What do you think?
Rate this book
Don't Talk About Politics: How to Change 21st-Century Minds
Democracy is dying because we are clinging to a dangerous and outdated myth: talking about politics can change people's minds. It doesn't.
This provocative debut from a bold new voice combines a fascinating range of research to show us the psychological and sociological factors that really shape our politics.
Drawing from ancient philosophy to modern neuroscience and social science, Dr Sarah Stein Lubrano reveals the surprising truth about how people think and behave politically. From friendship to community organizing and social infrastructure, she explores the actions that actually do change minds.
In a world where politics keeps getting more irrational, dishonest, violent and chaotic, it's getting much harder to reach people with words alone. So people who really care about democracy must ask: how can we stop arguing and do the deep work to build stronger foundations for political life, and a better world for us all?
This provocative debut from a bold new voice combines a fascinating range of research to show us the psychological and sociological factors that really shape our politics.
Drawing from ancient philosophy to modern neuroscience and social science, Dr Sarah Stein Lubrano reveals the surprising truth about how people think and behave politically. From friendship to community organizing and social infrastructure, she explores the actions that actually do change minds.
In a world where politics keeps getting more irrational, dishonest, violent and chaotic, it's getting much harder to reach people with words alone. So people who really care about democracy must ask: how can we stop arguing and do the deep work to build stronger foundations for political life, and a better world for us all?
288 pages, Hardcover
Published July 22, 2025
66 people are currently reading
1455 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
July 14, 2025
The phrase “don’t talk about politics” has come under fire recently, as people question whether it is a positive thing to avoid awkwardness for the sake of goodness, where the awkwardness might get someone to reconsider their beliefs, or how their opinion hurts someone they otherwise love.
This book is not part of that. Rather it affirms the title: do not talk about politics. Talking about politics does nothing, in particular affecting people's political views. People do not change their mind. Or rather they do, but the facts shape the position rather than the position following the facts (i.e. it is okay when we do it).
Partially a book on cognitive science, it looks at the conventional wisdom about how people form and articulate their beliefs, specifically the set of metaphors (the marketplace of ideas first and foremost) of how those beliefs work in the political sphere (itself a metaphor). It then dismembers those positions, from a position of social science in researching how political opinions work (a lot of cognitive dissonance) and the ways that the metaphors are flawed. How we talk about politics is not free of idealolgy itself, and often results in mistaking the map for the territory.
It is a strong, even devastating, argument. Everything you know is wrong. But the book fails to stick the landing.
The chapters operate independently of one another, which is mostly good, but it produces some oddities. It feels as if the chapter on Xitter is either the book that the author wanted to write, and the rest just foreplay, or that it belongs somewhere else entirely, probably about the role of technology in social movements, for good and for ill. Xitter comes up because the book is trying to land on a solution, and using Xitter as a negative example.
The core of the problem here has come up before. On one hand, we have what I would refer to as Enlightenment virtues. Civil society, rule of law, small-l liberal democracy, meritocratic government, free speech, equality rights: the list is not conclusive, maybe even arguable, but you get the program. This is what a certain brand of conservative would label Western democracy and a certain brand of liberal would label the good society.
Everyone likes the Enlightenment virtues. But the more science, and the more history, you pick up, the more errors and contradictions that show up. But hold on there a moment, Curtis Yarvin, this does not suggest the whole thing is worth junking. We, and by we here I mean the section of the populace whose has a sane ethics that is informed by the Enlightenment virtues - admittedly not the people in charge of the U.S. currently and their Polemarchian vibe - want to fix it. Everyone wants the Enlightenment, no one wants the Colonialism that fueled it.
This is the singular philosophical challenge of the hour, so no surprise that the author cannot resolve it. But there is the outline of a solution, which has to do with action and infrastructure, the latter of which is why Xitter becomes relevant. Doing, and chains of self-identification arising out of group identification, seem to be the most empirically-proven ways to bring about changes in political opinion. You are what you do; you are who you associate with, ergo curating that brings about new ways of thinking.
This also brings out the surprisingly strong chapter about loneliness. Like the Xitter chapter it feels a bit out of place, but the overall quality is worth it. The author treats the loneliness epidemic as a misnomer (or insufficiently evidenced) to focus on social atrophy. The danger is not the miasma of feeling alone, but the sort of lingering psychological costs of it, even when it was a temporary condition.
