When fear is sold, your reason shuts down. When hope is sold, you give away responsibility. Both keep you stuck. Truth Nuggets: - Fear marketing hacks the “human OS”: It triggers patterns that drive impulsive over rational decisions. - Hope is often the twin of fear in sales: First unsettle, then promise a “solution” – the classic funnel. - Deep change starts where hope as an escape route ends: Hopelessness = no exit, only action. - Telltale signs of fear/hope business: urgency pressure, vague salvation claims, binary “with us vs. without us” narratives. - Principle: If you don’t react to fear/hope, you decide from clarity. That’s the basis for real transformation. ❓Question: Where have you noticed fear or hope steering your decisions lately—and how did you counter it? Exercise (Do-it-now): 1. Pick one decision you’re facing now. Write it down in 1 sentence. 2. Label the specific fear (F) and hope (H) driving it. 3. Define an action-only alternative: “If neither F nor H matters, I do X now.” Share your F/H scan + your “X” action in the comments, I start..

Imagine walking through the city and being “guided”—without anyone holding up a sign. Unfriendly architecture: nudging with a barbed wire aura Unfriendly architecture (also known as “defensive architecture”) is design that excludes people rather than inviting them in. Not with words, but with shapes. That's nudging – only not as a gentle nudge, but as a silent push out the door. Typical examples you're guaranteed to have seen Benches with armrests in the middle: sitting yes, lying down no. Spikes on wall projections: “No one is allowed here.” Sloping surfaces instead of seating edges: no breaks, no lingering. Sound/light/sprinklers in corners: “Please move on.” The goal is rarely “beautiful” – it is to control behavior: less lingering, less visibility, less “disorder.” Nudging: Where does the nudge end and manipulation begin? At its core, nudging is decision architecture. You design the environment in such a way that certain behaviors become more likely. The question is not: Is it being controlled? But rather: For whom and at what price? Pro argument: Safety, cleanliness, order, less vandalism. Criticism: It often affects the most vulnerable—homeless people, young people, people without a “place.” Ethics check: Is a problem being solved—or just made invisible? Mini check: “Good nudging” vs. “cold nudging.” Answer spontaneously: Does it help me make a better decision? Do I have a real alternative? Is the intention transparent and fair? If you feel “no” 2–3 times: It's more design than an instrument of power. Now it's your turn 👇 1) Comment with an example from your city: What was the moment when you thought, “Okay... this wasn't built by accident”? 2) Quick vote (just write A/B/C): A) “Totally okay—the city has to function” B) “Depends—context is key” C) “Not okay at all – hostile to people” 3) Challenge: On your next walk, take 3 photos of “invisible nudges” (they don't have to be spikes – guidance systems, barriers, and pathways also count) and post one of them here with 2 sentences:

What quickly attracts our attention? A blue light on the other side of the street. A loud bang. A growling and barking dog behind a garden fence. Someone coming towards us in a poorly lit alley. These are all programming from our past as hunters and gatherers. Today, we are more modern. Media that use these programs attract our attention. They dramatize and cater to our base instincts. A light snowfall is turned into a bomb blizzard. Two weeks of hot weather become a hellish summer. Meteorologists on the news stand in front of corresponding maps. In the case of the hellish summer, everything is glowing red and purple. A high tidal wave is turned into a killer wave. This is impossible, because we know that the wave has no instinct of its own to kill people. People like to take old programs from religion. Apocalypse and Armageddon, the Flood, and so on. And everything draws our attention. We can't help ourselves. Or can we? At the very least, we can prevent ourselves from getting stuck on such programs. Because when we are afraid, our minds partially shut down. At least part of our cognitive abilities are shut down so that we can focus on the danger. Are you aware of triggers that you immediately turn to when you see or hear them? How do we proceed? Just like in the NLSP protocol, but of course not always in such detail. 1. Identify: Take a step back and observe what you are thinking and feeling as if from the outside. Put it into words. 2. Reprogram: Answer the question: "Is this a real danger? Does it require a reaction from me here and now? Is the fear or focus helpful to me? Is it good for me?" 3. Install: Practice what takes you out of the fear. Consciously give your brain alternatives and anchor this as a routine. Have a nice day.

That's influence: making small things big and big things small. When we set the frame and then provide the relevant information, our brain always makes a comparison. An example: During a sales pitch for a car, the prospective buyer asks about the price. The salesperson says: “This car, with all its extras and special features, doesn't cost €200,000, of course. It costs €90,000.” What's happening here? He first sets a large frame and then presents the price within it. That's it. Incidentally, it doesn't matter at all if the frame is utopically large. He could also have said with a friendly smile: “The car doesn't cost a million euros.” It makes no difference, because the buyer's brain only checks the statement for accuracy and he says yes, it does NOT cost 1 million, which is true. Where else do we encounter this? Well, when marginalized issues repeatedly appear in the news, one automatically gets the impression that it is a significant and important topic. Of course, one should not exaggerate this. On January 6, 2026, Tagesschau, a German news program, aired an extended report on the extinction of a particular species of penguin. At the same time, they devoted only a few seconds of the same program to the dramatic situation of 40,000 people in Berlin. These 40,000 people had been without electricity for days in freezing temperatures and some of them had to be evacuated. After two days, the first looting began. Do you see what I mean? I did exactly the same thing in the text. Just by the amount of time I spent on the news item, it takes on a different weighting for you. Sure, it's a gross simplification, but perhaps you can think of examples yourself where someone first set the scene and then moved you to take a certain stance on an issue. 😉

There are many hand gestures. Some are directed inward, like mudras. Others are meant to emphasize what you want to convey to your counterpart. This is also part of the field of foreign programming that I would like to introduce to you. A welcome opportunity to do so presented itself to me this morning. A German local politician spoke in a video about his wishes for the new year. I cut out all the superfluous stuff and focused only on the hands—without sound, without facial expressions (but you're not missing anything). I commented on the individual gestures in detail in the video and then simply counted them at the end. There were four main gestures in total: - Praying - Guns - The diamond of power - Self-hug Praying The fingers are intertwined and clenched together. This is similar to crossed arms, only not as large and with five fingers. It shows that the speaker is very insecure and wants to shut themselves off from their counterpart. Perhaps they just want to connect with a higher power? Who knows. Guns The speaker shoots at the listener. Why? Perhaps to give more emphasis to their arguments. But those who shoot do not allow for discourse and turn their counterpart into a victim. Who wants that? The diamond of power No gesture is better known in Germany than this one. It was used excessively by the then Chancellor Angela Merkel, so that it has now become known as the Merkel diamond. The diamond is closed, forming a triangle, and with the index fingers placed together, it points twice at the conversation partner. The self-embrace One hand rests in the other. You give yourself a sense of well-being and embrace the inner, vulnerable, and insecure child. A powerless gesture that reveals weakness. Do you know of any similar gestures, or do you use them yourself? Enjoy the video! You can try to guess who the politician is 😊 - it s easier for German, but perhaps you have own examples of politicians that use this gestures, too.