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Democracy is dying because we are clinging to a dangerous and outdated myth: talking about politics can change people's minds.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
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 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.
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.
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.
January 20, 2026
This book should be read to debate bros and political content creators. It has put into words the frustrations I’ve had with the current political climate. As a Communist, I have been dealing with the constant rabble of how from liberals of how it was somehow our fault that Donald Trump won the 2024 election. How we have convinced people to stay home and not to vote. How pointing out and criticizing democratic candidates were the kryptonite to the election.
Turns out the phenomenon is mainly false. Turns out people who were gonna vote already made up their minds on who they were going to vote for probably since the candidates were selected since day one. They emotionally attached themselves to a candidate and made their justification later on. They made it their identity. Which explains the hostility whenever a leftist or a perceived leftist is met with anger and hostility when pointing out a flaw of a candidate.
Sarah Stein Lubrano sheds so much light on the cognitive landscape on why politics seems so hostile nowadays. She refers to studies and surveys to prove her various points about how people navigate around politics. She dispels the myth of the “market place of ideas” and this ridiculous debate culture that has risen in popularity. These concepts do not sway people. Debate has been reduced to nothing more than intellectual blood sport and the marketplace of ideas is nothing more than a delusion believing that exposure to a good idea will somehow convince people to join your side. Scientifically, it will not.
Another thing to highlight is how she brings up the topic of infrastructure. In this age of profits and economic efficiency. We are ignoring the loss of our third spaces. Communities hollowed out and the different economic classes that have been segregated due to either living in gated communities or forced to live in lower income neighborhoods. This isolation and separation has left a void in society. There is no collective community and that void is being filled with predatory, instigating, social media. Made to keep you angry, paranoid, fearful and antagonistic to others.
Lubrano masterfully weaves a tale with all these different concepts and instead of making you feel hopeless. She urges you to do something that is desperately needed: DON’T TALK ABOUT POLITICS, DO POLITICS.
Turns out the phenomenon is mainly false. Turns out people who were gonna vote already made up their minds on who they were going to vote for probably since the candidates were selected since day one. They emotionally attached themselves to a candidate and made their justification later on. They made it their identity. Which explains the hostility whenever a leftist or a perceived leftist is met with anger and hostility when pointing out a flaw of a candidate.
Sarah Stein Lubrano sheds so much light on the cognitive landscape on why politics seems so hostile nowadays. She refers to studies and surveys to prove her various points about how people navigate around politics. She dispels the myth of the “market place of ideas” and this ridiculous debate culture that has risen in popularity. These concepts do not sway people. Debate has been reduced to nothing more than intellectual blood sport and the marketplace of ideas is nothing more than a delusion believing that exposure to a good idea will somehow convince people to join your side. Scientifically, it will not.
Another thing to highlight is how she brings up the topic of infrastructure. In this age of profits and economic efficiency. We are ignoring the loss of our third spaces. Communities hollowed out and the different economic classes that have been segregated due to either living in gated communities or forced to live in lower income neighborhoods. This isolation and separation has left a void in society. There is no collective community and that void is being filled with predatory, instigating, social media. Made to keep you angry, paranoid, fearful and antagonistic to others.
Lubrano masterfully weaves a tale with all these different concepts and instead of making you feel hopeless. She urges you to do something that is desperately needed: DON’T TALK ABOUT POLITICS, DO POLITICS.
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.”
Read
May 16, 2026This was fantastic and probably the single most important political book I read in the last two years. It doesn't matter how well you understand wealth inequality, social deprivation, polarization or what have you if you don't understand the ways in which discussing these things fail to be effective, and how to remedy that.
I would particularly recommend the first 4 chapters or so, where the key problems with modern political discourse are laid out, and some of the ways to fix this malaise are explored. After that, Lubrano goes on to discuss some slightly more niche topics (i.e. specific case studies about Twitter/X) or with a more overtly political overtone - how the Left can mobilize more effectively. Of course, I am particularly sympathetic towards those ideas, but if you just want the spark notes on how to have more meaningful political relationships and understand society better, then the first chapters probably serve you better.