This is a striking idea, not one that I hear discussed often, and rings true to my own experience. It has major ramifications for the how of a solution, to look not only at people getting to belong, but focusing in on the mechanisms that provide for ways for people to belong. This gets summed up as infrastructure: how do you create the material things, that in tern lead to the social groups, that bring about the change of opinion.
The author clocks the flaw, which is that someone has to take out the garbage. Someone, somewhere, is in control, and can use that control to achieve particular ends. A nationalized project has the same flaws as a privatized one, just with alternate risks. So we start with a strong thesis that gets diffused into hedging. I think there are some secondary problems (read the opening of Times Square Red, Times Square Blue and circle back to me) unaddressed, too.
I still like it as a read. It is funny, and the information and research it relays is useful. It is just too ambitious, and the author too honest.
My thanks to the author, Sarah Stein Lubrano, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Bloomsbury, for making the ARC available to me.
This book is not part of that. Rather it affirms the title: do not talk about politics. Talking about politics does nothing, in particular affecting people's political views. People do not change their mind. Or rather they do, but the facts shape the position rather than the position following the facts (i.e. it is okay when we do it).
Partially a book on cognitive science, it looks at the conventional wisdom about how people form and articulate their beliefs, specifically the set of metaphors (the marketplace of ideas first and foremost) of how those beliefs work in the political sphere (itself a metaphor). It then dismembers those positions, from a position of social science in researching how political opinions work (a lot of cognitive dissonance) and the ways that the metaphors are flawed. How we talk about politics is not free of idealolgy itself, and often results in mistaking the map for the territory.
It is a strong, even devastating, argument. Everything you know is wrong. But the book fails to stick the landing.
The chapters operate independently of one another, which is mostly good, but it produces some oddities. It feels as if the chapter on Xitter is either the book that the author wanted to write, and the rest just foreplay, or that it belongs somewhere else entirely, probably about the role of technology in social movements, for good and for ill. Xitter comes up because the book is trying to land on a solution, and using Xitter as a negative example.
The core of the problem here has come up before. On one hand, we have what I would refer to as Enlightenment virtues. Civil society, rule of law, small-l liberal democracy, meritocratic government, free speech, equality rights: the list is not conclusive, maybe even arguable, but you get the program. This is what a certain brand of conservative would label Western democracy and a certain brand of liberal would label the good society.
Everyone likes the Enlightenment virtues. But the more science, and the more history, you pick up, the more errors and contradictions that show up. But hold on there a moment, Curtis Yarvin, this does not suggest the whole thing is worth junking. We, and by we here I mean the section of the populace whose has a sane ethics that is informed by the Enlightenment virtues - admittedly not the people in charge of the U.S. currently and their Polemarchian vibe - want to fix it. Everyone wants the Enlightenment, no one wants the Colonialism that fueled it.
This is the singular philosophical challenge of the hour, so no surprise that the author cannot resolve it. But there is the outline of a solution, which has to do with action and infrastructure, the latter of which is why Xitter becomes relevant. Doing, and chains of self-identification arising out of group identification, seem to be the most empirically-proven ways to bring about changes in political opinion. You are what you do; you are who you associate with, ergo curating that brings about new ways of thinking.
This also brings out the surprisingly strong chapter about loneliness. Like the Xitter chapter it feels a bit out of place, but the overall quality is worth it. The author treats the loneliness epidemic as a misnomer (or insufficiently evidenced) to focus on social atrophy. The danger is not the miasma of feeling alone, but the sort of lingering psychological costs of it, even when it was a temporary condition.
This is a striking idea, not one that I hear discussed often, and rings true to my own experience. It has major ramifications for the how of a solution, to look not only at people getting to belong, but focusing in on the mechanisms that provide for ways for people to belong. This gets summed up as infrastructure: how do you create the material things, that in tern lead to the social groups, that bring about the change of opinion.
The author clocks the flaw, which is that someone has to take out the garbage. Someone, somewhere, is in control, and can use that control to achieve particular ends. A nationalized project has the same flaws as a privatized one, just with alternate risks. So we start with a strong thesis that gets diffused into hedging. I think there are some secondary problems (read the opening of Times Square Red, Times Square Blue and circle back to me) unaddressed, too.
