What do you think?
Rate this book
Nawyki myślenia
CO SPRAWIA, ŻE ROZSĄDNI I INTELIGENTNI LUDZIE WIERZĄ, IŻ ZIEMIA JEST PŁASKA?
I DLACZEGO NIEKTÓRZY NIGDY NIE ZMIENIAJĄ SWOICH PRZEKONAŃ?
Oto fascynujący przewodnik po współczesnej wiedzy neurobiologicznej i psychologicznej o formowaniu i aktualizowaniu opinii.
David McRaney pokazuje, jak budować więzi, być uważnym i dostrzegać potencjał do zmiany w innych i w sobie samym.
Autor bierze pod lupę najnowsze badania psychologów i neurobiologów, pokazuje granice rozumowania, siłę grupowego myślenia i rezultaty głębokiej agitacji. Z typowym dla siebie poczuciem humoru i naukowym zaciekawieniem, zabiera nas w pouczającą podróż wśród członków sekt, wyznawców teorii spiskowych i aktywistów politycznych, każąc nam kwestionować własne motywacje i przekonania.
Wielowątkowa narracja dziennikarska, której wnioski są zaskakujące i skłaniają do refleksji, daje przełomową wiedzę o rzadko spotykanych okolicznościach pozwalających na zmianę myślenia.
„,W czasach, gdy zbyt wiele umysłów wydaje się zamkniętych, dostaliśmy mistrzowską analizę kroków, jakie należy podjąć, by je otworzyć“,. Adam Grant, autor Leniwego umysłu
I DLACZEGO NIEKTÓRZY NIGDY NIE ZMIENIAJĄ SWOICH PRZEKONAŃ?
Oto fascynujący przewodnik po współczesnej wiedzy neurobiologicznej i psychologicznej o formowaniu i aktualizowaniu opinii.
David McRaney pokazuje, jak budować więzi, być uważnym i dostrzegać potencjał do zmiany w innych i w sobie samym.
Autor bierze pod lupę najnowsze badania psychologów i neurobiologów, pokazuje granice rozumowania, siłę grupowego myślenia i rezultaty głębokiej agitacji. Z typowym dla siebie poczuciem humoru i naukowym zaciekawieniem, zabiera nas w pouczającą podróż wśród członków sekt, wyznawców teorii spiskowych i aktywistów politycznych, każąc nam kwestionować własne motywacje i przekonania.
Wielowątkowa narracja dziennikarska, której wnioski są zaskakujące i skłaniają do refleksji, daje przełomową wiedzę o rzadko spotykanych okolicznościach pozwalających na zmianę myślenia.
„,W czasach, gdy zbyt wiele umysłów wydaje się zamkniętych, dostaliśmy mistrzowską analizę kroków, jakie należy podjąć, by je otworzyć“,. Adam Grant, autor Leniwego umysłu
480 pages, Paperback
First published June 21, 2022
1012 people are currently reading
13230 people want to read
About the author
David McRaney
6 books583 followersAt his blog You Are Not So Smart—and in the book of the same title—David focuses on why humans are so "unaware of how unaware we are." His newest book, You Are Now Less Dumb, expands on these ideas of self-delusion and offers ways to overcome the brain's natural tendencies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 512 reviews
July 1, 2025
Minds are not changed through logical reasoning; they are changed internally. Ridicule and lacking empathy are likely to lead the person to double down or even become more extreme. Building rapport, listening, restating, and understanding an interlocutor's attitudes and the thinking behind them allows them to feel safe to change their mind. This can happen at a society level, where a longstanding view like opposition to same-sex marriage rapidly changes in a cascade, where interconnected groups slowly have their minds changed and reach a tipping point allowing those more inclined to conform to also change their mind.
David McRaney outlines this argument over 300 pages, which is much too long for the information presented. It seems to be a trait that journalists tend to use a superfluous amount of words in their books. Moreover, I am not a big fan of how journalists make a book out of "discovering" the truth, when they have essentially just done a search on Google Scholar, interviewed the authors of specific studies, and then transcribed what was said in the interview into a book. This work is not ground-breaking; much of the content will be familiar to people who are reasonably well-read.
Changing minds is a long process that is not guaranteed. One should pick their battles, yet where do you draw the line? How much empathy, if at all, should be extended if their views are extreme or antithetical to your own? I think a lot of leeway must be given, especially in the post-truth and populist age the Western world currently lives in. Showing apathy or contempt for some of the views that have become mainstream—particularly in America—is an understandable reaction, yet counterproductive. It will only ensure those views are sustained and alienate those whose minds you are trying to change.
David McRaney outlines this argument over 300 pages, which is much too long for the information presented. It seems to be a trait that journalists tend to use a superfluous amount of words in their books. Moreover, I am not a big fan of how journalists make a book out of "discovering" the truth, when they have essentially just done a search on Google Scholar, interviewed the authors of specific studies, and then transcribed what was said in the interview into a book. This work is not ground-breaking; much of the content will be familiar to people who are reasonably well-read.
Changing minds is a long process that is not guaranteed. One should pick their battles, yet where do you draw the line? How much empathy, if at all, should be extended if their views are extreme or antithetical to your own? I think a lot of leeway must be given, especially in the post-truth and populist age the Western world currently lives in. Showing apathy or contempt for some of the views that have become mainstream—particularly in America—is an understandable reaction, yet counterproductive. It will only ensure those views are sustained and alienate those whose minds you are trying to change.
November 13, 2022
3.5 stars
This is a very interesting, readable, and relevant pop psychology book, including some important insights and far more actionable information than such books usually offer. Some of its claims seem unsupported and some sections feel a bit tangential, and it is focused on the most contentious issues in current American politics, but overall it’s definitely worth a read for those interested in the subject.
The book explores the science and some human-interest stories around changing minds, and also three different methods that various groups have used to notable success. First, some notes about the theory:
- As those interested in the subject likely already know, the truth is tribal. The book explores this quite a bit: one study even found that people in an MRI machine exposed to challenges to deeply-held views impinging on group identity had their brains react the same way as to a physical threat! Our group membership really is that important to us.
- For that reason, people tend to be impervious to logical arguments countering their views (they also likely have other sources for their own arguments, which they trust more). People leaving hate groups or conspiracy theory communities don’t tend to do it because they’ve been talked out of their group’s beliefs. Instead, they feel less welcome in their group, or begin to feel welcomed in another, and a change of allegiance allows them to change their views.
- The book never really squares this with the fact that many people do in fact hold beliefs counter to their dominant social identification, sometimes even beliefs they wish they didn’t hold. And of course, once you move beyond the most hot-button, heated political and social issues, people convince each other of things with facts all the time.
- A useful model for how people evaluate arguments is the “central route” vs the “peripheral route.” If someone has reason to pay close attention, they use the central route, and critically evaluate the strength of arguments. If the issue isn’t that important to them, or they’re distracted, they use the peripheral route, where weak arguments, emotional appeals, etc., are more likely to succeed.
- A bit of countervailing evidence can actually strengthen our opinions, though there is a tipping point. In one study, participants who received 10-20% negative information about their candidate supported them even more strongly than those who received none. But those who received 40-80% negative changed their minds.
- People will form group identities around literally anything, and then prefer their in-group. Researchers get participants to do this in the lab all the time, with truly meaningless “identities” such as overestimators or underestimators of the number of dots on a page.
- An interesting argument about the purpose of opinions: because none of our personal opinions are likely to impact policy (let alone our actual lives), we primarily hold them as badges of social identity and belonging. The book tries to tie this to evolutionary psychology, suggesting that social identity is the only reason we have these opinions in the first place (which I don’t think really works—humans evolved to live in small bands where your opinion probably would matter), but it’s a helpful corrective to our usual assumptions.
- Another intriguing if questionable argument is that the reason we all have lots of cognitive biases (like confirmation bias, in which we only heed information that supports our beliefs), making it hard to evaluate our own arguments—but we do a great job of finding the holes in other people’s—is that this is in fact most efficient from the group’s perspective. In other words, we evolved to argue so that the group could arrive at the best decision.
Then, there are three methods that have had some success in changing people’s minds. Here’s the one discussed most in-depth, developed by the Los Angeles LGBT center to try to convince people on specific issues:
1) Ask if someone is interested in discussing the issue, and establish rapport.
2) Ask how strongly they feel about the issue on a scale of 1-10.
3) Share a story about someone affected by the issue (whether it’s you or a third party doesn’t seem to matter).
4) Ask for a number rating again.
5) Ask why the number feels right to them.
6) Repeat their reasoning back in their own words, ask if that sounds right, repeat until they are satisfied.