I am very inspired by Lubrano's work and hope I can hold a candle to her talent for synthesizing psychology, political science, philosophy and sociology in the next few years of my career.
I would particularly recommend the first 4 chapters or so, where the key problems with modern political discourse are laid out, and some of the ways to fix this malaise are explored. After that, Lubrano goes on to discuss some slightly more niche topics (i.e. specific case studies about Twitter/X) or with a more overtly political overtone - how the Left can mobilize more effectively. Of course, I am particularly sympathetic towards those ideas, but if you just want the spark notes on how to have more meaningful political relationships and understand society better, then the first chapters probably serve you better.
I am very inspired by Lubrano's work and hope I can hold a candle to her talent for synthesizing psychology, political science, philosophy and sociology in the next few years of my career.
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.
March 17, 2026
Title is highly misleading! 😄
I love books that help me put words to vague feelings I've had for a while, but never had the intellectual proficiency to articulate adequately. This is what this is is!
Really well written. With theperfect amount of repeating things to drive a point home, but not get annoying or boring.
The main idea is quite simple and I think most people already feel it's true, but haven't given it much thought. Debating, especially on political topics, is basically meaningless. Barely anyone ever changes their mind after watching or participating in a debate. A "marketplace of ideas" is likewise a meaningless metaphor for that exact same reason: political thinking and talking in a vacuum does little to change anything, including people's opinions. None of this feels especially new or insightful to read, even if it feels very very true.
What's great here is a suggestion of what is missing. The book presents a great analysis of the social tools and literal physical and architectural spaces we are missing in order to be able to have reasonable exchanges of political ideas (exchanges of ideas, not debates).
The notions of affordances and action possibilities aren't something that Sarah Stein Lubrano came up with, but this is the first place I've seen them accessibly and usefully explained in a political context. And subsequently used to suggest what can be done to improve society when looking through a lens that emphasizes what the affordances and action possibilities offered to people are.
I don't know if what's suggested as possible individual action is realistic to do for most people (I explicitly don't want to try to recreate it here, it's better you read the actual thing). However it is the first time I've seen it suggested and it's definitely something that I want to consider and try somehow.
I love books that help me put words to vague feelings I've had for a while, but never had the intellectual proficiency to articulate adequately. This is what this is is!
Really well written. With theperfect amount of repeating things to drive a point home, but not get annoying or boring.
The main idea is quite simple and I think most people already feel it's true, but haven't given it much thought. Debating, especially on political topics, is basically meaningless. Barely anyone ever changes their mind after watching or participating in a debate. A "marketplace of ideas" is likewise a meaningless metaphor for that exact same reason: political thinking and talking in a vacuum does little to change anything, including people's opinions. None of this feels especially new or insightful to read, even if it feels very very true.
What's great here is a suggestion of what is missing. The book presents a great analysis of the social tools and literal physical and architectural spaces we are missing in order to be able to have reasonable exchanges of political ideas (exchanges of ideas, not debates).
The notions of affordances and action possibilities aren't something that Sarah Stein Lubrano came up with, but this is the first place I've seen them accessibly and usefully explained in a political context. And subsequently used to suggest what can be done to improve society when looking through a lens that emphasizes what the affordances and action possibilities offered to people are.
I don't know if what's suggested as possible individual action is realistic to do for most people (I explicitly don't want to try to recreate it here, it's better you read the actual thing). However it is the first time I've seen it suggested and it's definitely something that I want to consider and try somehow.
Read
January 26, 2026this is a book that has changed my thinking in a lot of ways --- its tough but its undeniably argued. every time i found myself saying, but what about ....? she would serve up the most plain and perfect response shortly after. I felt fully engaged in conversation with the author and eventually fully bought in to the argument.
