Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas

by Cass R. Sunstein

The most controversial essays from the bestselling author once called the most dangerous man in America—collected for the first time.

The nation’s most-cited legal scholar who for decades has been at the forefront of applied behavioral economics, and the bestselling author of Nudge and Simpler , Cass Sunstein is one of the world’s most innovative thinkers in the academy and the world of practical politics. In the years leading up to his confirmation as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Sunstein published hundreds of articles on everything from same-sex marriage to cost-benefit analysis. Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas is a collection of his most famous, insightful, relevant, and inflammatory pieces. Within these pages you will

• Why perfectly rational people sometimes believe crazy conspiracy theories
• What wealthy countries should and should not do about climate change
• Why governments should allow same-sex marriage, and what the “right to marry” is all about
• Why animals have rights (and what that means)
• Why we “misfear,” meaning get scared when we should be unconcerned and are unconcerned when we should get scared
• What kinds of losses make us miserable, and what kinds of losses are absolutely fine
• How to find the balance between religious freedom and gender equality
• And much more . . .

Cass Sunstein is a unique, controversial, and exciting voice in the political world. A man who cuts through the fog of left vs. right arguments and offers logical, evidence-based, and often surprising solutions to today’s most challenging questions.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Psychology, Conspiracy Theories, Economics, Law, History

288 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 2014

About the author

Cass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.

Reviews

[Carly · Rating 3 out of 5]

**NOTE: All quotations are taken from an uncorrected digital galley and are therefore provisional. Quotes will be corrected when the book is released.**

When I first saw the book, I was definitely intrigued. Conspiracy theories are an interesting subject with a lot of very elegant theoretical constructs behind them. Despite the "other dangerous ideas" in the tagline, after reading the blurb, I expected a variant on the pop psychology and sociology books that I tend to devour like candy. Unfortunately, I think the title and blurb are somewhat misleading. I noticed in passing as I started this review that the ratings seem a bit low; I suspect that this may be due to a mismatch between readers and subject.

Or maybe it's all part of some grand conspiracy or other.

Personally, I think the title gets it wrong. I'd say that the book is actually a collection of very loosely-related essays about various human biases and the author's beliefs on how government should take these factors into account. I found it interesting, and it is certainly different from my standard read. However, I think I was something of a mismatch for the book. As I said, I expected an entertaining retelling of various experiments dealing with human ideation of conspiracy, perhaps with some ties in with the author's experiences with the law and politics. Instead, I got Mr. Sunstein giving me his opinion on a wide variety of topics, from the Bill of Rights to the costs and benefits of cost-benefit analysis to animal rights to religion and sexism to marriage to climate change to a rosy-tinted description of "New Progressivism." It's still an interesting book, but if you pick it up, keep in mind that the conspiracy business peters out at about the 20% mark and I'm not sure which of the other ideas were supposed to be "dangerous", so make sure you're not in it for the paranoia.

For me, the style was a misfit. When I dig into nonfiction, I don't want to read about someone's opinions; I want the facts. For me, this means that authors shouldn't state psychological theories as fact; they should explain one or more relevant studies and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Call me suspicious and overly sceptical--a conspiracy theorist, if you will-- but I don't appreciate grandiose claims without being handed at least a little of the evidence that backs them up. Instead, in Conspiracy Theories, the author tends to state various theories as fact and backs up the claim with a citation. It's up to you to hunt down the hundreds of papers and determine whether or not they support the sweeping statements. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I tend to expect my nonfiction to give me all the necessary information rather than requiring either blind belief or heavy homework.

The book itself tries to remain quite measured in tone, but there are a few breaks in objectivity that may be irritating to readers who do not share the author's political beliefs. My favourite bit actually came from the intro to the conspiracy theory section. Mr Sunstein complains that some of his beliefs

"Struck an especially raw nerve--and actually endangered my chances at senate confirmation. As I learned, the negative attention was partly a product of the desire of many people to attack anyone associated with the Obama administration."

No, he provides neither proof nor citations for that little conspiracy theory. Given the context, I found this little bit of ironic paranoia to be hilarious.

Actually, I think the first section encapsulated both the best and worst aspects of the books. I really liked the discussion of how conspiracies provide "an underlying intentional order" and his descriptions of "crippled epistemologies," conspiracy cascades, reputational cascades, availability, group polarization, and "pluralistic ignorance". He also claims that conspiracy theorists tend to believe in multiple conspiracies, even ones that might be inherently contradictory. The evidence he provides, however, is yet another reference to a study that I'd have to dig up before ascertaining how well it supported the claim.