7) Ask if there was a time before they felt that way, and if so, how did they arrive at their current position?
8) Listen, summarize, repeat.
9) Briefly share your personal story about how you reached your position, without arguing.
10) Ask for a final rating and wrap up.
McRaney relates several success stories with this method, which seems to center around having a non-threatening, non-judgmental conversation about an issue, and catalyzing the other person’s exploration of their own reasoning. Early studies have been done on just how successful the method is, suggesting that it can appreciably affect the opinions of 10% of participants in just a 10-20 minute conversation (which in electoral terms, is huge).
There are definite sampling bias issues here, as those involved have consented to have the conversation in the first place (though often because vehemently opposed to the issue in question! Though interestingly, people who state their opinions vehemently then sometimes put themselves in the middle of that 1-10 range). The biggest issue with McRaney’s stories for me was that they all seem to be of people who have compelling personal reasons to change their views already (most often related to someone they care about who is personally affected), and just somehow seem to have not yet worked through that. It’s unclear whether the method only works on people in this situation, or whether McRaney just chose those stories because they seemed most compelling.
Here’s another method, called “street epistemology,” this one geared at getting people to explore their reasoning on factual claims:
1) Establish rapport, ask for consent to explore the person’s reasoning.
2) Ask them for a factual claim.
3) Repeat back in your own words until they’re satisfied with your summary.
4) Clarify their definitions, and use their definitions, not yours.
5) Ask for a numerical rating of their confidence in the claim.
6) Ask why they hold that level of confidence.
7) Ask what method they’ve used to judge the quality of their reasons, and focus the conversation on exploring their method.
8) Listen, summarize, repeat.
9) Wrap up.
I found the stories about this method even less convincing than the previous (and this one doesn’t seem to have been scientifically studied). It seems like a fun exercise for those who enjoy Socratic conversations, but even within the anecdotes cherry-picked for the book, no one actually changes their mind. McRaney tells a weird story in which he offers to demonstrate the method for a workshop participant, who proposes as a topic his (the participant’s) belief in God. The participant then shares an emotional story of why he decided to believe after struggling with doubt. McRaney promptly declares that proceeding with the exercise would take away the man’s faith and that would be wrong, at which point they quit and everybody hugs it out.
Honestly, it came across to me like McRaney just wanted to quit while he was ahead and cede the floor gracefully rather than making himself look like the bad guy. I was not at all convinced that either he or the method was nearly so powerful as he claimed. His stated reason for telling this story is that it’s important to examine why you want to convince someone of something, but he covers that far more effectively in a brief story about trying to talk his father out of a conspiracy theory. Lobbing arguments back and forth frustrated everyone, but when McRaney stopped to say “I love you and I’m worried you’re being misled,” they went on to have a productive conversation.
For completeness’s sake, here’s the third method, which has been tested primarily by political groups trying to change people’s attitudes (about vaccination, for instance):
1) Build rapport, ask for consent to explore the person’s reasoning.
2) Ask where the person is on the issue on a scale of 1-10.
3) If they’re at 1, ask: why would other people be higher on the scale? If above 1, ask: why not lower?
4) Summarize the person’s reasons in your own words until they’re satisfied that you’ve gotten it.
These methods all draw on therapeutic principles: people need to convince themselves, and they need a non-judgmental space to do it in. Arguing, hectoring and shaming won’t change someone’s views on hot-button issues—though it will change their view of you!
Definitely an interesting book overall and a worthwhile read (hence the sheer amount I’ve found helpful to write down), though some chapters feel more tangential than others. It’s rare among pop psych books in offering so much encouraging and practical information, which readers can put to use in daily life—though perhaps the biggest takeaway is that you can’t change someone’s mind without their consent, or without putting in some real work yourself.
This is a very interesting, readable, and relevant pop psychology book, including some important insights and far more actionable information than such books usually offer. Some of its claims seem unsupported and some sections feel a bit tangential, and it is focused on the most contentious issues in current American politics, but overall it’s definitely worth a read for those interested in the subject.
The book explores the science and some human-interest stories around changing minds, and also three different methods that various groups have used to notable success. First, some notes about the theory:
- As those interested in the subject likely already know, the truth is tribal. The book explores this quite a bit: one study even found that people in an MRI machine exposed to challenges to deeply-held views impinging on group identity had their brains react the same way as to a physical threat! Our group membership really is that important to us.
- For that reason, people tend to be impervious to logical arguments countering their views (they also likely have other sources for their own arguments, which they trust more). People leaving hate groups or conspiracy theory communities don’t tend to do it because they’ve been talked out of their group’s beliefs. Instead, they feel less welcome in their group, or begin to feel welcomed in another, and a change of allegiance allows them to change their views.
- The book never really squares this with the fact that many people do in fact hold beliefs counter to their dominant social identification, sometimes even beliefs they wish they didn’t hold. And of course, once you move beyond the most hot-button, heated political and social issues, people convince each other of things with facts all the time.
- A useful model for how people evaluate arguments is the “central route” vs the “peripheral route.” If someone has reason to pay close attention, they use the central route, and critically evaluate the strength of arguments. If the issue isn’t that important to them, or they’re distracted, they use the peripheral route, where weak arguments, emotional appeals, etc., are more likely to succeed.
- A bit of countervailing evidence can actually strengthen our opinions, though there is a tipping point. In one study, participants who received 10-20% negative information about their candidate supported them even more strongly than those who received none. But those who received 40-80% negative changed their minds.
- People will form group identities around literally anything, and then prefer their in-group. Researchers get participants to do this in the lab all the time, with truly meaningless “identities” such as overestimators or underestimators of the number of dots on a page.
- An interesting argument about the purpose of opinions: because none of our personal opinions are likely to impact policy (let alone our actual lives), we primarily hold them as badges of social identity and belonging. The book tries to tie this to evolutionary psychology, suggesting that social identity is the only reason we have these opinions in the first place (which I don’t think really works—humans evolved to live in small bands where your opinion probably would matter), but it’s a helpful corrective to our usual assumptions.
- Another intriguing if questionable argument is that the reason we all have lots of cognitive biases (like confirmation bias, in which we only heed information that supports our beliefs), making it hard to evaluate our own arguments—but we do a great job of finding the holes in other people’s—is that this is in fact most efficient from the group’s perspective. In other words, we evolved to argue so that the group could arrive at the best decision.
Then, there are three methods that have had some success in changing people’s minds. Here’s the one discussed most in-depth, developed by the Los Angeles LGBT center to try to convince people on specific issues:
1) Ask if someone is interested in discussing the issue, and establish rapport.
2) Ask how strongly they feel about the issue on a scale of 1-10.
3) Share a story about someone affected by the issue (whether it’s you or a third party doesn’t seem to matter).
4) Ask for a number rating again.
5) Ask why the number feels right to them.
6) Repeat their reasoning back in their own words, ask if that sounds right, repeat until they are satisfied.
7) Ask if there was a time before they felt that way, and if so, how did they arrive at their current position?
8) Listen, summarize, repeat.
9) Briefly share your personal story about how you reached your position, without arguing.
10) Ask for a final rating and wrap up.
McRaney relates several success stories with this method, which seems to center around having a non-threatening, non-judgmental conversation about an issue, and catalyzing the other person’s exploration of their own reasoning. Early studies have been done on just how successful the method is, suggesting that it can appreciably affect the opinions of 10% of participants in just a 10-20 minute conversation (which in electoral terms, is huge).
There are definite sampling bias issues here, as those involved have consented to have the conversation in the first place (though often because vehemently opposed to the issue in question! Though interestingly, people who state their opinions vehemently then sometimes put themselves in the middle of that 1-10 range). The biggest issue with McRaney’s stories for me was that they all seem to be of people who have compelling personal reasons to change their views already (most often related to someone they care about who is personally affected), and just somehow seem to have not yet worked through that. It’s unclear whether the method only works on people in this situation, or whether McRaney just chose those stories because they seemed most compelling.
Here’s another method, called “street epistemology,” this one geared at getting people to explore their reasoning on factual claims:
1) Establish rapport, ask for consent to explore the person’s reasoning.
2) Ask them for a factual claim.
3) Repeat back in your own words until they’re satisfied with your summary.
4) Clarify their definitions, and use their definitions, not yours.
5) Ask for a numerical rating of their confidence in the claim.
6) Ask why they hold that level of confidence.
7) Ask what method they’ve used to judge the quality of their reasons, and focus the conversation on exploring their method.
8) Listen, summarize, repeat.
9) Wrap up.