The argument being: what the hell are we all doing? we talk so much. too much. we take positions and collect rebuttals and do our hot takes and our generous reads and expose ourselves to ideas and we debate others or even worse, we watch people debate others, and we dunk on people and we compare evidence and blah blah fuckin blah. but we take those opinions and ideas but we don't do anything with them other than to make ourselves feel better about ourselves for having a well-formed opinion, the moral equivalent of taking a selfie in good lighting, it is a work of beauty I'm sure of it but it will not save us. when we send our ideas off into the world to fight other ideas in idea fights, wrestle each other, eviscerate each other, when the 'right' idea comes out on top once and for all and proves that it is the 'rightest' idea, where does that leave the actual world? where does that leave you and your family? your friends and your community? where does it leave our future?
when are we going to stop talking about the right things to do, and instead do the things? and care for people? and nurture relationships? and talk to people? and organize?
this review was brought to you by jason the book daddy i luv books
The argument being: what the hell are we all doing? we talk so much. too much. we take positions and collect rebuttals and do our hot takes and our generous reads and expose ourselves to ideas and we debate others or even worse, we watch people debate others, and we dunk on people and we compare evidence and blah blah fuckin blah. but we take those opinions and ideas but we don't do anything with them other than to make ourselves feel better about ourselves for having a well-formed opinion, the moral equivalent of taking a selfie in good lighting, it is a work of beauty I'm sure of it but it will not save us. when we send our ideas off into the world to fight other ideas in idea fights, wrestle each other, eviscerate each other, when the 'right' idea comes out on top once and for all and proves that it is the 'rightest' idea, where does that leave the actual world? where does that leave you and your family? your friends and your community? where does it leave our future?
when are we going to stop talking about the right things to do, and instead do the things? and care for people? and nurture relationships? and talk to people? and organize?
this review was brought to you by jason the book daddy i luv books
April 26, 2026
Wat een bevrijding is dit boek.
Politieke ideeën hebben pas waarde als je ze omzet in acties samen met andere mensen.
Aan alle linkse mensen in de wereld:
Stop met die focus op opiniestukken
Stop met de eindeloze discussies op de socials
En stop al helemaal met het opzetten de zoveelste denktank, waar je met gelijkgestemden een jaar lang gaat schrijven aan het nieuwe baanbrekende linkse denkwerk.
Al die energie kan je veel beter steken in de opbouw van sociale infrastructuur: samen dingen doen. En dan het liefst met mensen die niet op je lijken.
Het levert wat meer ongemak op en is stukken minder glamorous.
Maar het is wel hetgeen dat nu nodig is als we de wereld echt wat mooier willen maken.
Politieke ideeën hebben pas waarde als je ze omzet in acties samen met andere mensen.
Aan alle linkse mensen in de wereld:
Stop met die focus op opiniestukken
Stop met de eindeloze discussies op de socials
En stop al helemaal met het opzetten de zoveelste denktank, waar je met gelijkgestemden een jaar lang gaat schrijven aan het nieuwe baanbrekende linkse denkwerk.
Al die energie kan je veel beter steken in de opbouw van sociale infrastructuur: samen dingen doen. En dan het liefst met mensen die niet op je lijken.
Het levert wat meer ongemak op en is stukken minder glamorous.
Maar het is wel hetgeen dat nu nodig is als we de wereld echt wat mooier willen maken.
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.
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.
June 27, 2026
3.5 Stars.
An overall useful outline of the psychological importance of praxis vs. "pure discourse" in activist politics. The obvious scorn for the perpetually online nature of some self-described socialists is completely fair.
Interesting to read, also, with the concept of "dissimulation" in mind. There's plenty of talk of the effectiveness of peer pressure, or just the tendency to be more receptive to a perspective offered by people we trust and know in a relaxed (or at least not hostile) environment. There's talk about what triggers hostile responses. Especially, there's a focus on the cognitive dissonance of living in capitalism while being outraged and horrified over what it's doing to us and our communities. But as we experience cognitive dissonance, many of us engage in dissimulation. This "faking it to make it", outwardly feigning ideological alignment through compliant and even enthusiastic behaviours, is well-covered in Matteo Capasso's Everyday Politics in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, but such behaviour patterns exist everywhere. Granted, it's harder to do unnoticed in intimate, long-form conversations than walking around in day-to-day routine. Still, even the worst of the worst will "hide their power levels", taking superficially more palatable positions to skew the discourse so that their audience warms up to more explicitly fascistic arguments. This makes essential the caveat that the point isn't just to 'find middle ground' between diametrically opposed perspectives (fairness bias---for an entertaining example see SMBC's "Both Sides" skit). To Lubrano's credit, she explicitly warns of this tendency.
