To Change the Culture, Change the Conversation

What generative dialogue can do that information, language policing, and good intentions cannot

These days many are talking about the need for a cultural shift — a shift in mindset, in worldview, in the stories we tell. But much less thought is given to how we can actually bring that change about.

Because how do you change culture? We can't change culture directly — you can't legislate a worldview shift, engineer a change in collective mindset, nor educate people to believe and value the “right things.” (Progressive activists tried this, arguably creating an unprecedented backlash.)

After more than two decades of working on this question, I’ve come to believe that the most direct path is simpler — and more immediately available — than we may think.

And it’s not about “changing the language”.

It’s about changing the conversation. Or, to be more precise: creating conditions for what I call generative dialogue — conversations that enable genuine exchange, enhance relationships, and open up novel insights and fresh perspectives.

And though that may sound demanding, I’ve been working with a specific dialogue practice for almost twenty years that does exactly this — reliably, and in ways that continue to marvel me. It’s called Stream-of-Consciousness (SoC) dialogue, and it’s the subject of this piece as well as an upcoming workshop on March 17.

Below, I’ll unpack why changing the conversation is our best lever for cultural change, what makes this practice so effective, and how you can start using it yourself.

Creating a vibe-shift

The SoC dialogue practice is a simple but remarkably potent method that uses timed speaking turns, alternating roles (speaking and listening), and carefully crafted ‘prompts’, gradually moving pairs into deeper layers of exploration and sharing, while fostering reflection, attentive listening, and connection.

I’ve used it with students and professionals, with big groups and small groups, online and on site, and while exploring a great diversity of topics — from AI-ethics to meat-eating, from worldviews to mental health, from climate change to politics.

I’ve been working with it for almost two decades and it has never failed me. It predictably changes the vibe in a group — fostering trust, humanness, and connection. And it creates this beautiful sense of reflection and possibility, even hope. When used with a clear focus, it can skilfully bring out the collective intelligence of a group.

So yes, it supports exactly the qualities we’re most starved of in this crisis-ridden age.

I’ve studied the impacts of this practice, concluding it tends to foster more generative conversations, while inviting for transformative learning and supporting the development of important democratic capabilities (like listening and self-reflection).

We’re also frequently using it at the Generative Dialogue Lab at Utrecht University, with outstanding results — our evaluations so far show that 100% of the people would recommend our regular ‘Break your Bubble’ sessions to others!

And I’m currently writing a book on it — precisely because I believe it has such promising culture-changing potential.

Why information is not enough

I’ve been thinking and writing about cultural change and how to foster it for a long time. All my academic work on worldviews and transformative learning is about this, as well as the interventions I developed, from Worldview Test to Worldview Journey.

But over time I’ve become increasingly convinced that dialogue is our best bet.

We know by now — from both academic research and plenty of lived experience — that people don’t change their behaviors or beliefs on the basis of information alone.

The reason is simple: humans are not computers. You can't insert a new data point and simply expect a different output. Instead, every piece of information lands in an existing web of meaning — a worldview — that quietly negotiates whether and how it gets absorbed. Often it gets reinterpreted, distorted, or simply rejected if it challenges what we hold dear. Researchers call this confirmation bias.

From a worldview-perspective this makes total sense. As Max Weber pointed out, worldviews provide us with “meaning-making satisfaction” and are thus crucial for our sense of meaning and order, stability and direction. Challenging them is therefore costly to us, and often experienced as a threat to our very identity and existence — resulting in a powerful motivation to protect our worldviews.

So if we’re hoping to change someone’s views, values, or behaviors, we cannot underestimate the barrier of what some have called ‘worldview-threat’.

Thus, while information is really important, in itself its power to “change hearts and minds” is limited. However, when we give people the opportunity to dialogue — to talk and think together — the same information can be processed in a way that may very well result in a real change, even if changes are expected to be small and gradual.

That is, if the talk takes place in a context of safety and connection, which is exactly what the SoC practice excels at creating.

High-quality listening melts our defences

“You do have a much deeper conversation than you would normally have. I really had the feeling that I was being listened to very carefully and that was very nice.”

“I have learned that by really just listening you can immediately have a completely different conversation.”

“…it felt like the conversations were more genuine, which I really liked.”

~ Students participating in the SoC dialogue practice

The SoC practice works so well, because it leverages deeply human mechanisms. When someone listens to us attentively — which the practice both implores and teaches participants to do — we almost instantly feel more connected and at ease.

Researchers call this “high-quality listening”, and the impacts of receiving it are profound.

We’ve all experienced this firsthand. When someone really listens to us, we feel cared for. We feel that our ideas matter, and that we are worth listening to. We also feel more connected to the listener, creating a sense of trust and intimacy.

It is precisely that sense of connection that melts our defences — thereby creating the conditions for undefended self-reflection. When we unguardedly share real experiences and explore complex considerations rather than rehearsing fixated positions, we’re enabled to reconsider our ideas and open ourselves to new ones, to put ourselves into the shoes of someone else and view the issue from their angle.

And then humans quite naturally find common ground.