I still like it as a read. It is funny, and the information and research it relays is useful. It is just too ambitious, and the author too honest.
My thanks to the author, Sarah Stein Lubrano, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Bloomsbury, for making the ARC available to me.
July 4, 2025
A well-written, carefully argued debut. I love debating and argument more than anyone, but I am convinced that even the perfect argument can't cut through the modern media environment. This book explains why that happened and how to change it.
September 7, 2025
The points made in this book by Sarah Stein Lubrano may for some people seem counterintuitive—they also are spot on. Stein Lubrano illustrates that logical arguments made from any point of view are essentially dead on arrival in the ears of others (even for those who agree with the speaker)—at best they're seen as mere virtue signalling, whether from a patriotic, economic, or social justice perspective. The reason, the author explains, is that what people consider to be straight up common sense (even though it may be exactly that) is ultimately based on visceral feelings much more than reasoned logic—that's true for all of us, whether or not we admit it. Throughout the book Stein Lubrano addresses ways in which we can change minds that do not involve fruitless argumentative appeals.
The solution ultimately lies in having common experiences. A salient example that Stein Lubrano offers is that of going on a protest—the author notes however that these experiences affect the protester much more than the entity addressed in the protest (the effect of protest is more from a show of force in numbers, rather than a convincing argument regardless of how well founded). To meet the challenge of persuasion Stein Lubrano asserts that a "social infrastructure" is crucial to fostering meaningful social interaction and combating social atrophy. Our social infrastructure has been atrophying at a rapid pace with the advancement of finanicalized capitalism and diminished public spaces where people have regular inadvertent interactions with one another. Stein Lubrano calls these "third spaces"—places that are neither the workplace, which is too hierarchical, nor the home, which is too private. Examples would be pubs or bars, music venues, parks, libraries, or the playground in front of a school.
I would have welcomed more practical suggestions from the author to further reverse social atrophy. As long as the current regime of neoliberal economics, nationalist religion, and authoritarian societal culture is dominant, chances are slim that the essential third spaces will become available. What we can do is further utilize the third spaces we currently have such as they are. With so many people living on their mobile devices to the exclusion of direct personal interaction, perhaps those devices could be leveraged to facilitate more in-person meetups of people with shared interests in, for example, cycling or dogs or cats (fill in your own interests here). These seemingly non-political facets of life are the glue that can bond people for practical political change for the better. We'll all do well to not squander the influence we have, no matter how small we think it is—it's time to seriously flap your butterfly wings.
The solution ultimately lies in having common experiences. A salient example that Stein Lubrano offers is that of going on a protest—the author notes however that these experiences affect the protester much more than the entity addressed in the protest (the effect of protest is more from a show of force in numbers, rather than a convincing argument regardless of how well founded). To meet the challenge of persuasion Stein Lubrano asserts that a "social infrastructure" is crucial to fostering meaningful social interaction and combating social atrophy. Our social infrastructure has been atrophying at a rapid pace with the advancement of finanicalized capitalism and diminished public spaces where people have regular inadvertent interactions with one another. Stein Lubrano calls these "third spaces"—places that are neither the workplace, which is too hierarchical, nor the home, which is too private. Examples would be pubs or bars, music venues, parks, libraries, or the playground in front of a school.
I would have welcomed more practical suggestions from the author to further reverse social atrophy. As long as the current regime of neoliberal economics, nationalist religion, and authoritarian societal culture is dominant, chances are slim that the essential third spaces will become available. What we can do is further utilize the third spaces we currently have such as they are. With so many people living on their mobile devices to the exclusion of direct personal interaction, perhaps those devices could be leveraged to facilitate more in-person meetups of people with shared interests in, for example, cycling or dogs or cats (fill in your own interests here). These seemingly non-political facets of life are the glue that can bond people for practical political change for the better. We'll all do well to not squander the influence we have, no matter how small we think it is—it's time to seriously flap your butterfly wings.