I found the stories about this method even less convincing than the previous (and this one doesn’t seem to have been scientifically studied). It seems like a fun exercise for those who enjoy Socratic conversations, but even within the anecdotes cherry-picked for the book, no one actually changes their mind. McRaney tells a weird story in which he offers to demonstrate the method for a workshop participant, who proposes as a topic his (the participant’s) belief in God. The participant then shares an emotional story of why he decided to believe after struggling with doubt. McRaney promptly declares that proceeding with the exercise would take away the man’s faith and that would be wrong, at which point they quit and everybody hugs it out.
Honestly, it came across to me like McRaney just wanted to quit while he was ahead and cede the floor gracefully rather than making himself look like the bad guy. I was not at all convinced that either he or the method was nearly so powerful as he claimed. His stated reason for telling this story is that it’s important to examine why you want to convince someone of something, but he covers that far more effectively in a brief story about trying to talk his father out of a conspiracy theory. Lobbing arguments back and forth frustrated everyone, but when McRaney stopped to say “I love you and I’m worried you’re being misled,” they went on to have a productive conversation.
For completeness’s sake, here’s the third method, which has been tested primarily by political groups trying to change people’s attitudes (about vaccination, for instance):
1) Build rapport, ask for consent to explore the person’s reasoning.
2) Ask where the person is on the issue on a scale of 1-10.
3) If they’re at 1, ask: why would other people be higher on the scale? If above 1, ask: why not lower?
4) Summarize the person’s reasons in your own words until they’re satisfied that you’ve gotten it.
These methods all draw on therapeutic principles: people need to convince themselves, and they need a non-judgmental space to do it in. Arguing, hectoring and shaming won’t change someone’s views on hot-button issues—though it will change their view of you!
Definitely an interesting book overall and a worthwhile read (hence the sheer amount I’ve found helpful to write down), though some chapters feel more tangential than others. It’s rare among pop psych books in offering so much encouraging and practical information, which readers can put to use in daily life—though perhaps the biggest takeaway is that you can’t change someone’s mind without their consent, or without putting in some real work yourself.
May 7, 2022
I read both of McRaney's previous books and enjoyed the journeys they took through typical cognitive fallacies. It is good to occasionally flip one's thinking upside down, and McRaney does this in a deep and intuitive way in this book. McRaney wanted to find out how people with strong convictions flipped over into a new way of thinking. He examines Deep Canvassing and Social Epistomology, two different ways of talking with and listening to people so they can understand others' perspectives. He talks to people like Megan Phelps-Roper, who left the Westboro Baptist Church (and has her own book, UNFOLLOW). He also talks with Charlie Veitch, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind after being on a television show that connected him with the victims' families. I liked the idea of a "tipping point" - people may invite a few new ideas in, then slowly add more until they are fully on the new side and want to know everything about it. I think many of us can relate to this, even if it's just about something innocuous like discovering a hobby or a new author to read. This book leans left, so if you're a die-hard conservative, it may not resonate with you. But who knows... something might change your mind.
July 13, 2022
I kind of binge read this one. I love to learn new things, especially about psychology, but if gets too scientific I get sleepy while reading it (which prolongs the time it takes for me to finish the book quite a bit). In this case I must say I was really delighted about the writing style. It is a perfect blend of science description in a manner that is easy to understand but also not in a way that underestimates the reader. The whole book and the authors insights are told in a story manner so we join him on a discovery adventure, which makes its really enjoyable. The added lightheartedness made it even better. Content wise I can just say: wow. This definitely gave me a lot to think about and question. It also sheds light on the not so wonderful situation the whole world seems to be in and I will definitely try to be more compassionate and kinder towards people with other opinions as well as towards myself. You might have guessed it already, but I can definitely recommend this book. Let's see how I fit it into my world view ;) And what I want to update. It kind of leaves me with a few existentiell questions...anyways before I start to muse further, I will just recommend checking the book out for yourself.
February 17, 2025
One of the best books I’ve read this year. Assuming I believe he did all his research as he says he did, and I have no reason to believe he didn’t (which is also kind of one of the points of the book), it answers a lot of questions for me about how is it that people can be so blindly loyal to 45, so committed to white supremacy, so adamant about vaccines, etc. I can say I genuinely feel a great deal more compassion for them than I did before and that I’m more open to being challenged myself on what I believe.
Also, I don’t count this as a spoiler because you can Google it, but I had no idea there were still people who believed the world was flat! I was surprised at how easily I could see their perspective too.
Book was easy to read and enjoyable and instructive. That’s as good as it gets for me. I think it’s a great book for anyone to read, but I would especially love to see this taught as part of required college reading globally. Perhaps we’d have less war and more understanding or a lot more people capable of and open to critical thinking.
Also, I don’t count this as a spoiler because you can Google it, but I had no idea there were still people who believed the world was flat! I was surprised at how easily I could see their perspective too.
Book was easy to read and enjoyable and instructive. That’s as good as it gets for me. I think it’s a great book for anyone to read, but I would especially love to see this taught as part of required college reading globally. Perhaps we’d have less war and more understanding or a lot more people capable of and open to critical thinking.
July 22, 2022
I saw David McRaney on the Modern Wisdom podcast (episode 493) and thought it was one of the most fascinating conversations I’d heard on the show. I have to be honest though; the book didn’t live up to that.
There was a lot of good information in this book, but it was thinly-spread jam between thick pads of bread that I could have happily done without. The majority of this book was given to long, often repeating conversations with enlightened and clever leftists who had developed ways to help conservatives realise how flawed their arguments were.
It turns out that these step-by-step processes can be used to help people uncover flaws in their own reasoning. These techniques could be equally applied to arguments of the left, of course, but this was never discussed.
Chapter 6 “The Truth is Tribal” and Chapter 9 “Street Epistemology” contain a wealth of information that’s worth the price of the book. As for the rest of it - try the podcast.
To cut a very long story short - you’ll never change anyone’s cherished beliefs by presenting them with facts, logic and clever argument. If you ever try to argue somebody out of their beliefs, they’ll just change how they feel about you.
There was a lot of good information in this book, but it was thinly-spread jam between thick pads of bread that I could have happily done without. The majority of this book was given to long, often repeating conversations with enlightened and clever leftists who had developed ways to help conservatives realise how flawed their arguments were.
It turns out that these step-by-step processes can be used to help people uncover flaws in their own reasoning. These techniques could be equally applied to arguments of the left, of course, but this was never discussed.
Chapter 6 “The Truth is Tribal” and Chapter 9 “Street Epistemology” contain a wealth of information that’s worth the price of the book. As for the rest of it - try the podcast.
To cut a very long story short - you’ll never change anyone’s cherished beliefs by presenting them with facts, logic and clever argument. If you ever try to argue somebody out of their beliefs, they’ll just change how they feel about you.
July 31, 2025
A couple things are important to know about this book. One is that the author is not a psychologist. He is a podcaster and his only degree is in journalism. This means he is great at talking to people but sometimes not great at evaluating the information provided by the few experts he has chosen to talk to. The other thing is that he is talking about a very narrow category of persuasion - one on one, with someone who is open to having a conversation. The techniques described include deep canvasing, street epistemology, Smart Politics. Those are not terribly helpful in a classroom setting (why I picked this book up) or when responding to someone who is determined to not only hold onto their belief but also attack yours.
The most interesting part of the book for me were the interviews with Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 truther, and former members of the Westboro Baptist Church. They explain why they think they held onto their former beliefs so tightly, and what it was that enabled them to let go. And in most cases it wasn't anything that someone on the outside did or said, it was conflicts within the group itself that caused them to leave. Only after they split from the group did their minds start to change about the group's beliefs.
This, unfortunately, leads McRaney to promote tribalism as a reason why people adopt the opinions that they do. He doesn't seem to consider intersectionality at all, or wonder what happens when people belong to multiple groups with different ideas. As evidence that "truth is tribal," he cites the studies of Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram, and the Robbers Cave kid experiment. He seems to be unaware those were all later revealed to be either flawed studies or misreported in the press. In the Asch studies, the vast majority of participants were willing to go against the consensus. In the Robbers Cave experiment, the kids had wanted to play together but the adults had insisted on competitive play, faked attacks from the other side to cause tension, and finally called off the experiment when the kids became friends anyway. When replicated, Milgrim's experiment sometimes results in the majority of participators acting against their conscience, and other times it doesn't.
What his advice boils down to is that you can't use facts to convince someone to change their mind about personal beliefs. All you can do is establish rapport, focus on their personal experiences, and eventually, maybe, they will talk themselves into changing their own mind.