It’s a consistent feedback I hear about this practice: that people, often somewhat to their own surprise, note many similarities even as they also observe vast differences.

“… I talked to someone who had a different worldview and we discovered that there was quite a lot of common ground.”

“I found it interesting to see other people’s perspectives and to then realize that I myself never really thought about the world that way. But when I did, I actually agreed with many of their points.”

~ Students participating in the SoC dialogue practice

Unlocking the imagination

So the listener, simply by listening, makes a different conversation possible. But the stream of consciousness — which the speaker is instructed to follow — plays a significant role too.

When we’re not performing, but simply allow ourselves to follow — and verbalize —the flow of thought and experience in the moment, new associations and insights tend to emerge. This is just how the human mind seems to operate. Not infrequently, this allows us to tap into deeper sources of wisdom that we often don’t have access to.

People are often scared of that moment when they don’t know what to say anymore — but this may be exactly where the jewels are! In a normal conversation someone would jump in and change the direction or topic. But this practice supports people to stay there — to open new doors, and allow new associations and ideas to pop up.

This is why this practice also holds a certain creative power.

And while we may get lost in the stream of consciousness, the carefully crafted series of prompts (I often use at least five to seven of them) provides structure and focus for the conversation, while simultaneously allowing for great openness. They “prompt” us to explore a topic from different angles, inviting a gradual deepening and expansion.

The prompts therefore act as keys, connecting speakers to their experience in the moment, while also unlocking their imagination. Their design is therefore crucial, and I personally believe they need an aspirational arc — speaking to people’s ‘better angels’, nudging them to expand their horizons and imagine better pathways forward. And I’ve seen many groups respond to this call with a sense of elation and elevation.

“…letting your thoughts run freely without being interrupted was a pretty unique experience that definitely brought me to new insights I did not even know I could come to.”

“Because you had to keep talking for 2 minutes, you sometimes got deeper into a subject and you also discovered new, fascinating things about your own opinion.”

“It was really uplifting. I felt confirmed in my way of drawing purpose from life. It felt lovely to hear from other people what gives them hope and drive.”

~ Students participating in the SoC dialogue practice

When we change the conversation, we change the culture

Progressive activists, arguably informed by assumptions coherent with a postmodern worldview, have tried to change the culture through “changing the language”. This brought us an obsessive focus on language (remember discussions about pronouns, chest-feeding, or the houseless?), often at the cost of a focus on material, economic changes. The attempt to ascribe what people should think created a punishing cancel culture that tried to shame people into believing the “right things”.

We now know this was a losing strategy, even as it did change the culture, arguably creating a “vibe-shift” that doomed progressive ambitions. The take-away is simple: we can’t — nor shouldn’t — ascribe what people should think or believe. It is not only morally wrong but also psychologically ignorant and strategically self-defeating.

However, what we can do is help people think better.

And this is where the power of ‘changing the conversation’ comes in. The SoC practice creates conditions for people to explore what they think and believe, under circumstances that activate the best in them — supporting them to reflect in an honest, undefended way, while also daring to dream and expand their horizon.

This practice has no prescribed outcomes — not a worldview, perspective, or position people should land on — but focuses on a process that creates conducive conditions for meaningful conversation and transformative learning. The practice itself then changes the conversation — shifting the vibe from a more guarded, egoic, self-protective atmosphere towards a more open-hearted, reflective, hopeful space.

And that shift makes a world of difference.

From there, many, many new things become possible. After having seen this practice do its work in all kinds of groups, I’ve become convinced that if it were to penetrate institutions, education, and leadership — reshaping how we listen and learn, decide and act together — it would change the culture at large, and thus the world.

Workshop on facilitating generative dialogue (March 17)

If any of this piques your curiosity, I’d love you to join us for our 2.5-hour workshop on Tuesday, March 17 (7:00–9:30 pm CET, online) on facilitating generative dialogue — which will leave you equipped to bring the SoC Practice into your own settings.

The workshop is experiential by design. You won’t just learn about the method — you’ll experience it, understand the research behind it, and walk away ready to use it, whether you’re an educator, facilitator, coach, team leader, or simply someone who cares about better conversations.

I'll also share things I rarely go into publicly — most notably how to design a potent, aspirational session framing, set-up, and prompt series from scratch — while creating space for us to practice this skill in small groups.

You’ll leave with a clear protocol, a practical manual, and your first SoC dialogue design on a topic of your own choosing.

Looking forward to seeing you there!

👉 Get your ticket here!

P.S. If you know someone for whom this post may be of interest, please share it with them!

P.P.S. I'm convening with colleagues a track at the International Sustainability Transitions Conference in Zurich this August 31–September 2, on "Navigating The Meta Level: Worldviews, Sensemaking, and Cultural Evolution in Sustainability Transitions."

If you’re an academic or researcher-practitioner working on worldviews, values, inner dimensions, transformative learning or related themes, please consider submitting an abstract and joining us! Deadline March 6th — ours is track 12. I think this will be a wonderful opportunity to exchange, learn from each other, and expand current efforts!