August 28, 2025
BOOK REVIEW: Don’t Talk About Politics, by Sarah Stein Lubranoby (08.26.25)
This book aims to address the polarization and futility of modern political discourse by advocating for new strategies of persuasion and understanding. For me the book offered little that feels new, insightful, or practical. My overall impression is that this book is a self-indulgent attempt to remain relevant in a crowded genre and/or the work of someone seeking to be an “influencer”. The tone oscillates between condescending and performative, and the author’s repeated appeals to her own insight rarely translate into actionable or original guidance.
Lubranoby argues that political arguments rarely change minds and often entrench existing divisions. As one that has been in the trenches as the general counsel to my own political party, I agree! However, her proposed remedies seem trite. Her central thesis is that effective persuasion in the 21st century politics requires:
• Avoiding direct political confrontation.
• Focusing on shared values rather than policy positions.
• Using storytelling and personal narratives instead of data or statistics.
• Practicing deep listening and empathy as tools of influence.
These principles are grounded in familiar communication strategies and behavioral science research, but the author fails to add much depth or innovation. In fact, many of her suggestions—like “find common ground” or “tell a personal story”—are well-worn advice repeated in everything from TED Talks to self-help blogs.
The book suffers from overuse of personal anecdotes and self-referential stories, many of which feel more like attempts to showcase the author’s social acumen than illuminate the topic. What could have been a practical guide ends up reading more like a memoir of failed conversations.
While Lubranoby's intentions may be good, and the book is written with polish, the content lacks the intellectual rigor, originality, or even memorable case studies to justify its claims. In the end, it’s more about how she feels about political talk than how we might improve it.
Quotes:
“You’re not going to change anyone’s mind by winning an argument. You might win the moment, but you’ll lose the relationship.”
“Politics today is not about policy—it’s about identity. So if you challenge someone’s political beliefs, you’re not just disagreeing with them. You’re threatening who they think they are.”
This book aims to address the polarization and futility of modern political discourse by advocating for new strategies of persuasion and understanding. For me the book offered little that feels new, insightful, or practical. My overall impression is that this book is a self-indulgent attempt to remain relevant in a crowded genre and/or the work of someone seeking to be an “influencer”. The tone oscillates between condescending and performative, and the author’s repeated appeals to her own insight rarely translate into actionable or original guidance.
Lubranoby argues that political arguments rarely change minds and often entrench existing divisions. As one that has been in the trenches as the general counsel to my own political party, I agree! However, her proposed remedies seem trite. Her central thesis is that effective persuasion in the 21st century politics requires:
• Avoiding direct political confrontation.
• Focusing on shared values rather than policy positions.
• Using storytelling and personal narratives instead of data or statistics.
• Practicing deep listening and empathy as tools of influence.
These principles are grounded in familiar communication strategies and behavioral science research, but the author fails to add much depth or innovation. In fact, many of her suggestions—like “find common ground” or “tell a personal story”—are well-worn advice repeated in everything from TED Talks to self-help blogs.
The book suffers from overuse of personal anecdotes and self-referential stories, many of which feel more like attempts to showcase the author’s social acumen than illuminate the topic. What could have been a practical guide ends up reading more like a memoir of failed conversations.
While Lubranoby's intentions may be good, and the book is written with polish, the content lacks the intellectual rigor, originality, or even memorable case studies to justify its claims. In the end, it’s more about how she feels about political talk than how we might improve it.
Quotes:
“You’re not going to change anyone’s mind by winning an argument. You might win the moment, but you’ll lose the relationship.”
“Politics today is not about policy—it’s about identity. So if you challenge someone’s political beliefs, you’re not just disagreeing with them. You’re threatening who they think they are.”
August 19, 2025
We have all likely found out debating politics leads to nothing but thinking your opponent is a dunce, so I was interested to read for an alternative. The first few chapters here go over things we likely know, that no one changes their mind from "facts" flying at them. I really enjoyed the last few chapters, which focused on community, keeping people in community with others who likely won't be just like them, getting out of our isolation individualist bubbles and how that all actually can change a mind. As an extreme introvert who grew up isolated, I find people terrifying but so important to connect with. I seek out community engagement for myself and my children whenever I can, because I know this will lead to healthier lives and healthier opinions on the world.
