Hard conversations, better rooms.

Hard conversations with your partner. With your colleague. With your dad. With the stranger on the internet you ended up arguing with at midnight. I sat through enough of them to notice: most hard conversations don't fail because people are bad. They fail because nobody designed them to work.

Most people are exhausted, not by disagreement itself, but by how bad we've all become at it. By the relationships quietly hollowed out by things left unsaid, or said too hard. By the feeling that the world is sorting itself into teams, and you're expected to pick one.

We walk into disagreements with no structure, no safety, and no way out. Then we're surprised when it breaks. We blame the person, but we should be blaming the room. Not evil. Not stupidity. Just people who were never given a better way to stay curious about someone they disagree with.

And let's be honest. These conversations shouldn't require nerves of steel or a philosophy degree. They just need a well-designed room and the willingness to walk in. That's the thing I couldn't stop thinking about.

And then, something else. I've noticed the people who stay in these conversations are usually the ones who had some fun together first. So I started building something.

But first…

Community platforms. Dating apps. Friend apps. Curated brunches and AI-matched dinner tables. All of them promise the same thing: people like you. Minds like yours. No friction, no heat. Just the warmth inside the bubble. And slowly, the skill that matters most — staying curious in the room when someone sees things differently — quietly rusts.

Nobody builds for the real difference — the kind that makes your worldview wobble a little — because it's bad for the algorithm. But we are.

Live sessions in Amsterdam. Small groups, real disagreement, and all the fun and games you won't see coming. You draw a card that says square wheels are the future and build the strongest possible argument for it. Sometimes the topic is ridiculous. But sometimes, it's the one you've been avoiding for years.

In|Betweens treats polarisation, bias, and misunderstanding as design problems. Not moral failures. These sessions are not therapy, not a values exercise, and not a TED Talk with better snacks. We're building rooms where understanding becomes the path of least resistance, and where disagreement is structurally easier than defensiveness.

Play is the entry point. We use humour to lower defences and structure to keep people safe once they're open. The behaviour change sneaks in while you're busy having fun.

We don't teach empathy or push you to change your mind. We design rooms that are safe and absurd on purpose. Rooms where being unsure shouldn't feel like losing, and where changing your mind should feel like a normal thing to do. And if you're not ready? 'Pass' is always an option.

The premise is simple: you are not your opinion. And feeling that should be a relief, not a threat. In the end, you leave more able to stay in hard conversations — the real ones — without losing yourself.

In|Betweens is roughly 30% built. The rest gets figured out by running it with real people: small groups, live sessions, honest feedback. What works, stays. What doesn't, gets fired.

Each session is one rep. The bet: the change is what's left after the fifth — and that's what we're here to find out.

~10 people, mixed views, no right answers, and no one there to win.

Sign up and we'll be in touch. No bots, no forms, no newsletter. The old-fashioned way.