Anyway, the point is...*pokes Western left with stick* C'mon, do something! Active community-building, not abstract reasoning, is what will build a movement. You're under no obligation to reactionaries screaming "Debate me, bro!" You're better off bringing someone along for a protest, for tenant organizing, etc. By way of extended cognition, in which our engagement shapes our ideas (we, the author argues with data, have a psychological tendency to 'rationalize' in the sense of reconciling our views with what we tend to do in order to address cognitive dissonance), it's in those environments that perspectives around someone 'on the fence' will gain traction.
(See Also: If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution)
An overall useful outline of the psychological importance of praxis vs. "pure discourse" in activist politics. The obvious scorn for the perpetually online nature of some self-described socialists is completely fair.
Interesting to read, also, with the concept of "dissimulation" in mind. There's plenty of talk of the effectiveness of peer pressure, or just the tendency to be more receptive to a perspective offered by people we trust and know in a relaxed (or at least not hostile) environment. There's talk about what triggers hostile responses. Especially, there's a focus on the cognitive dissonance of living in capitalism while being outraged and horrified over what it's doing to us and our communities. But as we experience cognitive dissonance, many of us engage in dissimulation. This "faking it to make it", outwardly feigning ideological alignment through compliant and even enthusiastic behaviours, is well-covered in Matteo Capasso's Everyday Politics in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, but such behaviour patterns exist everywhere. Granted, it's harder to do unnoticed in intimate, long-form conversations than walking around in day-to-day routine. Still, even the worst of the worst will "hide their power levels", taking superficially more palatable positions to skew the discourse so that their audience warms up to more explicitly fascistic arguments. This makes essential the caveat that the point isn't just to 'find middle ground' between diametrically opposed perspectives (fairness bias---for an entertaining example see SMBC's "Both Sides" skit). To Lubrano's credit, she explicitly warns of this tendency.
Anyway, the point is...*pokes Western left with stick* C'mon, do something! Active community-building, not abstract reasoning, is what will build a movement. You're under no obligation to reactionaries screaming "Debate me, bro!" You're better off bringing someone along for a protest, for tenant organizing, etc. By way of extended cognition, in which our engagement shapes our ideas (we, the author argues with data, have a psychological tendency to 'rationalize' in the sense of reconciling our views with what we tend to do in order to address cognitive dissonance), it's in those environments that perspectives around someone 'on the fence' will gain traction.
"We shouldn't approach politics via an ideal theory, a theory that starts with the ideal, just outcome and then works its way backward. Too often, this means we might imagine a path to our ideal outcome that does not exist, or ignore paths toward other interesting points of progress. We have to accept and understand the world as it is now and consider realistically what we should do about it."
Theories of embodied cognition show that the body is the locus of thinking for much of what we do (for example, it is the seat of our emotional reactions, and these then form our judgments). This idea fits into theories of 'extended cognition', which show that our thinking happens not only in our brain and our body but also through the tools we use in the world around us. Our phones are a primary example...When I can't remember something, I no longer rack my brain: I simply pick up my phone and search for it. But it's not just our immediate technological devices that shape the way we think. Even structures such as the law organize our thinking for us....We think through our bodies, yes, but also through our social structures.
Our brains spend time predicting not only our own possible actions but also other people's, which is useful to us as social animals. We adjust to their moods, behaviours and actions in real time, without consciously thinking about it...our beliefs are shaped not only by our daily actions, but also by our unconscious evaluation of the actions available to us.
This kind of organizing [i.e. Occupy, the Arab Spring, the "Mass Protest Decade"] was made possible by social media, which affords incredibly easy mass communication, often in a non-hierarchical manner. But these exact same affordances have a downside too: people don't have to get deeply involved to join in, which means they don't necessarily create the long-term structures that can continue to be powerful even after police clear out a particular occupation.
(See Also: If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution)
April 3, 2026
A bit slow to start but I loved where she went with this. The chapter on Social Atrophy was my favorite. By the end of the book, I was feeling inspired to go about “politics” in a totally new way.