Read
December 22, 2025The reason I am not giving this book five stars is that it is well deserving of six. It's safe to say I completely underestimated the lasting power of this book and was floored by the end of it. Stein Lubrano is one of the few writers out there who write about these topics and actually know their stuff. She recites quotes from politicians and thinkers she may not agree with whilst not making it seem overly biased against that particular viewpoint: in theory, this book is not biased towards any media conglomerate/party and is mainly giving the real facts and truth of the situation. Definitely will be in my top 10 books for 2025.
September 27, 2025
A bit dry in places but has some revolutionary practical ideas for engaging in politics in 2025 and explains why things are, to put it bluntly, fucked.
July 19, 2025
*Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for the free copy*
A dissecting review on politics as of late and the discussions between political affiliations- I didn’t feel too strongly about this book, and it might be because I’ve already read a dozen or so others that have more or less said the same thing. An alright book, though the style of writing felt very dry.
A dissecting review on politics as of late and the discussions between political affiliations- I didn’t feel too strongly about this book, and it might be because I’ve already read a dozen or so others that have more or less said the same thing. An alright book, though the style of writing felt very dry.
August 7, 2025
Don't Talk About Politics by Sarah Stein Lubrano is an informative book that offers ideas on making change in the world, yet the impact can sneak up on you.
A lot of what is mentioned here has been covered before, and she cites many of the books that have mentioned it. More importantly, and what sets it apart, is that Lubrano cites the research that has informed all of these ideas and explains that research in ways that make it hard to dismiss.
It is easy to be complacent while reading this and think you've read all this before and thus have nothing to gain. I'd recommend not taking the easy route and instead actually engage with the points made, figure out how and where you could start utilizing this information rather than pat yourself on the back for having read yet another book that discusses our political (and social/cultural as well) environment.
This is a work that crosses many areas of thought and is tackling a very real and practical issue: how do we not just change the mind of someone else but how do we become more open-minded ourselves. While there is a lot that can be made to fit into various philosophical schools, this is not a philosophy book and never intended to try to answer any big philosophical questions. If you like to go off on tangents, I sure do, you have a lot of jumping off places to do so. But holding this book to a standard it neither cares about nor sought to attain is asinine at best. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Enjoy it and learn from it.
When I mentioned the impact can sneak up on you I was referring to the almost casual tone with which many involved ideas are expressed. You recognize some of it, you quickly grasp what you didn't know (thanks to her tone and use of analogies), and nod along. By the way, since the first act of reading is understanding what the writer is saying, you can disagree while still nodding along if they are making a coherent case. Anyway, as you near the end and you're looking at what we can do, you realize there was more to this than simply laying out the research and what it means. I find books that can do this to be few and far between.
I'll add here that I don't feel like she came down hard on the side of literally not talking about politics. First, when talking about or engaging in activity that isn't explicitly political doesn't mean you're not "talking about politics," you are. Second, there are places and times when explicitly talking about politics can be good. Not when you're wanting someone to change their minds a great deal, but when you're in a group or with a person who thinks similar to you and you exchange ideas about smaller changes in opinion or perspective.
Recommended for those wanting to figure out how to save our sinking ship. Especially those, like myself, who too often use rational arguments and forget to appeal to the many other things that contribute to what a person believes.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
A lot of what is mentioned here has been covered before, and she cites many of the books that have mentioned it. More importantly, and what sets it apart, is that Lubrano cites the research that has informed all of these ideas and explains that research in ways that make it hard to dismiss.
It is easy to be complacent while reading this and think you've read all this before and thus have nothing to gain. I'd recommend not taking the easy route and instead actually engage with the points made, figure out how and where you could start utilizing this information rather than pat yourself on the back for having read yet another book that discusses our political (and social/cultural as well) environment.
This is a work that crosses many areas of thought and is tackling a very real and practical issue: how do we not just change the mind of someone else but how do we become more open-minded ourselves. While there is a lot that can be made to fit into various philosophical schools, this is not a philosophy book and never intended to try to answer any big philosophical questions. If you like to go off on tangents, I sure do, you have a lot of jumping off places to do so. But holding this book to a standard it neither cares about nor sought to attain is asinine at best. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Enjoy it and learn from it.
