11:07:16 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	I've got 3 Working Circles for later this week that haven't hit their 2 participant minimum yet.  You can sign up for them here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ry5-PdWi2UjPUk_VAHZv9MtkMCc7Fuu0laltWsKcOU/edit#gid=0
11:16:26 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	My take on a cABT:  There's this thing people want, but we can't tell if it's good enough, therefore we need a way to find out if it's good enough.
11:17:11 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	As usual, Randy manages to simplify it down even more than I did...
11:20:36 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	For different audiences, I always recommend modifying your ABT for each audience - don't try to combine it all into 1 ABT.  You need to answer the questions "What's at stake?" and "Why is this important?" in the Blue, and those answers are going to be different for each audience.\
11:24:42 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	The Matt Template is the simplified version of the Emotional Acid Test (Anh, Wow, Oof, Gotcha).
11:26:13 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	The goal of the Matt Template is to push you to try to keep problems out of the And material - we just want non-problem agreement material that everyone can get on board with.
11:27:28 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	The BUT sounds more like a specific BECAUSE.
11:30:14 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	Yes!  That's the kind of specifics we want to know about.
11:30:23 From  CharlesDelahunt  to  Everyone:
	Perhaps the Matt template could be: Earth and Heaven, but Hell, therefore Action (since the opening clause is "ordinary world", and since it then covers the 3 planes).
11:31:21 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	Charles - I really like that!  I'll have to run it by Randy.
11:33:06 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	Pay attention to how Nancy structures this talk.  You'll notice that she uses nested ABTs all throughout it.
11:38:04 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics – The paper Nancy referenced that shows how science literacy and political affiliation effect belief in controversial topics.  Despite what scientists would like to believe, more information isn’t always the right answer:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594657/
11:41:05 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	We should have time for a Q&A today.  If you have any questions for Nancy or Randy, be sure to post them here in chat or hit the Raise Hand button and I'll call on you.
11:49:28 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	Park Howell from the Business/Marketing world will go into detail on Amplifying the Pain.
11:54:45 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	Any questions for Nancy or Randy?
11:55:55 From  Matthew David  to  Everyone:
	It takes more effort at first, but after a while you do start to gain intuition and it gets easier.