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.
May 27, 2026
Particularly good when it talks about how useless 'debate' is for changing minds and some of the stuff about how minds are changed as well. The stuff about what to do felt like nothing I've not read before
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.
Read
May 31, 2026I encountered Sarah Stein Lubrano in an interview on the London Review of Books podcast, which blew my mind a little bit. They talked about things in the same breath that are also closely related in my own mind, but don’t seem so on the surface: our culture of isolation, how the brokenness of our political life is connected to pervasive loneliness, and both are connected to practicing actual social skills and doing meaningful group work. These are my persistent, obsessive questions lately: How do we create spaces that counter isolation, where the great hazard of being together is possible? How can we make good decisions together? What skills do we need, and how do we grow them in ourselves and others?
I don’t know that I love this book. In true political theorist form, there are many moments that feel like she’s throwing things at the wall, seeing what sticks. I’m stodgy enough to wish this was more carefully argued, and to believe it would not have sacrificed the book’s points or accessible language.
But. This interview, and then the book, made me think pretty uncomfortably about why I believe what I believe, how I spend my time and why, who I hang out with and why. If so much of my psychology is bent toward making me feel good about doing what I was gonna do anyway, what options for thought and action and relationships do I give myself? How do I create those options for other people? How do I interact with people I disagree with? And how much do those disagreements matter, when enacted in the physical world and not through the keyboard? It harks a bit back to the question posed to Jesus, always underrated in its profundity: Who is my neighbor?
And I don’t know. I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know. But thinking about these questions has changed how I prioritize my life a bit, and helped me contextualize some observations I was already making about the groups I’m part of. Similar to the way Stein Lubrano takes cognitive research and applies it to questions it did not set out to answer, I’m interested in her research and ideas as they apply to Baha’i consultation and community-building rather than political activism per se. I think these ideas, as I continue engaging with them, will grow to mean something completely different to me than they did to the writer. That is the real freedom that must be granted to a changing mind.
I don’t know that I love this book. In true political theorist form, there are many moments that feel like she’s throwing things at the wall, seeing what sticks. I’m stodgy enough to wish this was more carefully argued, and to believe it would not have sacrificed the book’s points or accessible language.
But. This interview, and then the book, made me think pretty uncomfortably about why I believe what I believe, how I spend my time and why, who I hang out with and why. If so much of my psychology is bent toward making me feel good about doing what I was gonna do anyway, what options for thought and action and relationships do I give myself? How do I create those options for other people? How do I interact with people I disagree with? And how much do those disagreements matter, when enacted in the physical world and not through the keyboard? It harks a bit back to the question posed to Jesus, always underrated in its profundity: Who is my neighbor?
And I don’t know. I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know. But thinking about these questions has changed how I prioritize my life a bit, and helped me contextualize some observations I was already making about the groups I’m part of. Similar to the way Stein Lubrano takes cognitive research and applies it to questions it did not set out to answer, I’m interested in her research and ideas as they apply to Baha’i consultation and community-building rather than political activism per se. I think these ideas, as I continue engaging with them, will grow to mean something completely different to me than they did to the writer. That is the real freedom that must be granted to a changing mind.
May 1, 2026
This is a short, breezy enjoyable nonfiction read, which is basically two shorter books in one.
The first "book" is a nonfiction, more academic study of cognitive bias, behavioral psychology, and political science and how they interplay when it comes to humans response to politics. As the author hints in her title, modern humans very rarely change their opinions about politics when facing arguments to the contrary, jumping through mental hurdles to alleviate their cognitive dissonance. Why? Well, put simply, humans tie their values to their political beliefs, and if they have to admit their political beliefs are wrong, that affects their outlook on themselves and the world. So, what do they do instead? They find ways around it to stick to their original political beliefs even faced with unimpeachable evidence to the contrary.
Lubrano shines in the section of the book. The research, the cogent examples, and the elaboration are all insightful, logical, and interesting. She also explores how people's political beliefs can be changed in the modern world, i.e., joining protest movements, in-person interactions with people of varying backgrounds of which they originally perceived negative, etc. I found this portion of the book interesting, intuitive, and what I came for.