The most interesting part of the book for me were the interviews with Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 truther, and former members of the Westboro Baptist Church. They explain why they think they held onto their former beliefs so tightly, and what it was that enabled them to let go. And in most cases it wasn't anything that someone on the outside did or said, it was conflicts within the group itself that caused them to leave. Only after they split from the group did their minds start to change about the group's beliefs.
This, unfortunately, leads McRaney to promote tribalism as a reason why people adopt the opinions that they do. He doesn't seem to consider intersectionality at all, or wonder what happens when people belong to multiple groups with different ideas. As evidence that "truth is tribal," he cites the studies of Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram, and the Robbers Cave kid experiment. He seems to be unaware those were all later revealed to be either flawed studies or misreported in the press. In the Asch studies, the vast majority of participants were willing to go against the consensus. In the Robbers Cave experiment, the kids had wanted to play together but the adults had insisted on competitive play, faked attacks from the other side to cause tension, and finally called off the experiment when the kids became friends anyway. When replicated, Milgrim's experiment sometimes results in the majority of participators acting against their conscience, and other times it doesn't.
What his advice boils down to is that you can't use facts to convince someone to change their mind about personal beliefs. All you can do is establish rapport, focus on their personal experiences, and eventually, maybe, they will talk themselves into changing their own mind.
November 6, 2022
قرأت لـ"ديفيد مكريني" كتابين سابقين، امتازا بجمال العرض. فصول قصيرة يعرض كل واحدٍ منها مفهوماً محدداً؛ بياناً ودليلا ومثالاً.
تمنيت لو مضى هذا الكتاب على نسق سابقيه. لكنه خيّب ظني في إسهابه واستخدامه لأسلوبٍ "غلادوِلي" لم يُجِده. أقصد النسبة لأسلوب الكاتب "مالكولم جلادوِل". وهو أسلوب يُغرق الفكرة في قصص مطولة.
يبحث الكتاب في الكيفية التي تتغيّر فيها أفكار الشخص، بادئا بما يجعل المرء متشبثا بأفكاره، مغاليا في ثقته، رافضا ما يخالفه. ثم يمضي بدراسة الحالات البينية التي تهيئه لتغيير رأيه وتبديله بذاته أو تحت تأثير الرأي الجدل أو الإغواء أو المجتمع. ويصل الكتاب بقارئه إلى فصل يتحدث عن التغيير الاجتماعي، بصورته الأكبر والأوضح.
في الكتاب كثير من المفاهيم التي تستحق التفكّر، بآحادها لا بمجملها وصورتها العامة.
والكتاب بمجمله لا يرقى فكرة ولا طرحا ولا أسلوبا إلى مستوى سابقيه.
تمنيت لو مضى هذا الكتاب على نسق سابقيه. لكنه خيّب ظني في إسهابه واستخدامه لأسلوبٍ "غلادوِلي" لم يُجِده. أقصد النسبة لأسلوب الكاتب "مالكولم جلادوِل". وهو أسلوب يُغرق الفكرة في قصص مطولة.
يبحث الكتاب في الكيفية التي تتغيّر فيها أفكار الشخص، بادئا بما يجعل المرء متشبثا بأفكاره، مغاليا في ثقته، رافضا ما يخالفه. ثم يمضي بدراسة الحالات البينية التي تهيئه لتغيير رأيه وتبديله بذاته أو تحت تأثير الرأي الجدل أو الإغواء أو المجتمع. ويصل الكتاب بقارئه إلى فصل يتحدث عن التغيير الاجتماعي، بصورته الأكبر والأوضح.
في الكتاب كثير من المفاهيم التي تستحق التفكّر، بآحادها لا بمجملها وصورتها العامة.
والكتاب بمجمله لا يرقى فكرة ولا طرحا ولا أسلوبا إلى مستوى سابقيه.
November 28, 2022
I spotted this book a few weeks back as it really is up my alley - but even with a lot of such books on my shelf I felt this had a lot to offer.
The approach is hard to explain - its at once eclectic and focussed. McRaney's initial chapters are just as much about why people hold different opinions at all, and how deep those differences are - which is almost as fascinating as science of persuasion itself.
In terms of specifically talking about Changing Minds the arguments contained in this book are sensitive open minded and intriguing. While the general consensus of the book is pro-science and left leaning I would say that the intent is to create useful dialogue overall and the final chapter which includes case-studies about discussing God felt really very humane and respectful. Even the final scenario - which depicted the author's debate with a famous flat-earther is not portrayed as an embarrassing gotcha! own! type scenario but rather an example of keeping an open mind and treating people with value.
Whether you're reading to get into politics, therapy, speaking with your family members, or indeed blogging, I feel this is vital reading. Really liked this book.
The approach is hard to explain - its at once eclectic and focussed. McRaney's initial chapters are just as much about why people hold different opinions at all, and how deep those differences are - which is almost as fascinating as science of persuasion itself.
In terms of specifically talking about Changing Minds the arguments contained in this book are sensitive open minded and intriguing. While the general consensus of the book is pro-science and left leaning I would say that the intent is to create useful dialogue overall and the final chapter which includes case-studies about discussing God felt really very humane and respectful. Even the final scenario - which depicted the author's debate with a famous flat-earther is not portrayed as an embarrassing gotcha! own! type scenario but rather an example of keeping an open mind and treating people with value.
Whether you're reading to get into politics, therapy, speaking with your family members, or indeed blogging, I feel this is vital reading. Really liked this book.
January 1, 2023
This is an absolutely fascinating book. McRaney is an exceptionally clear writer and a compelling story teller. He does not present himself as the expert but as learner-in-chief eager to share what he has gleaned from the experts. He’s not dogmatic or smug, but curious and humble.
I did not agree with everything he wrote (in some cases I profoundly disagreed), and I wish he had left out the occasional strong offensive language, but I found this book profoundly helpful and insightful not only on the subject of personal persuasion and mind-change, but also in explaining and accounting for the swift large-scale national-level change of mind we’ve seen in recent years.
I did not agree with everything he wrote (in some cases I profoundly disagreed), and I wish he had left out the occasional strong offensive language, but I found this book profoundly helpful and insightful not only on the subject of personal persuasion and mind-change, but also in explaining and accounting for the swift large-scale national-level change of mind we’ve seen in recent years.
January 3, 2023
Is this Malcolm gladwell's book? No . Oh sorry I thought it is . Because it is not about how minds change . It is like a novel or sth !! The author just keeps telling us stories . What the heck?? I thought this is a scientific book . I'm very disappointed
Want to read
February 5, 2021The author recently spoke about this (as yet unreleased) book on Michael Taft’s Deconstructing Yourself podcast. Although my expectations were low after hearing David’s bio (I’m not usually a fan of so popularly-titled books as his first two), I was impressed with his clarity of thinking and obvious command of what we might call post-rational psychology. Enough to put this book into my “want to read” bucket.
February 19, 2024
Ready to discuss this with The Graham Leggat!
Excellent book. Gave me a lot to think about and gave various techniques to engage with people who have different views.
This year, I’m aiming to read books that will educate me on Palestinian history, books that will help me understand my father, and 500+ page books so I receive praise for being a smarticle! This book falls under category #2.
I will need to continue to practice that empathy for my father’s convictions. He is looking for confirmation of his fears and anxiety and has found it online. His current community, place, and friendships now make it even harder for him to admit that he could be wrong. So he only plunges deeper.
This book challenged my beliefs a lot and made me think deeply about what I feel is certain. I learned that certainty is emotion-based, not fact-based, and can change at the drop of a hat. This type of social science is really interesting and I hope to read more books like this!
Excellent book. Gave me a lot to think about and gave various techniques to engage with people who have different views.
This year, I’m aiming to read books that will educate me on Palestinian history, books that will help me understand my father, and 500+ page books so I receive praise for being a smarticle! This book falls under category #2.
I will need to continue to practice that empathy for my father’s convictions. He is looking for confirmation of his fears and anxiety and has found it online. His current community, place, and friendships now make it even harder for him to admit that he could be wrong. So he only plunges deeper.
This book challenged my beliefs a lot and made me think deeply about what I feel is certain. I learned that certainty is emotion-based, not fact-based, and can change at the drop of a hat. This type of social science is really interesting and I hope to read more books like this!
June 13, 2024
I am surprised at this book. I think sometimes the book misses some nuance about things, but it did change my mind about changing minds.
I think at the bottom line is all people seek community and all people can be understood. Changing minds doesn't happen over night but some mind changes can happen fairly quick.
I would recommend this book because I do think it gives some good fundamentals on how to chat about things with fundamental disagreement.
Overall a great listening book that makes you think. I think I would've struggled to read this one. At times it is hard to want to listen to as well.