The most problematic aspect of this section was his discussion of "cognitive infiltration," a term and topic destined to give even the most credulous person a bit of paranoia. The term, coined by the author, includes a variant in which

"Government agents and their allies might enter foreign chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic, or implications for action, political or otherwise. [...] Government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities."

He notes that the latter might have "ethical concerns," but also states that it would have "higher returns." I am disgusted to find a government official evaluating such strategies mainly on their effectiveness rather than the absolute betrayal of the system he stands for. (He does note that it should be used only in "unusual circumstances," but that's the slip'n'slide of slippery slopes.) Not only is "cognitive infiltration" creepy; even just hearing him coolly lay out the pros and cons of using such sockpuppets validates and confirms the very conspiracies that were supposed to be discrediting.

The book leaves the quagmire of conspiracy at around 20% to talk about FDR's proposal of a second Bill of Rights, then a segue into cost-benefit analysis. Building on Kahneman's "thinking fast and slow," he argues that "misfearing" leads us to high inaccuracy in predicting happiness after tragedy. To me, this section was dubious because it depends heavily on accurately quantifying happiness. He then takes a total right-turn into his opinions on how to legislate animal rights, marriage, climate change, and the tension between freedom of religion and gender equality. As the book progressed, it drifted more and more into a political or law-based perspective. I think the climate change chapter was probably my favourite: Sunstein lays out the various culpability- and distributory- models, and the problems with each. Although it was once again a very political- and opinion-heavy piece, I greatly enjoyed his exploration of the various rationales and their pitfalls.

The last section of the book dips entirely into political theory. Sunstein provides a rosy-tinted portrait of what he terms "New Progressivism." Starting with the claim that humans are terrible at predicting long-range effects of interference, he defines New Progressivism as ultimately interested in outcomes rather than means. I absolutely agree with many of its tenets, from emphasis on education and empowerment to the harnessing of social norms. It all felt very facile and not necessarily well-thought-out, something it shares with the rest of U.S. policy. The last two sections define two useful techniques for avoiding conflict: minimalism, in which one tries to put off big decisions or make them as narrow as possible, and trimming, a policy that attempts to play peacemaker by either "compromising" or "preserving." The book then ends abruptly without any form of summary or attempt to tie the disparate threads into a unified whole.

I think the content of the book was quite interesting; the most problematic aspect, for me, was simply a mismatch of preconceptions: I was looking for a book of facts, not a series of proposals and opinions. Perhaps the most troubling aspect was the discussion of "cognitive infiltration;" no matter how much Mr. Sunstein protests, I found the idea both revolting and disturbing, and I think it has probably had the amusing effect of making me more susceptible to conspiracy theories against the government. All the same, I really enjoyed some sections, especially the part about climate change. Even though it wasn't what I expected, I thought it made for an interesting read; I certainly learned a lot about how policymakers think.

~~I received this ebook through NetGalley from the publisher, Simon&Schuster, in exchange for my honest review.~~

Excerpted from my review on Booklikes.

[Paul Pessolano · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas” by Cass R. Sunstein, published by Simon and Schuster.

Category – Conspiracy Publication Date – March 18, 2014

Depending on whom you are and what kind of reading you do will largely determine the popularity of this book. The book will be of major interest to those interested in politics and the law. It is definitely not a book for the casual reader.

The book is a compilation of the writings of Cass R. Sunstein. They cover subjects that range from animal rights, religion, sex discrimination, and other subjects that are controversial in today’s society. Sunstein is controversial in his beliefs and the reader should be aware that this is brought out in his conclusions. In all fairness to Sunstein he does put forth other theories and beliefs to give the reader a balanced view of the topic.

If the reader is a liberal he will find himself agreeing with many of the proposals or solutions held by Sunstein, but if one is a conservative he will oppose his theories for the most part.

Although the book will be considered controversial it should be noted that Cass R. Sunstein is a legal scholar that is held in high esteem. He is considered to be one of the most innovative thinkers and has written many books on various subjects ranging from applied economics to the full political spectrum.

The book is academic in its subject matter and its writing, so if you are looking for a book that will make you think and weigh the various possibilities of a given subject this would be a good choice, but I would suggest that you have a dictionary handy.

[Vincent Li · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title and cover are a bit misleading. The title makes it seem like the book is mostly about ideas clustered around conspiracy theories, but the book is in fact just a collection of law review articles by Sunstein that he likes. A more accurate title would be "A Collection of Law Review Articles by Cass Sunstein lead by an article about Conspiracy Theories" but that probably isn't as an exciting of title.

However, I still found the collection enlightening. For a writer as prolific as a Sunstein, it can be a bit overwhelming to wade into his work, so it's useful to see what he considers his best and most interesting work. The topics span conspiracy theories, animal rights, the second bill of rights, minimalism and nudges.

Some central themes do emerge from the cluster of articles. In particular, the variety of phenomena (from conspiracy theories to availability cascades) that can be explained by cascades (informational and reputational). There is an emphasis on applications of behavioral economics to public policy. In one article, Sunstein advocates cost benefit analysis as an anti-dote to the human tendency to overweight certain probabilities of disaster (availability). In another article, Sunstein discusses the failure of people to realize how adaptable they are to hardship, and how focusing on hardship makes juries and judges overweigh the pain and suffering of extreme events, while underweighting the effects of chronic unignorable pain. Sunstein instead advocates moving to a compensatory damage system based off of loss in capabilities. A recurring theme in Sunstein's work is that there is no real separation between negative and positive rights. He argues that even negative rights require a tax subsidized court and police system to enforce. In a similar vein, Sunstein argues that the market only exists as a result of government intervention (property rights and contract rights require a government to maintain them in their socially efficient state). However, he advocates for market-oriented solutions to most social ills (contrasted to the lack of understanding by central planners of the unintended consequences of their commands). In his essay, New Progressivism, Sunstein exercises trimming (another later article about principled compromising) that tries to combine social democratic ends with market means.

My favorite essay in the collection was about minimalism. This was partially because I had read extensively about Sunstein's work in behavioral economics and cascades. The minimalism essay is a sustained discussion on the concept of incompletely theorized agreements (when people agree on what to do, but not why). Sunstein argues that some agreements can be categorized by their their depth and width. The depth of an argument is the reasoning given for the argument, (how much does the argument rest on foundational principles?) and the width of the argument is how broad the rule is (just the narrow situation or more situations). Incompletely theorized agreements occur when people agree on the conclusion but not the argumentation arriving at the conclusion. The agreement can be shallow, but this could be a virtue. The shallowness of the agreement, allows compromise (who cares why we do x, as long as we do x?), lowers the cost of disagreement (the "losers" can still employ their reasoning for later debates), demonstrates respect for different points of view and builds in flexibility for the principle or agreement to change over time. Sunstein also praises narrow agreements, which again allow institutional compromise, lowers costs of error and information (a wrong narrow rule is less likely to be disruptive than a broad rule, and requires less information gathering to make a comprehensive rule), avoids unintended consequences and in the case of judges allows the societal debate over contentious issues to continue. Of course Sunstein, also describes cases where narrow and shallow decisions are not appropriate (in many cases they shift the burden of the decision into the future, or are just intrinsically inappropriate).

[Luke Goldstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before this book I had never read anything by Cass Sunstein, but I knew the name. Partially it came from his time as head of the Office of Management and Budget in President Obama’s first term, but more so from his frequent mentions by Glenn Beck as a living, breathing, pillar of evil. From the tone and volume of Beck’s cries against anything Sunstein has to say I imagined the book would be filled to the brim with radical, communist, socialist agenda-promoting fantasies from the far-left, but I was somewhat sadly misled.

Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas is a collection of essays by Sunstein ranging over a number of topics. He covers same-sex marriage, global warming, free speech and a number of other hot button issues that we face in the country today. In each chapter he lays out the original problem or situation and proceeds to break it down from each side, measuring the common responses for and against to see which ones pan out. It’s a book written to make you think, not tell you what to think.

When Sunstein first walked into the limelight of the White House administration, the political extremes in the country saw diametrically opposed illusions. The left side of the country imagined wild and radical shifts in government, opening the doors to a wild wonderland of progressiveness and equality for all. The right imagined the complete and utter destruction of personal rights and capitalism, a roller coaster launch straight into the bread lines of Old World Russia. When he turned out to be much more moderate and reasoned in his policies, instead of either side taking a deep breath and releasing some of their fervor, they just hated him.

This book is a perfect reason of why. You cannot pin him down or pigeonhole his outlook into a cozy little box. He references “New Progressivism” numerous times throughout as the way forward, but since it is a political ethos of his own design, he can make it fit whichever legislative outcome he likes. The anti-capitalist crowd might be surprised by Sunstein’s argument against excessive damages in civil trials, including those awarded for emotional loss, suffering or even lost limbs. While the anti-government folks might be shocked by one of his core tenets for the New Progressivism:

"This is the sense in which New Progressivists endorse the old idea that there should be “No rights without responsibilities.”"

