reparenting the Inner Child, about why so many of us feel stuck in patterns we can't seem to escape no matter how hard we try. And what's actually happening in your nervous system. When that happens, it's a grounding, hopeful conversation. Be sure to follow Good Life Project wherever you get your podcasts so you don't miss any upcoming episodes. This episode of Good Life Project was produced by executive producers Lindsay Fox and me. Jonathan Fields, editing, helped by Alejandro Ramirez and Troy Young. Chris Carter crafted our theme music. And of course, if you haven't already done so, please go ahead and follow Goodlight Project wherever you get your podcasts. If you found this conversation interesting or valuable and inspiring, chances are you did because you're still here. Do me a personal favor, a 7 second favor and share it with just one person. If you want to share it with more, hey, that's awesome. But just one person? Even then, invite them to talk with you about what you both discovered, to reconnect and explore ideas that really matter. Because that's how we all come alive together. Until next time, I'm Jonathan Fields signing off for Good Life Project.

[Julia Minson]

Foreign.

[Jonathan Fields]

Project is brought to you by Peloton so I spend a lot of my day in my head building things, solving problems, creating. And one of the most reliable ways I found to move from stuff to clear is to just move. Not think about moving. Not plan the perfect workout. Just go. And that's the idea behind the new Peloton Cross Training tread. Powered by Peloton iq, it removes the cognitive load completely. Peloton IQ handles the rep counting, the form correction, the programming so you can stop overthinking and just be in it. One smooth spin of the swivel screen takes you from running to strength training without losing momentum or breaking the flow. And that matters because the magic of movement isn't in the planning. It's in the feeling, the cognitive clarity, the emotional release, that sense of expanded possibility that shows up when you let yourself go through it fully. Peloton IQ even builds personalized plans around your mood, your energy, the instructors who resonate with you so the experience actually feels like yours. Let yourself run, lift, fail. Try and go explore the new Peloton Cross training Tread [e-mail] Good Luck Project is sponsored by Michaels. Your destination for all things 2026 graduation. So if you're anywhere near midlife, there's a good chance that someone in your world is about to cross a major threshold this spring. You know, a kid finishing school, a niece walking at college, maybe even you finishing something you started later than the brochure suggested. And these moments, they matter. And how we show up for them is what people actually remember. Which is just one reason why I love that Michaels has quietly become the place for this. Their party shop isn't just arts and crafts anymore. It's balloons starting at $1.99, ready made bundles, 2026 number balloons and free inflation. And that last part by the way, is a gift. No one wants to be the one red faced over a bike pump the morning of. You can shop in store, get same day delivery or buy online and pick up in store. Visit Michaels in store or shop online now. Michaels everything to celebrate anything.

[Julia Minson]

Are you really buying a car online on Autotrader right now? Really? At a playground? Yeah, really. Look at these listings from dealers. Wow, your search can really get that specific. Really? And you just put in your info and boom. Cars in your budget. Mom needs a second. Honey, you can really have it delivered. Really? Or I can pick it up at the dealership. One sec, sweetie. Mommy's buying a car. Mommy, I think your kid is walking up the slide. Kyle.

[Jonathan Fields]

Again?

[Julia Minson]

Really? Auto trader? Buy your car online? Really?

[Capital One Bank Representative]

Today we're talking about how you don't have to earn more when you can save more. Okay, so you brought me this stat. T Mobile customers had the lowest wireless bills versus Verizon and AT&T over the past five years. That seems surprising.

[Julia Minson]

Surprising but true. Which honestly, is what people need right now. Affordable wireless service isn't a perk. It's a difference.

[Jonathan Fields]

Savings based on Harris X billing snapshots from Q3.21 and Q4 25 compared to AT&T and Verizon excluding discounts, credits and optional charges. For more details, see harrisx.comtmobile savings.