I think at the bottom line is all people seek community and all people can be understood. Changing minds doesn't happen over night but some mind changes can happen fairly quick.
I would recommend this book because I do think it gives some good fundamentals on how to chat about things with fundamental disagreement.
Overall a great listening book that makes you think. I think I would've struggled to read this one. At times it is hard to want to listen to as well.
September 30, 2022
All consultants and politicians should read this.
April 6, 2023
Fascinating, strangely uplifting, very measured and hugely readable. Recommend!
September 19, 2022
“I feel I change my mind all the time. And I sort of feel that's your responsibility as a person, as a human being – to constantly be updating your positions on as many things as possible. And if you don't contradict yourself on a regular basis, then you're not thinking.”
― Malcolm Gladwell
“Understanding how your own mind operates frees you to become the person you truly are.
Your mind wants to keep you safe... but only according to the rules it has learned.
True freedom comes when you learn to choose to change your beliefs rather than running on default.”
― Monty Ritchings
Why do people cling to beliefs when all around them are signs that things are broken? Why all of a sudden are things like cigarette smoking bad while homosexuality isn't so bad? Sometimes it seems like we are stuck in a rut of entrenched belief structures, but once in a while huge changes in attitudes can come out of the blue. How do even the most stubbornly certain people eventually change their minds, and is there anything the rest of us can do to bring them around?
These are some of the questions looked at in a fascinating new book, How Minds Change, by David McRaney. Mr. McRaney is a science journalist and author of a best-seller and blog titled You Are Not So Smart. He produces a podcast that interviews scientists about the psychology of reasoning, decision-making, and judgment. The topic of how we think and decide is one of my favorites, and this book doesn't disappoint as it looks at why some people change and others don't.
McRaney tells the story of several people who left cult-like belief systems, including some members of the gay-hating Westboro church and a 9/11 truther who was ostracized by his community of questioners when he started to agree that the scientists were right about how the twin towers fell. When these people finally came around, they were cut off from their communities, which is one reason people don't like to change their mind too much- the threat of ostracism is a life or death threat from the days of early mankind. We need each other so much that we're willing to put up with absurd or authoritarian leadership rather than rock the boat and risk being kicked out. It reminded me of the Republican congressman from Buffalo who changed his mind on gun control after the horrific mass shooting there, only to be shunned by members of his own party and forced to drop out of his re-election bid.
We have a lot of good reasons for sticking with our guns, even in the face of conflicting information. Our cognitive biases serve us well in that regard. Confirmation bias helps us only look at information that agrees with our current assumptions, while the backfire effect makes us even more certain of our positions when presented with conflicting information. And naive realism makes us believe that those who disagree with us are only lacking the facts that we have, and if we show them our facts they should immediately change their opinion.
McRaney discusses the example of "The Dress", a photograph that broke the internet. Because of the odd lighting of the photograph, some people saw it as gold and white, while others saw it as blue and black (which was the actual color). Many arguments came about because of honest perceptual differences in that picture, and it's a fascinating story. The lesson of "The Dress" is that our brains hate uncertainty, and when we see things that are unclear or ambiguous, as that poor quality photograph portrayed, we make things up based on past experiences and current assumptions. Some saw that photo and saw one thing- others saw it very differently. From their own viewpoints, neither side was completely wrong, but obviously our brain is imperfect in the perceptions and models that it comes up with.
Our brains construct models of reality based on our previous experiences. In that regard, there is no "reality" besides the millions of models inside of our brains. When we see things that conflict with our models, they cause a disequilibrium and force us to do one of three things. We can assimilate that new information into our models if it isn't too threatening, we can accommodate that new information by revising our models, or we can reject the new information by discounting its source. In these days of information overload, we often choose the third option to save time and energy, because conflicting and disturbing things are hitting on us every day. Sometimes the simplest models are the strongest, but rarely are they the best. We live in a complex and interconnected world, and building models that take all of that into account is a long, demanding, and constant process.
McRaney devotes and entire chapter to Westboro Baptist Church and its hateful protests of funerals with their anti-gay messages. I found it fascinating that the founder Fred Phelps, whose children now run the church, may have been excommunicated towards the end of his life because he had a revelation that gay people weren't so bad after all. The paradigm shift on LGBT Americans was so swift and overwhelming that it took a lot of people by surprise, and the two politicians in the middle of it, Barack Obama and George W Bush both did surprising 180's on the subject in the course of a few years.
Humans are social beings, and our mental paradigms are more and more controlled by our tribal allegiances. The problem with tribal allegiances is that they punish the people outside of the tribe, denoting a "them" category upon which distrust, hate, and conspiracy theories can be dumped. The only way around this tribalism, which reinforces itself with threats of ostracism, is by emphasizing multiple levels of tribes and not putting all of your eggs in one basket. Thus a Trump supporter could also be considered a Yankees fan, a father, a union member, a Grateful Dead fan, or one of many other significant tribes that balance out his allegiances. This balancing act and willingness to explore other groups is what saved several of the main subjects of this book- they began relationships outside of their tribe and had the perspective to be able to see their old tribe in a new light.
McRaney highlights several techniques that are showing promise in changing minds- specifically from cult-like groups stuck in airtight conspiracy theories to more accepting groups. These include.
- Motivational Interviewing. This has worked wonders in overcoming vaccine skeptics and is popular with counselors dealing with a lot of bad habits. It uses compassionate dialogue to help people get to the root of their motivations and make positive behavior changes.
- Deep Canvassing. This is a fairly new technique that has been used door to door in campaigns to help people understand why they feel the way they do and become open to other experiences. The canvasser, rather than ask what you believe, asks how do you feel about this topic and why do you feel this way, hoping to get them to go back to significant experiences and stories that molded their beliefs. By asking open-ended questions, building rapport, and sharing their own stories around a topic, this technique has been proven to make lasting change in beliefs, specifically around LGBT attitudes, which is where it was first attempted.
- Street epistemology. This is not necessarily an attempt to change a mind to a desired result, but more an attempt to strengthen thought by inviting participants to look at a deeply held belief and uncover the reasoning behind it. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and this promising technique invites participants to look at what they think they know a bit more deeply through honest, respectful conversations that establish rapport and ask people to dive deep and justify where their beliefs came from. There are videos of this technique on You Tube that show the process in depth.
Want to change minds? Here's what doesn't work:
-Graphs, charts and numbers
-Yelling and arguing
-Threats to identity
-Talking down to people
-Deception
-Appeals to external authorities, higher powers, or just recognize the facts
Here's what does work: (Warning, you may end up changing your own mind)
- Rapport, empathy, and friendship plus person to person contact
- Persistence
- Open-ended questions
- Personal stories that show where you're coming from
- Respectful introspection
- Transparency and a genuine desire to build understanding
We all like to think that we're rational, but we're more emotional that we'd like to believe. We'd like to think that we know things, but in reality we're ignorant of the many, many things that we don't know, including why one picture of a dress can confuse us so much. Society has seen some big swings in beliefs regarding cigarettes, LGBT issues, religion, race and gender issues, and climate change, but somehow we still remain stalemated on stubborn blocks that divide and polarize us. In order to make progress, techniques like the ones described in this book will be essential if we're ever to arrive at a national consensus on important things and avoid a descent into chaos or authoritarianism.
This is an important look at a big topic. I also recommend the author's other two books, You are Not So Smart and You are Now Less Dumb, both of which look at how we process our beliefs and attitudes.
― Malcolm Gladwell
“Understanding how your own mind operates frees you to become the person you truly are.
Your mind wants to keep you safe... but only according to the rules it has learned.
True freedom comes when you learn to choose to change your beliefs rather than running on default.”
― Monty Ritchings
Why do people cling to beliefs when all around them are signs that things are broken? Why all of a sudden are things like cigarette smoking bad while homosexuality isn't so bad? Sometimes it seems like we are stuck in a rut of entrenched belief structures, but once in a while huge changes in attitudes can come out of the blue. How do even the most stubbornly certain people eventually change their minds, and is there anything the rest of us can do to bring them around?
These are some of the questions looked at in a fascinating new book, How Minds Change, by David McRaney. Mr. McRaney is a science journalist and author of a best-seller and blog titled You Are Not So Smart. He produces a podcast that interviews scientists about the psychology of reasoning, decision-making, and judgment. The topic of how we think and decide is one of my favorites, and this book doesn't disappoint as it looks at why some people change and others don't.