That sounds much more libertarian than communist.

The idea most pursued in this book is the need to really think about your standpoint and follow it beyond the horizon, see where it leads and whether it is worth the journey. Many choices sound beneficial in the outset (like massive increases to the minimum wage to help the working poor rise out of poverty), but when drawn out in studies and historical data they can lead to much different conclusions (dramatically increasing the minimum wage historically creates higher unemployment since only a fraction of the working poor retain higher wage jobs, while the rest are cut completely.)

Sunstein is more a hero for the moderate and studied middle over either extreme. Neither the devil of Glenn Beck’s nightmares nor the revolutionary of radical left, he uses his studies to navigate the chaos of public policy in the modern age.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN ANALYIS AND DISCUSSION OF ‘CONSPIRARY THEORIES,’ AND MORE

Professor Cass Sunstein wrote in the Preface to this 2014 book, “In many nations, rational people end up believing crazy things including (false) conspiracy theories. Those crazy thoughts can lead to violence, including terrorism. Many terrorist acts have been fueled by false conspiracy theories, and there is a good argument that some such acts would not have occurred in the absence of such theories. The key point... is that the crazy thoughts are often held by people who are not crazy at all. The essay on conspiracy theories was written in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, but the lessons are far more general… The focus is on threats---especially terrorist threats---that arise when people in other nations believe false conspiracy theories about the United States. Its central goal is to explore how information tends to spread, even to go viral among like-minded people… the discussion bears on the spread of false information of many different kinds, not least in the internet era… We lack direct or personal evidence for most of what we think, especially about politics and government. We are often confident in what we believe, but we don’t have reason to be.” (Pg. x-xi)

In the opening essay (on conspiracy theories), he explains, “a conspiracy theory can be counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by referring to the secret machinations of powerful people who have managed to conceal their role.” (Pg. 3)

He notes, “Conspiracy theories generally attribute to certain agents extraordinary power: to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and so forth. Those who believe … are especially unlikely to give respectful attention to debunkers, who, in their eyes, may… be agents or dupes of those responsible for the conspiracy in the first place… A broader point is that conspiracy theorists typically overestimate the competence and discretion of officials and bureaucracies, which are assume to be capable of carrying out sophisticated secret plans---despite abundant evidence that in open societies, government action does not usually remain secret for very long… In a closed society, secrets are far easier to keep, and distrust of official accounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies, conspiracy theories are both more likely to be true and harder to disprove in light of available information. But when the press is free, and when checks and balances are in force, government cannot easily hide its conspiracies for long.” (Pg. 5)

He suggests, “Some conspiracy theories … may be a response to specific disturbing events, to general or localized economic or social distress, or to real or apparent injustice. Others are initiated and spread quite intentionally by ‘conspiracy entrepreneurs,’ who may play a large role in the spread of conspiracy theories, and who profit directly or indirectly from propagating their preferred theories… Some conspiracy entrepreneurs are entirely sincere; others are interested in money or fame, or in achieving some general social goal… Whenever a crisis or tragedy occurs, rumors and speculation are inevitable. Most people are not able to know, on the basis of personal or direct knowledge, why an airplane crashed, or why a leader was assassinated, or why a terrorist attack succeeded, or why an economy suddenly ran into terrible trouble. In the aftermath of such an event, numerous speculations will be offered, and some of them will likely point to some kind of conspiracy. To some people, those speculations will seem plausible, perhaps because they provide a suitable outlet for outrage and blame, or because the speculation is in some sense gratifying or fits well with other deeply rooted beliefs, or because the absence of an explanation is disturbing… when people are outraged, they are all the more likely to seek cause that justify their emotional state, and also to attribute those events to intentional action.” (Pg. 12-
13)
In the second essay (‘The Second Bill of Rights’), he recounts that in January 1944, President Roosevelt said in his State of the Union address (via radio)… “proposing a Second Bill of Rights… Roosevelt insisted that ‘essential to peace is a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all nations. Freedom from fear is externally linked with freedom from want.’ … Then he listed the relevant rights: The right to a useful and remunerative job... The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing… The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care… The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.” (Pg. 33-35)