When I mentioned the impact can sneak up on you I was referring to the almost casual tone with which many involved ideas are expressed. You recognize some of it, you quickly grasp what you didn't know (thanks to her tone and use of analogies), and nod along. By the way, since the first act of reading is understanding what the writer is saying, you can disagree while still nodding along if they are making a coherent case. Anyway, as you near the end and you're looking at what we can do, you realize there was more to this than simply laying out the research and what it means. I find books that can do this to be few and far between.
I'll add here that I don't feel like she came down hard on the side of literally not talking about politics. First, when talking about or engaging in activity that isn't explicitly political doesn't mean you're not "talking about politics," you are. Second, there are places and times when explicitly talking about politics can be good. Not when you're wanting someone to change their minds a great deal, but when you're in a group or with a person who thinks similar to you and you exchange ideas about smaller changes in opinion or perspective.
Recommended for those wanting to figure out how to save our sinking ship. Especially those, like myself, who too often use rational arguments and forget to appeal to the many other things that contribute to what a person believes.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
September 17, 2025
Not exactly rigorous in unpacking or sharing statistics transparently, and that kind of shorthand can be helpful if it’s to put the conversation somewhere as a starting point maybe, but the real meat of arguments here start in the final chapter. Everything beforehand, already so indirect and diluted, should have been condensed into a few paragraphs, and the real deliberations and speculation could follow. I’m kind of wary of wielding an interest in psych and sociology as a broad methodological gesture when the work itself is not very sociologically oriented?
It honestly feels like a retooled academic treatise that was deveined of the real work that went into it.
The writer is quite effective online with that content, but “we need community initiatives / they make us healthier and better democratic subjects” is such a 101 conclusion to spend an entire book vaguely featuring toward while rarely if ever citing actual studies closely. Is the audience for this book simply people who do not read? Even if so, this is the kind of argument that could be made in an hour, not with book-length unfurling.
Nothing here for most of us, I think.
It honestly feels like a retooled academic treatise that was deveined of the real work that went into it.
The writer is quite effective online with that content, but “we need community initiatives / they make us healthier and better democratic subjects” is such a 101 conclusion to spend an entire book vaguely featuring toward while rarely if ever citing actual studies closely. Is the audience for this book simply people who do not read? Even if so, this is the kind of argument that could be made in an hour, not with book-length unfurling.
Nothing here for most of us, I think.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 30, 2025
Don't *Argue About Politics (In Order to Influence Democratic Elections): A Quick Theory of How to *Bolster Support from Changeable Minds
I loved this book for its succinct criticism of debate culture and the marketplace of ideas. I found it interesting as a catalyst for talking about politics differently—more in terms of social infrastructure than theoretical debates. I grumbled at the book for breezily assuming progressive leftist values and straying pretty far from what the title and subtitle promised: Lubrano is in fact encouraging us to talk about politics (but just in a different way that avoids the direct, theoretical confrontation of debate); Lubrano does not really explain how to change 21st-century minds—she shows how the moveable middle can be galvanized toward a cause through activism and infrastructure (but of course people have to be open enough and politically "onside" enough to vote and turn out for things like union activism, public transportation, public parks, etc.)
I loved this book for its succinct criticism of debate culture and the marketplace of ideas. I found it interesting as a catalyst for talking about politics differently—more in terms of social infrastructure than theoretical debates. I grumbled at the book for breezily assuming progressive leftist values and straying pretty far from what the title and subtitle promised: Lubrano is in fact encouraging us to talk about politics (but just in a different way that avoids the direct, theoretical confrontation of debate); Lubrano does not really explain how to change 21st-century minds—she shows how the moveable middle can be galvanized toward a cause through activism and infrastructure (but of course people have to be open enough and politically "onside" enough to vote and turn out for things like union activism, public transportation, public parks, etc.)
December 25, 2025
"It is always easy, after having read something, to simply mull it over or text a friend a particularly striking passage. I hope you’ll do more: put down this book and do something in your community, or with a social movement. As I have demonstrated, much of the most important work is the steady, everyday stuff of building up the social world so people can think together. It’s hard work, yes, and less glamorous than some other gestures, but it desperately needs doing. Some activists are willing to die to prevent authoritarian governments or catastrophic climate change. But in truth, for most of us, this is the wrong way of thinking about what is required. The right one is: what are you willing to live for? Might you be willing to build things slowly, day by day?"