McRaney tells the story of several people who left cult-like belief systems, including some members of the gay-hating Westboro church and a 9/11 truther who was ostracized by his community of questioners when he started to agree that the scientists were right about how the twin towers fell. When these people finally came around, they were cut off from their communities, which is one reason people don't like to change their mind too much- the threat of ostracism is a life or death threat from the days of early mankind. We need each other so much that we're willing to put up with absurd or authoritarian leadership rather than rock the boat and risk being kicked out. It reminded me of the Republican congressman from Buffalo who changed his mind on gun control after the horrific mass shooting there, only to be shunned by members of his own party and forced to drop out of his re-election bid.
We have a lot of good reasons for sticking with our guns, even in the face of conflicting information. Our cognitive biases serve us well in that regard. Confirmation bias helps us only look at information that agrees with our current assumptions, while the backfire effect makes us even more certain of our positions when presented with conflicting information. And naive realism makes us believe that those who disagree with us are only lacking the facts that we have, and if we show them our facts they should immediately change their opinion.
McRaney discusses the example of "The Dress", a photograph that broke the internet. Because of the odd lighting of the photograph, some people saw it as gold and white, while others saw it as blue and black (which was the actual color). Many arguments came about because of honest perceptual differences in that picture, and it's a fascinating story. The lesson of "The Dress" is that our brains hate uncertainty, and when we see things that are unclear or ambiguous, as that poor quality photograph portrayed, we make things up based on past experiences and current assumptions. Some saw that photo and saw one thing- others saw it very differently. From their own viewpoints, neither side was completely wrong, but obviously our brain is imperfect in the perceptions and models that it comes up with.
Our brains construct models of reality based on our previous experiences. In that regard, there is no "reality" besides the millions of models inside of our brains. When we see things that conflict with our models, they cause a disequilibrium and force us to do one of three things. We can assimilate that new information into our models if it isn't too threatening, we can accommodate that new information by revising our models, or we can reject the new information by discounting its source. In these days of information overload, we often choose the third option to save time and energy, because conflicting and disturbing things are hitting on us every day. Sometimes the simplest models are the strongest, but rarely are they the best. We live in a complex and interconnected world, and building models that take all of that into account is a long, demanding, and constant process.
McRaney devotes and entire chapter to Westboro Baptist Church and its hateful protests of funerals with their anti-gay messages. I found it fascinating that the founder Fred Phelps, whose children now run the church, may have been excommunicated towards the end of his life because he had a revelation that gay people weren't so bad after all. The paradigm shift on LGBT Americans was so swift and overwhelming that it took a lot of people by surprise, and the two politicians in the middle of it, Barack Obama and George W Bush both did surprising 180's on the subject in the course of a few years.
Humans are social beings, and our mental paradigms are more and more controlled by our tribal allegiances. The problem with tribal allegiances is that they punish the people outside of the tribe, denoting a "them" category upon which distrust, hate, and conspiracy theories can be dumped. The only way around this tribalism, which reinforces itself with threats of ostracism, is by emphasizing multiple levels of tribes and not putting all of your eggs in one basket. Thus a Trump supporter could also be considered a Yankees fan, a father, a union member, a Grateful Dead fan, or one of many other significant tribes that balance out his allegiances. This balancing act and willingness to explore other groups is what saved several of the main subjects of this book- they began relationships outside of their tribe and had the perspective to be able to see their old tribe in a new light.
McRaney highlights several techniques that are showing promise in changing minds- specifically from cult-like groups stuck in airtight conspiracy theories to more accepting groups. These include.
- Motivational Interviewing. This has worked wonders in overcoming vaccine skeptics and is popular with counselors dealing with a lot of bad habits. It uses compassionate dialogue to help people get to the root of their motivations and make positive behavior changes.
- Deep Canvassing. This is a fairly new technique that has been used door to door in campaigns to help people understand why they feel the way they do and become open to other experiences. The canvasser, rather than ask what you believe, asks how do you feel about this topic and why do you feel this way, hoping to get them to go back to significant experiences and stories that molded their beliefs. By asking open-ended questions, building rapport, and sharing their own stories around a topic, this technique has been proven to make lasting change in beliefs, specifically around LGBT attitudes, which is where it was first attempted.
- Street epistemology. This is not necessarily an attempt to change a mind to a desired result, but more an attempt to strengthen thought by inviting participants to look at a deeply held belief and uncover the reasoning behind it. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and this promising technique invites participants to look at what they think they know a bit more deeply through honest, respectful conversations that establish rapport and ask people to dive deep and justify where their beliefs came from. There are videos of this technique on You Tube that show the process in depth.
Want to change minds? Here's what doesn't work:
-Graphs, charts and numbers
-Yelling and arguing
-Threats to identity
-Talking down to people
-Deception
-Appeals to external authorities, higher powers, or just recognize the facts
Here's what does work: (Warning, you may end up changing your own mind)
- Rapport, empathy, and friendship plus person to person contact
- Persistence
- Open-ended questions
- Personal stories that show where you're coming from
- Respectful introspection
- Transparency and a genuine desire to build understanding
We all like to think that we're rational, but we're more emotional that we'd like to believe. We'd like to think that we know things, but in reality we're ignorant of the many, many things that we don't know, including why one picture of a dress can confuse us so much. Society has seen some big swings in beliefs regarding cigarettes, LGBT issues, religion, race and gender issues, and climate change, but somehow we still remain stalemated on stubborn blocks that divide and polarize us. In order to make progress, techniques like the ones described in this book will be essential if we're ever to arrive at a national consensus on important things and avoid a descent into chaos or authoritarianism.
This is an important look at a big topic. I also recommend the author's other two books, You are Not So Smart and You are Now Less Dumb, both of which look at how we process our beliefs and attitudes.
February 7, 2025
The introduction to this book says, "...When the pressure to adapt increases, the pace of evolution increases in response. Over long timescales, a pattern emerges, long stretches of sameness punctuated by periods of rapid change. Looking at the history of social change, revolution, and innovation, it seemed like the same pattern..." What troubles me about this is that there is no moral compass referenced to determine whether or not the "social change" is a good thing. It's simply done to follow the masses. We have certainly learned by now that just because a majority decides on something doesn't mean it is necessarily beneficial (or right or good).
The Deep Canvassing chapter was interesting and painful - mostly for the majority of issues Fleischer chooses to champion. I really wish they would have focused on the racial issues, which are by far the most worthwhile cited in the chapter. Fleischer and his people would be excellent ACLU poster children. I wasn't aware that people were knocking doors using charisma and charm to preach the gospel of pro-LGBTQ, abortion, and having a great deal of success with their brand of 21st-century enlightenment.
The deep canvassing chapter repeats often LAB's mission of eliminating prejudice (i.e. opposition to anything they're canvassing for). Said prejudice is, of course, solely due to irrational emotional response. What a social conservative will always come up against (if allowed an opinion at all) is observing no difference whatever between "discriminating against" and "refusing to endorse" certain behaviors/actions/lifestyles. These are always posited as synonymous. If you are socially conservative, then you are a bigot. I struggle with that equation; because they're not the same thing. Not even close. It is possible to oppose behaviors - even social behaviors - for reasons other than sheer prejudice. Towards the end of the chapter, canvassing was happening for healthcare reform, criminal justice, climate change, immigration, and vaccine hesitancy. I wonder if these issues are allowed opposition without the categorical certainty that anyone opposed to them might be anything other than prejudiced. Let's hope so.
Having come to the Westboro chapter, it's clear that McRaney is definitely demonstrating one extreme or the other, and nearly all of his focus is on the LGBTQ+ community. Two options for thinking here: extreme bigoted self-righteous jerk or sympathetic open-minded supporter of gay marriage, transexual lifestyles, etc. The bummer is that when McRaney throws in Westboro with the Southern Baptist he grew up with, nothing good came out of it.
If only Christians could get across/understand that while no sin can be condoned (not even and especially not our own personal favorites), neither can we hate our brother or sister for succumbing to sins that we don't happen to struggle with. I don't expect to be endorsed or lauded as a liar or a thief - though I certainly have been both - any more than I'd expect another Christian to praise homosexual behavior under the guise of "Jesus said love everyone".
It is certainly possible to love people without loving their sin or pretending it's okay. I just wish McRaney would show that there are decent people who are Christians just as there are LGBTQ+ folks who can be horrible. The good, the bad, and the ugly are in every last human being, no matter how we're categorized. No group has a monopoly. I liked that the Westboro chapter walks through Megan's and Zach's transitions, but then it gets polarized again - Zach saying, "They are all humans to me, and they all deserve protection under the law." I just hate the implication here, that unless one endorses the LGBTQ+ behavior, one cannot support their rights. Huh? It is possible to support rights under the law without endorsing the behavior. I don't support pedophilia, but I believe in their right to a fair trial and a court-appointed attorney. That doesn't mean I have to be the appointed defense attorney.