He continues, “What made it possible for the president … to propose the Second Bill of Rights? Part of the answer lies in a simple idea… no one really opposes government intervention as such. Of course, private initiative is crucial, but markets and wealth depend on government. Without a government that is ready to establish and protect property rights, property itself cannot exist, at least not in recognizable form.” (Pg. 36)

In his chapter on Animal Rights, he outlines, “I have three goals. The first is to suggest the possibility of reducing the intensity of the debate by demonstrating that almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least to some degree. The real question is what the idea of ‘animal rights' actually means. The second is to… explore what issues separate reasonable people… My third goal is to defend a particular position about animal rights, one that … emphasizes the issue of animal suffering. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by animal rights advocates, especially those that … object to any human control and use of animals.” (Pg. 84-85)

Later, he adds, “a key issue involves eating meat. I believe that meat eating would be acceptable if the animals used for food were treated decently. But if… animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering, then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat… People should be less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.” (Pg. 91)

He acknowledges, “People do not see all animals as equal. They might agree that human beings should consider the interests of dogs, cats, horses, and dolphins, but they are unlikely to think the same about ants, mosquitoes, and cockroaches, and they do not much love rats and squirrels… [We could] inquire into the cognitive capacities of the particular animals involved… But this view seems to me misdirected. Jeremy Bentham was right to place the emphasis on … to what extent the relevant animal is capable of suffering.” (Pg. 95)

In the chapter on ‘Sex Equality, he observes that “it is generally agreed that governments should hesitate before applying the law of sex discrimination to religious organizations… Under existing law, religious institutions are plainly permitted to engage in acts of sex discrimination that would be unacceptable if carried out by a secular institution. Let us call this puzzle the ‘Asymmetry Thesis’ … [under which] it is acceptable to apply ordinary criminal laws to religious institutions, but it is not acceptable to apply the law forbidding sex discrimination to those institutions.” (Pg. 139-140)

He suggests, “there is no GENERAL barrier to applying the law of sex discrimination to religious institutions. Whether it is legitimate to do so depends on the extent of the interference with religious convictions and the strength of the state’s justification… To be sure, religious liberty deserves a central place in a free society… But there is no convincing justification for the Asymmetry Thesis.” (Pg. 147)

While I wish Sunstein had devoted more space to conspiracy theories, this book will interest a variety of readers.

[Michael Burns · Rating 2 out of 5]

Does a few interesting philosophical ideas about the nature of government excuse a book that’s a hundred pages too long and in dire need of an editor? No

I was intrigued by the cover of Conspiracy with promises that this would be a subversive book that toyed with ideas that we held sacred and flipped them, similar to Freakonomics, but tragically this was not the case. Maybe this is a product of our times but while Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and others accuse the author of being evil and vile, all I see in this book in a nerdy bookish lawyer obsessed with ideas surrounding the constitution. Having known a few lawyers, most are not the sexy fast talking smooth operators that TV depicts but instead are nerds about systems, procedure and precedent. If that sounds boring then congratulations, you understand the bulk of this book.

The author was tapped to be a part of the Obama administration cabinet, and by default that makes this a political book, but it lacks any of the true juicy bits of an actually political book. The author never advises that we actually follow on any of his ideas, in fact he advises against most of them, rather using them as thought exercises about the nature of the problem and governance.

The few gems that shine out are the dangers of conspiracy thinking to democracy, and if the book were only about that I might rate this higher, but once he gets out of that topic the quality quickly goes downhill.

I would not recommend this book, there are better books out there about government that are better written and better edited and don’t read like a dull textbook. If you’re a law nerd, maybe this is your jam but it wasn’t mine.

[YHC · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have to admit that this book was written in an academic way that was not fun to read. It's a bit like reading textbook.
Except the conspiracy theory seems to be still fun to read. I focus on animal right and carbon tax/ global warming. I always try to understand what this so called carbon tax will be used for. Collecting from targeted biggest carbon producing countries and then to compensate the countries who don't produce that much but got environmental damage because of it? But this is just like the "indulgence" ( "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins"). The carbon doesn't get reduced because humans pay for it. Plus the least carbon produced countries could even out sell their quota to other countries in exchange of money or local infrastructures, but very usually this money would never reach their poor people, only in the hands of country leaders, or you know those in power. So my point is why not collecting the carbon tax money to develop something really can reduce carbon producing, alternative energy is a must do measures, but i means there should be way to transform CO2 into something else efficiently. I saw some technology seems undergoing but the scale is still slow. We should at least do something before it's too late.

[Edward Parkes · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be so informative with many topics surrounding 9/11 politics and other relevant topics. As this book was published of June this year many of the facts and other factual ideas are quite up to date as theories surrounding people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Lizard People such as Justin Bieber and Barrack Obama. This language features included in this are so compelling, even though this book should situate in the NON-FICTION section of Paper Plus and the language features shouldn't need to be compelling it should definitely sway some uncultured swines that are artificially defected from the truth from today's modern media.

In this book, it does cover some very touching topics such as 9/11 and Religion and world conflicts in the past and present. It also has a great list of potential world-ending dates such as some time in the year 2239. This is date presented by the church of Orthodox Judaism.

This was a great and informative read and would reccomend to anyone and everyone interested in the TRUTH.

[Steven · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this, years ago, and have been thinking about it again, recently. I was basically a dupe in those days, like most people. This book is supposed to bully you and others into remaining exploited/exploitable dupes while generating consent for the state to do its part in doing the same work.

This - and Sunstein more generally - is a kind of IDW intervention. The IDW appeals to people wiggling away from the reservation, whereas here: Sunstein appeals to the people who manage the reservations. Same "parachuting in" of convenient leaders for groups. "I'm your buddy, on your side, just don't go and do any Unauthorized sense-making, guys."

Don't escape "Charles Murray's bucket", get drawn back down to delusion by socialization. Be a dupe of the state, the internationalists, the biological pest control agents inserted into your life, and preach materialism while wearing a logic shirt. Be a dope, and let everything go according to plan.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of those books that should not be judged by its cover, which is the mistake I made. This book is not about conspiracy theories or other dangerous ideas. If you ARE looking for a book on that topic, this is not it at all.

What it IS about is explaining various approaches to how law is applied and how some court decisions may be justified.

Some arguments are better supported, whereas others are lacking an explanation of how the details support the outcome.

The writing dragged at times but kept my interest throughout. Overall it feels like if the author added another ~100 pages, the reader could have a better understanding of how the author came to a particular conclusion.

[Silvia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, not an easy reading. Some chapters are incredibly interesting, and the most famous essay is indeed quite engaging. Others dive so deep into legal philosophy that become kind of sterile for the general public. The Right to Marriage and Animal Rights are a good example. Interesting topic and of course excellently structured discourse, but a bit dry for my taste.
An interesting thinking exercise.

[Tina Love · Rating 3 out of 5]

This writer is excellent. My three star rating is mostly based on the fact that conspiracy theories and dangerous ideas are really only covered in the first three chapters of this eleven chapter book. I admire and like Cass Sustein, but the title doesn't fit the entirety of this book. Don't get me wrong; the rest of the book is valuable information, but it honestly has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

[Holden Roy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid read that gave a balanced look at a lot of topics that are less than simple to talk about to day. It gives this interesting insight into how the US Government actually makes decision from the perspective of someone who was actually involved and willing to share how hard decisions get made.

[Todd · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cass is a brilliant thinker and can be depended upon to raise some interesting arguments. This collection isn't as intriguing throughout as some, but has some great essays, namely: Conspiracy Theories, Misfearing, Laws of Happiness, and Sex Equality vs. Religious Freedom.

[Angelique Doyle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love conspiracys but this was boring .

[Sarah Maddaford]

Available in my Kindle app from Netgalley

[Duncan MacDonald · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book touched somewhat on conspiracy theories but I had hoped for pros and cons regarding same. JFK assassination? 9/11? UFOs? Not what I had hoped for when I purchased the book. Very well written, but didn't answer any of my questions re: conspiracy theories and other dangerous ideas.

[Mark Lokensgard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Chapter One is the only chapter I read. I cannot understand the blurbs on the back or inside cover, or in the Preface in which he recounts, ostensibly ruefully, that he was targeted by critics as being an apologist for a supposed disinformation campaign to be set up by the Obama administration; he doesn’t come off as rueful, however, but seems more smug at having gained notoriety and therefore a larger audience for his writings. If we are to judge by Chapter One, politics will turn the brain of any academic to mush, or if not his brain, his pen; it is an exercise in saying nothing while apparently coming down on the side of “well everybody knows that” kinds of conclusions. He talks about 22% of “normally sober-minded Canadians” believing in an American conspiracy regarding 9/11, for example. He goes back and forth between light ridicule of believers in conspiracies and between saying, in effect, “I’m not saying there aren’t SOME conspiracies that are real.” He cites Popper several times on pages 6-7, clearly making himself a follower of Popper’s theories of history as defined by DeHaven-Smith.

What is perhaps most striking is the conclusion to his preface, remarkable in its mealy-mouthiness: “In academic life, of course, common sense is not a constraint. If an academic article simply asserts common sense, or what most people already think, it probably shouldn’t be published. Who would learn anything from it? Today’s common sense is yesterday’s wild academic speculation. Of course, it might be useful for academics to defend common sense, or explain what lies behind it, or recount its history – but none of these should or will say something obvious. A goal of academic writing is to say something novel or illuminating, even or perhaps especially if it defies common sense. Whether or not anyone should act on the resulting ideas is another matter. In a well-functioning democracy, that question gets to be decided by a large number of officials. Some of them are minimalists, while others are trimmers, and all of them are chosen and checked by the public.” (xviii)

This paragraph essentially seems to say, “I’m going to suggest some really crazy things, but don’t take me seriously, because that’s just the genre I’m writing in, academic writing, and we do those kinds of things all the time. I’m just doing my job.” His Chapter One then basically goes on to defend conventional wisdom to the hilt and avoid any mention of real doubt about the version of history he seems to believe, the “common sense” one. (Even though true mainstream opinion about the Kennedy assassination, for example, would not follow “common sense” as Sunstein defines it.)

Amazing what a Harvard Law Professor can publish without saying anything.

[Daily Wisdom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book on the nature of conspiracy (and other issues such as climate change etc.) and the reasons underpinning the strength of such theories.

Cass R. Sunstein demosntrates a "brilliant understanding" about the crippled epistemology of extremism because he assumes/claims that most Americans are lazy, can't present coherent conservation and we all need to trust the people running our government. This is because he insists that if one could not be there personally, specifically when it comes to politics and government. The issue arises due our failures in not being at hand, thus he recommends cognition infiltration to help relax your mind.

If one is able to agree with this political/social engineering BS crap, then his publication is a welcomed piece of work that very clearly enhances one of the members of the 9/11 Commission where she claims that what happened on September 11th, 2001, could have resulted [because] the investigation of intelligence activities was hampered by the church Committee's investigation in the public murder and cover up of what really happened to JFK...might have handicapped the discovery of the attackers plans (regarding the tragic event on September 11th, 2001), years later.

[James Mc Donald · Rating 1 out of 5]

Full of crap and attempts to undermine the discovery of what are State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs)

In the eyes of Mr. Sunstein, it would be reasonable to focus on terrorism because people from other nations believe false conspiracy theories about the United States. I'm not really qualified to say much about this specific odd claim by Sunstein but I can point out Cass R. Sunstein's "brilliant understanding" about the crippled epistemology of extremism because he assumes/claims that most Americans are lazy, can't present coherent conservation and we all need to trust the people running our government. This is because this dude says that you aren't there personally, specifically when it comes to politics and government. This crazy num-nut goes on to say that because of our failures in not being at hand, he recommends cognition infiltration to help relax your mind.

If one is able to agree with this political/social engineering BS crap, then his publication is a welcomed piece of work that very clearly enhances one of the members of the 9/11 Commission where she claims that what happened on September 11th, 2001, could have resulted [because] the investigation of intelligence activities was hampered by the church Committee's investigation in the public murder and cover up of what really happened to JFK...might have handicapped the discovery of the attackers plans (regarding the tragic event on September 11th, 2001), years later.

Additional information for some of you that have no clue and are actually publicly promoting this dumb crap from Sunstein can be found here:

Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (Volume One)
1963 JFK Assassination: Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board - President John F. Kennedy, The JFK Act, Investigations, FBI and CIA, Zapruder Film, Medical and Ballistics, Critics
THE NELSON ROCKEFELLER REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT. June 1975
Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program
The CIA Doctors: Human Rights Violations By American Psychiatrists
Project MKULTRA, the CIA's program of research in behavioral modification: Joint hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the ... Congress, first session, August 3, 1977
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House
Conspiracy Theory in America (Discovering America)

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars, rounding up to 3

This book is a series of essays by America's "most cited legal scholar" who has been at the "forefront of applied behavioural economics" for decades. Basically, I picked up this book because of the phrase "behavoural economics", which is a topic I'm interested in.

Basically, this book is about different issues and what the author thinks of them. These issues include:
- Animal rights
- Conspiracy theories and why people believe them
- The second bill of rights
- Climate Change
- Trimming

and more. There are a total of 11 essays in this book.

Personally, I didn't find the essays to be as "inflammatory" as the blurb had me believing. Even for the pieces where I disagreed with the authors stance, I wasn't so much 'inflamed' as 'interested and perhaps mildly amused'.

Why? Because it's easy to see where the author's bias lies. I'm not sure if the author even tried being objective, but I'm assuming that he wrote these essays aware of his various biases and his worldview. Since he has a worldview different from mine, I found it only natural that he and I disagreed over certain issues.

My favourite essay has got to be the one about Trimming. I've never heard of the term before, and I found this essay to be entertaining and informative.

If you're looking for an opinionated but not that in-your-face sort of book, you should consider giving this book a go. I wouldn't call it "factual", but it is good to read different opinions every now and then.

Disclaimer: I got a free copy of this book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review.

This review was first posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I came across this after reading NUDGE, and since it was relatively short, decided to give it a try. I don't agree with
Sunstein about everything, but found his ideas interesting. As I'm not a legal scholar, some of his arguments (especially in the chapters in climate change and the relations between the law and religious institutions) were pretty opaque to me. But I found his thoughts on these issues interesting at least. I thought his takes on conspiracy theories and the spread of other negative ideas like fear (chapters 1 and 3) were especially Insightful, and also appreciated his takes on animal rights and marriage. The chapter "The Laws of Happiness" (chapter 4) was also especially interesting, as it applies the psychological research on happiness and adaptation to circumstances (especially disability and illness) to legal settlements in malpractice and injury cases. As both a disabled person and a psychologist fairly familiar with the research on this topic, I was very invested in the issues, but had never thought very much about their legal applications. Sunstein's analysis was thorough (in terms of getting the science right) and illuminating. The last few chapters, about progressive political philosophy (I'm not a progressive myself) and certain approaches to judicial and political theory, were not especially interesting to me, and were a bit dry. All in all, I thought the collection was a little bit uneven, but still very interesting and worth reading.

[Dana · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the plus side, I thought the subject matter was very interesting, and informative. The author seemed very knowledgeable and gave differing perspectives while maintaining a certain level of neutrality.

On the negative side, I found the author to be repetitive at times in trying to explain a position on a certain topic, while at other times I felt he was speaking so far over my head I had to read certain parts multiple times. My enjoyment of the book would have been much higher if he had found a happy medium between the two.

Overall, though, I found it to be an interesting, intellectual read.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars ironically his essays with the exception of the title one on conspiracy theories were well written and intelligent however his opening conspiracy theories was a mess. Sunstein used circular logic and the whole point of the essay seemed a desperate attempt to debunk 9/11 theories. However IMO this goal failed as the more he decries 9/11 conspiracy theorists without offering evidence for the official account made me more, not less sympathetic to said conspiracy theorists

[Kimberly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received this ARC through Edelweiss.

Way way way more academic than I was expecting. Not a bad book--not at all--but I did not read the description closely enough. I thought this was a book about different conspiracy theories; it's actually a very well-researched book about how they spread. Not really great lunchtime reading. :) Would be valuable for people who are interested in the mechanics and research behind conspiracy theories.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title is a bit misleading, as the first chapter is really the only one that deals with conspiracy theories. Sunstein studies and teaches human political and economic behavior, and he is good at explaining complex concepts in clear, understandable language. However, his writing style is not at all compelling or enthusiastic. When I was done, I understood his ideas, but I wasn't really that interested in them. Very dry and academic, not really aimed at the casual reader.

[Christopher Myrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy Cass Sunstein, and am largely in agreement with most of his arguments. Although this is a book of solid thought - and has a few provocative essays - it quickly becomes obvious that this is a collection of academic writing. Certainly accessible for a general audience, but for the most part not particularly thrilling. Still, is book has some of the best back-cover blurbs I have ever seen.

[Matt Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

After a while, you get the idea with Sunstein. Cost-benefit analysis, applied writ-large. But his accounts of social science phenomena like conspiracy theories are interesting, relevant and relatable for lay-readers. Some of these essays left me a bit cold, but for the most part they are thought-provoking and smart.

[Bryan Richard]

What a strange book. Despite the title, Conspiracy Theories & Other Dangerous Theories, I found it really had nothing to do with either one. But it was a slightly interesting book nonetheless. However I am very much disinclined to recommend it to anybody.

[Keith McGowan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what law school is like.

The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School shares his intellectual musings about a variety of topics without regard to actual human experience or the role that emotion plays in human affairs.