December 1, 2025
I would overall recommend this. It’s a quick and easy read with many good points, and good thoughts on ways we could change how (and when and where) we talk about politics in order to help persuade people. It’s a good project, and for sure something we should work on, however, it felt to me that a lot of this comes from a pretty privileged position. It’s still a good place to start and discussion that we need to have (and should have been having), but I don’t think the author really accomplished it here. There seems to be a real lack of time spent on education (it is brought up in the second half), which is a shame.
September 10, 2025
A deep and thought-provoking read. Half-way in, I feel like this book has already changed my entire conception of how humans work and what is effective in politics (likely augmented by the fact that my own lived experience suggests debate and endless information campaigning are miserable. I guessed the author proved her own point). Jokes aside, I think all progressives should read this book. Some of the things in here are invaluable.
September 5, 2025
The most glaring flaw is the blatant slant, which shines though in her treatment on Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter. She uses this as a cautionary tale of what's supposedly wrong with the "free exchange of pollical information," while painting Musk as a villain who "broke" the planform by tweaking its algorithm to boost his own visibility.
Read
December 1, 2025要は意識を変えて行動する、ではなく行動を変えると意識が変わる、と言う話。
他人を説得するだけでなくいかに最初の政治的人間になるのか。そもそも投票することだけが政治的であることなのか、それとも積極的に「より良い世界」を求めて改革を進めるべきなのか。反対運動が変化を促す上では非効率的であるとしても、少しづつ社会の構造・世論を民主的にすることで政治を変えるという意味なのか。しかし筆者の言うようにインフラを改革するには誰かが権力の側に立ち、効率的なアイディアを提示しないといけないのではないか。そういう状況下ではdebateが必要なのではないか。まだ存在しない新しい世界を考える上でどうやって体験談や行動に頼るのか。
既に読者が筆者と同じ政治的背景にあることを前提としているらしいのも踏まえると、結局は左翼がいかに右翼を政治的方向転換させるか、という問題に特化している本に思えた。
他人を説得するだけでなくいかに最初の政治的人間になるのか。そもそも投票することだけが政治的であることなのか、それとも積極的に「より良い世界」を求めて改革を進めるべきなのか。反対運動が変化を促す上では非効率的であるとしても、少しづつ社会の構造・世論を民主的にすることで政治を変えるという意味なのか。しかし筆者の言うようにインフラを改革するには誰かが権力の側に立ち、効率的なアイディアを提示しないといけないのではないか。そういう状況下ではdebateが必要なのではないか。まだ存在しない新しい世界を考える上でどうやって体験談や行動に頼るのか。
既に読者が筆者と同じ政治的背景にあることを前提としているらしいのも踏まえると、結局は左翼がいかに右翼を政治的方向転換させるか、という問題に特化している本に思えた。
December 16, 2025
A gem. Chockful of thought-provoking insights, action-oriented, and genuinely useful. A clear no nonsense guide on what truly brings us closer and how to be a decent human, friend, citizen in this rotten political era.
August 13, 2025
Een paar leuke inzichten, maar de auteur komt zeer zelfingenomen over. Ik had eigenlijk niet zoveel zin om het uit te lezen.
August 25, 2025
Yeah it was good. It was interesting to see how easily manipulated politics could be and you can tell the author did research. I think I was just uninterested at times?
September 11, 2025
An interesting insight to political debate and other human interaction.
September 16, 2025
Grounded in social psychology, this was an interesting and data-driven position on why modern political discourse is failing us. I listened to the audiobook
September 22, 2025
A book everyone ought to read to help build community and gain a deeper understanding of politics.
October 6, 2025
Really enjoyed this! Interesting take on classic myths about political debate, and how we form our political opinion. Very practical and well written.
October 28, 2025
This book is such an inspiration for anyone who feels hopeless in the face of the current political climate.
December 10, 2025
A must read
If you want to change the world, or only your trumpian neighbour’s opinion, read this first. It will tell you how to do it properly.
If you want to change the world, or only your trumpian neighbour’s opinion, read this first. It will tell you how to do it properly.
December 11, 2025
Review to come...
Want to read
December 14, 2025DMPL AUDIBLE WISH LIST Recommended by Front Table PERSONS LIBRARY AS THIRD PLACE
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews