Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why are we afraid of conversation?

Why are we afraid of conversation?
Getty Images

Chang serves as Co-founder and CEO of GenUnity.

90% of people feel “emotionally or physically unsafe” to share their thoughts. This shocking statistic underscores an increasingly hostile culture characterized by polarization, judgment, and close-mindedness.


This pervasive fear of conversation is undermining every institution - from our democratic governments to our businesses. Conversation is the foundation of how we understand problems, exchange information, and build the trust required for collaboration. In fact, the etymology of “conversation” is the “ manner of conducting oneself in the world. ” Instead, fear substitutes integrity with obscurity, humility with insecurity, and curiosity with arrogance. And while fear in today’s environment may be well-founded, it is not a feeling we have to resign ourselves to. Conversation is a muscle and, with the right exercises, we can foster productive dialogue where we are honest about our own thinking, learn from others, and spark new ideas that strengthen our workplaces and communities.

I know this is possible because I see it everyday. Just this month, my organization, GenUnity, launched our second Health Equity program in Boston which brought 44 residents together across differences - from those experiencing health issues to employees working in cross-sector institutions like Alnylam, Blue Cross, Boston Medical Center, or Boston Healthcare for the Homeless Program. In less than an hour, with thoughtful norm setting and facilitated conversation, the energy in the room was palpable. Members described it as “relaxed”, “open”, “educational”, “moving”, “inclusive”, “vulnerable” and “intimate”. These individuals (and the organizations who invested in them to be there) recognize that opportunities to be in conversation with those closest to the problems is an invaluable source of personal and professional growth that inevitably leads to innovation. In fact, one of our members from Blue Cross is already translating their learnings into workplace impact - introducing changes to reimbursement structures to expand access to culturally competent behavioral healthcare.

Admittedly, creating these types of brave, safe spaces is hard work, and in today’s environment, the cost of failure can feel overwhelming. But, this example should also spark curiosity and courage.

At this moment, we have a choice: between inaction that will only deepen our fears and erode our future, or courage to have authentic, challenging, joyful conversations that strengthen our civic culture, businesses, and communities.

If you’re feeling called to turn conversation from a source of fear into a source of inspiration today, start by asking yourself 3 questions:

  1. Do I believe I have something to learn from someone who has a different perspective from me, especially someone who is often unheard?
  2. Am I open to engaging honestly with them in search of deeper mutual understanding?
  3. Do I want to learn how to build the skills and create the conditions to have an honest, human-to-human conversation with this person(s)?
If your answers are yes, go to GenUnity.org or join the National Week of Conversation and start learning how to realize the vision you have for yourself, workplace, or community!

Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less