The second part of the book unfortunately took this from a 5 star read for me to 4 stars. While Lubrano generally holds the same political beliefs as me, she uses those beliefs to go into preachy territory about what needs to be done to change the world, i.e., transitioning from capitalism to a Socialist or Marxist utopia. I found the arguments for what was to be done to be unrealistic, wavering into "never going to happen" territory. I also found what she perceived as fixes to be shortsighted, not actually fixes, and ultimately pie in the sky thinking. Her chapter on Twitter/X and subsequent chapters is where this begins to happen. I don't know if those are the chapters she wanted to originally write, or perhaps the publisher encouraged her to add in some of those chapters to make the book have a little "flavor" for marketing purposes. Whatever reason for them. They are for the poorer.
I still enjoyed the book, but these chapters led me to mark down the book in comparison to other books about behavioral psychology that don't get as preachy or "fresh out of PhD" academic progressive utopia nonsense, see e.g., Superforecasting, Thinking Fast and Slow, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), etc.
4 stars.
The first "book" is a nonfiction, more academic study of cognitive bias, behavioral psychology, and political science and how they interplay when it comes to humans response to politics. As the author hints in her title, modern humans very rarely change their opinions about politics when facing arguments to the contrary, jumping through mental hurdles to alleviate their cognitive dissonance. Why? Well, put simply, humans tie their values to their political beliefs, and if they have to admit their political beliefs are wrong, that affects their outlook on themselves and the world. So, what do they do instead? They find ways around it to stick to their original political beliefs even faced with unimpeachable evidence to the contrary.
Lubrano shines in the section of the book. The research, the cogent examples, and the elaboration are all insightful, logical, and interesting. She also explores how people's political beliefs can be changed in the modern world, i.e., joining protest movements, in-person interactions with people of varying backgrounds of which they originally perceived negative, etc. I found this portion of the book interesting, intuitive, and what I came for.
The second part of the book unfortunately took this from a 5 star read for me to 4 stars. While Lubrano generally holds the same political beliefs as me, she uses those beliefs to go into preachy territory about what needs to be done to change the world, i.e., transitioning from capitalism to a Socialist or Marxist utopia. I found the arguments for what was to be done to be unrealistic, wavering into "never going to happen" territory. I also found what she perceived as fixes to be shortsighted, not actually fixes, and ultimately pie in the sky thinking. Her chapter on Twitter/X and subsequent chapters is where this begins to happen. I don't know if those are the chapters she wanted to originally write, or perhaps the publisher encouraged her to add in some of those chapters to make the book have a little "flavor" for marketing purposes. Whatever reason for them. They are for the poorer.
I still enjoyed the book, but these chapters led me to mark down the book in comparison to other books about behavioral psychology that don't get as preachy or "fresh out of PhD" academic progressive utopia nonsense, see e.g., Superforecasting, Thinking Fast and Slow, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), etc.
4 stars.
February 9, 2026
This book argues democracy is dying because we are clinging to a dangerous and outdated myth: talking about politics can change people's minds. This was extremely disheartening for me to read because I want to believe in the "marketplace of ideas", a pillar of a free society classical liberalism. Lubrano says that concept is not only ineffective, but potentially dangerous because it can give legitimacy to absurd and disturbing ideas. Unfortunately, Lubrano makes a very good argument and cites persuasive studies, which has made me question a core component of my teaching (I teach high school civics). My crisis of faith is strong enough that I will spend the next few days tracking down the studies she cites to see for myself. So I highly recommend this book for anyone who has to talk to relatives that they think are politically clueless.
Here is my slightly more detailed summary of Lubrano's argument:
Political beliefs are tied to our sense of self, making people feel threatened when challenged. When confronted with contradictory information, people experience cognitive dissonance and often double down on existing beliefs rather than changing them. What actually changes political views is lived experience. People adjust their beliefs based on direct personal experiences rather than arguments or information. Rather than debating, we need to focus on friendship, community organizing, and social infrastructure. By giving people opportunities to engage with the world differently and by repairing social wellbeing, we can open people's minds to believe differently. The solution ultimately lies in having common experiences.