I loved the Arguing chapter, which in essence describes how/why we don't know what we think we know - particularly when it comes to ourselves. I liked learning more about confirmation bias and cognitive predisposition. If it weren't so sad, I'd have laughed about the "anthropological" section that carefully explains that our early ancestors spent most of their time in leaves eating trees. It is fascinatingly tragic to see how immediately theories morph into dead certainty...which means that McRaney effectively, though unintentionally, illustrated his own point about jumping to conclusions and basing it on so-called evidence and reason. My favorite part of this chapter was that when subjects thought justifications weren't their own, they rejected their own former bad arguments and switched back to the correct answer. That is certainly fascinating to learn about oneself! I suspect I've done that a lot.
Probably my favorite chapter was Street Epistemology. That one was just gripping and intriguing, and I'd like to logon to Anthony Magnabosco's YouTube stuff called Discord and watch some of his interviews. I think it'd offer fascinating insights.
A lot of the Social Change chapter, I could have done without altogether. It's an entire chapter of surmise compiled by an atheist, presenting theories as facts. Categories used to make sense of LGBTQ+ attitudes needed to be "updated to accommodate" (presumably to accommodate the now-enlightened masses). It was interesting to read how informal contact changes prejudices. Why must all objections be categorically dismissed as prejudice? This just drives me CRAZY.
The chapter wraps up with a blood-curdling relative moralist quote that helps sum up the book's premise: "No status quo is eternal." He might as well have written, "God is dead." It was noteworthy to me that though McRaney is an atheist (I think he says that in the book?), he just can't bring himself to destroy the guy's belief in God at the end of the book. Why might that be? Sigh.
The Deep Canvassing chapter was interesting and painful - mostly for the majority of issues Fleischer chooses to champion. I really wish they would have focused on the racial issues, which are by far the most worthwhile cited in the chapter. Fleischer and his people would be excellent ACLU poster children. I wasn't aware that people were knocking doors using charisma and charm to preach the gospel of pro-LGBTQ, abortion, and having a great deal of success with their brand of 21st-century enlightenment.
The deep canvassing chapter repeats often LAB's mission of eliminating prejudice (i.e. opposition to anything they're canvassing for). Said prejudice is, of course, solely due to irrational emotional response. What a social conservative will always come up against (if allowed an opinion at all) is observing no difference whatever between "discriminating against" and "refusing to endorse" certain behaviors/actions/lifestyles. These are always posited as synonymous. If you are socially conservative, then you are a bigot. I struggle with that equation; because they're not the same thing. Not even close. It is possible to oppose behaviors - even social behaviors - for reasons other than sheer prejudice. Towards the end of the chapter, canvassing was happening for healthcare reform, criminal justice, climate change, immigration, and vaccine hesitancy. I wonder if these issues are allowed opposition without the categorical certainty that anyone opposed to them might be anything other than prejudiced. Let's hope so.
Having come to the Westboro chapter, it's clear that McRaney is definitely demonstrating one extreme or the other, and nearly all of his focus is on the LGBTQ+ community. Two options for thinking here: extreme bigoted self-righteous jerk or sympathetic open-minded supporter of gay marriage, transexual lifestyles, etc. The bummer is that when McRaney throws in Westboro with the Southern Baptist he grew up with, nothing good came out of it.
If only Christians could get across/understand that while no sin can be condoned (not even and especially not our own personal favorites), neither can we hate our brother or sister for succumbing to sins that we don't happen to struggle with. I don't expect to be endorsed or lauded as a liar or a thief - though I certainly have been both - any more than I'd expect another Christian to praise homosexual behavior under the guise of "Jesus said love everyone".
It is certainly possible to love people without loving their sin or pretending it's okay. I just wish McRaney would show that there are decent people who are Christians just as there are LGBTQ+ folks who can be horrible. The good, the bad, and the ugly are in every last human being, no matter how we're categorized. No group has a monopoly. I liked that the Westboro chapter walks through Megan's and Zach's transitions, but then it gets polarized again - Zach saying, "They are all humans to me, and they all deserve protection under the law." I just hate the implication here, that unless one endorses the LGBTQ+ behavior, one cannot support their rights. Huh? It is possible to support rights under the law without endorsing the behavior. I don't support pedophilia, but I believe in their right to a fair trial and a court-appointed attorney. That doesn't mean I have to be the appointed defense attorney.
I loved the Arguing chapter, which in essence describes how/why we don't know what we think we know - particularly when it comes to ourselves. I liked learning more about confirmation bias and cognitive predisposition. If it weren't so sad, I'd have laughed about the "anthropological" section that carefully explains that our early ancestors spent most of their time in leaves eating trees. It is fascinatingly tragic to see how immediately theories morph into dead certainty...which means that McRaney effectively, though unintentionally, illustrated his own point about jumping to conclusions and basing it on so-called evidence and reason. My favorite part of this chapter was that when subjects thought justifications weren't their own, they rejected their own former bad arguments and switched back to the correct answer. That is certainly fascinating to learn about oneself! I suspect I've done that a lot.
Probably my favorite chapter was Street Epistemology. That one was just gripping and intriguing, and I'd like to logon to Anthony Magnabosco's YouTube stuff called Discord and watch some of his interviews. I think it'd offer fascinating insights.
A lot of the Social Change chapter, I could have done without altogether. It's an entire chapter of surmise compiled by an atheist, presenting theories as facts. Categories used to make sense of LGBTQ+ attitudes needed to be "updated to accommodate" (presumably to accommodate the now-enlightened masses). It was interesting to read how informal contact changes prejudices. Why must all objections be categorically dismissed as prejudice? This just drives me CRAZY.
The chapter wraps up with a blood-curdling relative moralist quote that helps sum up the book's premise: "No status quo is eternal." He might as well have written, "God is dead." It was noteworthy to me that though McRaney is an atheist (I think he says that in the book?), he just can't bring himself to destroy the guy's belief in God at the end of the book. Why might that be? Sigh.
March 9, 2024
In “How Minds Change,” David McRaney invites readers into his own mind, as he curiously uncovers - through conversations with experts, conspiracy theorists, and professional mind-changers - the conditions that cause someone to shift their perspective.
McRaney cooks his thesis like someone outlining a constellation in the sky; one insight leads to the next, until a multi-layered thesis shines. Given the book’s narrative structure, the reader’s point of view feels like riding sidecar to a collegial friend on his nerdy, intellectual joy ride.
What I appreciate most about this book is its radicalism in challenging common, ineffective persuasion strategies we often see in modern society, like yelling, shaming, vilifying, and dismissing, which ultimately breed more polarization. This is a book filled with ideas and tools that - if internalized by the reader - have potential to have deep healing power on a societal level. (Unfortunately, using the tools requires deep self-awareness, empathy, and patience — qualities that many people in today’s world seem to be running short on.)
Like a lot of pop psych books, some of McRaney’s conclusions in “How Minds Change” may seem intuitive in retrospect, but I’m confident I couldn’t have posited them so clearly on my own. To that extent, I really appreciate the fresh structure this book brought to my understanding of people’s relationships to their opinions.
McRaney cooks his thesis like someone outlining a constellation in the sky; one insight leads to the next, until a multi-layered thesis shines. Given the book’s narrative structure, the reader’s point of view feels like riding sidecar to a collegial friend on his nerdy, intellectual joy ride.
What I appreciate most about this book is its radicalism in challenging common, ineffective persuasion strategies we often see in modern society, like yelling, shaming, vilifying, and dismissing, which ultimately breed more polarization. This is a book filled with ideas and tools that - if internalized by the reader - have potential to have deep healing power on a societal level. (Unfortunately, using the tools requires deep self-awareness, empathy, and patience — qualities that many people in today’s world seem to be running short on.)
Like a lot of pop psych books, some of McRaney’s conclusions in “How Minds Change” may seem intuitive in retrospect, but I’m confident I couldn’t have posited them so clearly on my own. To that extent, I really appreciate the fresh structure this book brought to my understanding of people’s relationships to their opinions.
December 28, 2022
Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable, pragmatic, and informative listen. I thought the points were well-made and well-supported. And, this is in line with learnings gleaned from Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind."
Key learnings:
The only way to change a mind is through the heart; facts don't do it, and even once a mind is changed only rarely will a person realize that they didn't always think that way.
We are more likely to be open to changing our minds if we don't feel under threat or judged. One must be willing to say that they are wrong, and that becomes harder to do when their reputation, livelihood, or place in the community is at stake.
Debates are dangerous — it is a zero-sum game. Instead of asking who is right, “we should ask ourselves why we see things differently. This creates a collaborative environment.” Then, both sides work together to find out where their differences come from. Collaboration begets trust.
Key learnings:
The only way to change a mind is through the heart; facts don't do it, and even once a mind is changed only rarely will a person realize that they didn't always think that way.
We are more likely to be open to changing our minds if we don't feel under threat or judged. One must be willing to say that they are wrong, and that becomes harder to do when their reputation, livelihood, or place in the community is at stake.
Debates are dangerous — it is a zero-sum game. Instead of asking who is right, “we should ask ourselves why we see things differently. This creates a collaborative environment.” Then, both sides work together to find out where their differences come from. Collaboration begets trust.
April 23, 2024
This book helped me understand the deep intricacies behind beliefs and opinions which shed light on the shortcomings of our societies obsession with debate. In a world that’s becoming ever more polarised in opinion, this book is a masterclass in reconnection and understanding.
Some of the concepts were hard for me to visualise at first. Changing the goal of a conversation from ‘I’m going to change your mind’ to ‘I’m going to get to know you and help you understand your own reasoning’ is easier said than done, but explained so well in this book.
I will certainly be reflecting on some of the lessons shared by David McRaney for some time to come. And next time I interact with someone who has an opinion I oppose, I might just approach them in a less combative way… maybe.
Some of the concepts were hard for me to visualise at first. Changing the goal of a conversation from ‘I’m going to change your mind’ to ‘I’m going to get to know you and help you understand your own reasoning’ is easier said than done, but explained so well in this book.
I will certainly be reflecting on some of the lessons shared by David McRaney for some time to come. And next time I interact with someone who has an opinion I oppose, I might just approach them in a less combative way… maybe.
May 27, 2025
Geweldig. Als ik het 6 sterren kon geven had ik het gedaan. Dit is er zo eentje die je jaarlijks opnieuw leest.
Misschien wel het beste psychologieboek wat ik ooit gelezen heb, beter en belangrijker dan alles wat ik in 5,5 jaar aan de universiteit heb gelezen.
Eigenlijk zou iedereen dit moeten lezen, scheelt zoveel nutteloze discussie’s die niks bijdragen aan het daadwerkelijk veranderen van de meningen van mensen.
Misschien wel het beste psychologieboek wat ik ooit gelezen heb, beter en belangrijker dan alles wat ik in 5,5 jaar aan de universiteit heb gelezen.
Eigenlijk zou iedereen dit moeten lezen, scheelt zoveel nutteloze discussie’s die niks bijdragen aan het daadwerkelijk veranderen van de meningen van mensen.
January 16, 2023
Read this book for book club and really enjoyed it. The science got a little dense for me at times, and I think the book would've benefitted from the inclusion more content and social science experiments related to women, other countries, non-western religions, etc. Though, admittedly, I'm not sure that research even exists. In our Istanbul-based feminist book club, we kept wondering, does this hold true for women? Does this group behavior follow the same trajectory in collective cultures? That being said, the book gets 5 stars from me for demystifying the logic of conspiracy theorists and inspiring me to be more humble, empathetic, and listen-y to people with beliefs, opinions, and attitudes I don't really understand.
April 6, 2024
3.7 stars rounded up.
A really interesting read however, I found the balance between anecdote and fact leaning too much towards the anecdotes. I'd rather like my non-fiction to be heavier on the factual. Still, very enjoyable.
A really interesting read however, I found the balance between anecdote and fact leaning too much towards the anecdotes. I'd rather like my non-fiction to be heavier on the factual. Still, very enjoyable.
October 25, 2022
Aanrader! Hoe komt het dat de ene persoon tot een andere conclusie komt op basis van dezelfde feiten? Hoe kan het dat het lijkt alsof je nooit iemand kunt overtuigen met feiten? En hoe kan het dat het sommigen toch lukt om bijvoorbeeld uit een sekte te stappen ondanks dat we allemaal confirmation bias hebben?
De auteur praat met allemaal experts die verschillende methodes hebben ontwikkeld om het gesprek aan te gaan met anders denkenden. Deep canvassing, street epistemology, flat earthers, 9/11 deniers, maar ook "the dress that broke the internet" komen voorbij.
Echt interessant, ik ga nog eens al mijn notities doorlezen.
De auteur praat met allemaal experts die verschillende methodes hebben ontwikkeld om het gesprek aan te gaan met anders denkenden. Deep canvassing, street epistemology, flat earthers, 9/11 deniers, maar ook "the dress that broke the internet" komen voorbij.
Echt interessant, ik ga nog eens al mijn notities doorlezen.
October 8, 2022
I’m a huge fan of his podcast and the book certainly didn’t disappoint. Timely and thoughtful on how to have meaningful conversations seeking understanding of the viewpoints of others & thereby having a dialogue that may find common ground.
May 3, 2024
Not sure about whether all of the studies included in this are credible, but it gets four stars for how entertaining it was to listen to while at work. I was sad to finish it! I will say, though, that I did find it kind of iffy that it's just kind of assumed that all of the author's beliefs, and the ones of the people he interviews that are also left wing, have 'correct' beliefs, and everyone else has 'incorrect' beliefs that need to be changed. The beliefs that are questioned are far enough out there that they fit for the general audience of this book (i.e, flat earthers, 911 deniers), but I felt that the scepticism could have been extended to everyone, including the author. I'm constantly questioning my own beliefs, I think we all should, and I don't think we should fall into the trap of thinking everyone across the political spectrum to us are 100% wrong and in need of converting and that we're 100% right.
December 21, 2023
A good pop sociology book on mindset and change.
May 14, 2024
McRaney debunks the popular sentiments behind how to persuade and get across to others. The importance we place on reason and factual evidence fails to tailor to our neural systems, where beliefs are intrinsically tied to identity and community. Fascinating that challenging beliefs sparked our fight or flight response and triggered activity in our default mode network responsible for our ego and self-referential thinking--our attitudes and beliefs become a psychological extension of ourselves.
Notes:
Certainty masquerades as a systematically derived conclusion that we arrive at intentionally, but it's actually an emotion beneath our conscious mind.
Affective tipping point--where cognitive dissonance builds to a threshold we can no longer tolerate and we must switch from assimilating anomalous ideas to reconstructing our schema in order to accommodate them (mind change)
McRaney brings up a study that showed presenting lower levels of challenging evidence actually strengthened existing views
Context heavily influences how we even process and pay attention to information that can then be used to persuade us (central vs peripheral route).
Our brains create our reality based on prior knowledge; we expect to see and interpret what we have experienced in the past. We cannot see what we don't know.
Cultural "mind changes" happen not because of the novelty or exceptionalism of a new idea, but due to the right conditions in our social networks. With enough members with low enough thresholds for conformity and just the right connections between clusters, status-quo disrupting cascades can occur with anyone.
Notes:
Certainty masquerades as a systematically derived conclusion that we arrive at intentionally, but it's actually an emotion beneath our conscious mind.
Affective tipping point--where cognitive dissonance builds to a threshold we can no longer tolerate and we must switch from assimilating anomalous ideas to reconstructing our schema in order to accommodate them (mind change)
McRaney brings up a study that showed presenting lower levels of challenging evidence actually strengthened existing views
Context heavily influences how we even process and pay attention to information that can then be used to persuade us (central vs peripheral route).
Our brains create our reality based on prior knowledge; we expect to see and interpret what we have experienced in the past. We cannot see what we don't know.
Cultural "mind changes" happen not because of the novelty or exceptionalism of a new idea, but due to the right conditions in our social networks. With enough members with low enough thresholds for conformity and just the right connections between clusters, status-quo disrupting cascades can occur with anyone.
March 12, 2022
David McRaney did it once again, and I’d be shocked if this wasn’t one of the top books of 2022. David was kind enough to send me an early copy of the book, and I was obsessed with it. I read a ton of books about how minds change, why people get stuck in their beliefs and the thinking errors that lead people to resist new information. With that said, this book was completely unique on so many different levels. Not only did David have a ton of great interviews with people I’d never heard of before like street epistemologists, but he also discussed a bunch of psychological studies I was unfamiliar with. Aside from diving into the psychology of how we change minds, he also had a really in-depth chapter on neuroscience and why we see thinks differently than others, and how some of this research may help decrease polarization.
I don’t want to spoil any of the details of this book, but if you want to learn how to have better conversations and the proven methods for talking with difficult people, you need this book as soon as it launches.
I don’t want to spoil any of the details of this book, but if you want to learn how to have better conversations and the proven methods for talking with difficult people, you need this book as soon as it launches.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 512 reviews