Here is my slightly more detailed summary of Lubrano's argument:
Political beliefs are tied to our sense of self, making people feel threatened when challenged. When confronted with contradictory information, people experience cognitive dissonance and often double down on existing beliefs rather than changing them. What actually changes political views is lived experience. People adjust their beliefs based on direct personal experiences rather than arguments or information. Rather than debating, we need to focus on friendship, community organizing, and social infrastructure. By giving people opportunities to engage with the world differently and by repairing social wellbeing, we can open people's minds to believe differently. The solution ultimately lies in having common experiences.
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.)
April 8, 2026
This book reframed some feelings I had for some time about political discourse in general, mainly dissatisfaction at the fact that, to my eyes, it never seemed to lead anywhere.
I found the book's structure compelling and easy to follow: starting from a point of "politics as dialogue" (which is what most readers are used to, myself included), it gradually dismantles the concept and rebuilds a new, more effective one, around meaningful actions that actually lead to change.
It is a somewhat discomforting outlook, one in which it isn't enough to talk about your ideals, one in which convincing others requires effort and action. It's not that people are illogical actors, incapable of listening to reason when it's spoken to them; it's that speaking was never the solution, never the ideal.
As the author put it:
"There are (at least) two ways to love ideas: to talk about them and to live them in the world."
Or, as I would put it: you can't love an idea, unless you strive to see it realized.
I found the book's structure compelling and easy to follow: starting from a point of "politics as dialogue" (which is what most readers are used to, myself included), it gradually dismantles the concept and rebuilds a new, more effective one, around meaningful actions that actually lead to change.
It is a somewhat discomforting outlook, one in which it isn't enough to talk about your ideals, one in which convincing others requires effort and action. It's not that people are illogical actors, incapable of listening to reason when it's spoken to them; it's that speaking was never the solution, never the ideal.
As the author put it:
"There are (at least) two ways to love ideas: to talk about them and to live them in the world."
Or, as I would put it: you can't love an idea, unless you strive to see it realized.
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?"
March 8, 2026
Don’t waste your time. There is nothing new that it contributes to the sphere of what politics has become in the modern age, or new ideas on how to approach the ever growing divide.
If you’re even slightly familiar with how people will dig their heels in when shown contradicting data, you can skip this.
Sarah often argues for the complete opposite of her chapter’s titles: “act now, think later” while meandering about how actually, action doesn’t create change, citing decades old studies while ignoring recent/current examples of action that have effected large shifts in society.
Seriously, find any large YouTuber that on focuses on HISTORICAL and SCIENTIFIC politics, not some modern hack, and you’ll learn everything that’s said here in a much quicker fashion.
If you’re even slightly familiar with how people will dig their heels in when shown contradicting data, you can skip this.
Sarah often argues for the complete opposite of her chapter’s titles: “act now, think later” while meandering about how actually, action doesn’t create change, citing decades old studies while ignoring recent/current examples of action that have effected large shifts in society.
Seriously, find any large YouTuber that on focuses on HISTORICAL and SCIENTIFIC politics, not some modern hack, and you’ll learn everything that’s said here in a much quicker fashion.
June 20, 2026
I actually finished DTAP about a month ago, and that makes for a little bit different type of review that I can write about it. Less of the details about specific arguments and ideas are still with me, but I have had time to process fully. So the impressions are more vague but more significant.
The book IS well thought-out and carefully argued. Lubrano makes a good case for herself. But again, I will not be elaborating on those finer points. The overall message, as far as I could tell, was something along the lines of: "stop talking and arguing. it just makes people more divided. get to know the people near you. Do stuff. Get to know each other and each others' concerns. Build relationship. Build trust. And then the influence happens all by itself."
The book IS well thought-out and carefully argued. Lubrano makes a good case for herself. But again, I will not be elaborating on those finer points. The overall message, as far as I could tell, was something along the lines of: "stop talking and arguing. it just makes people more divided. get to know the people near you. Do stuff. Get to know each other and each others' concerns. Build relationship. Build trust. And then the influence happens all by itself."
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.
February 2, 2026
Wonderful debut from a fresh voice.
Compelling and reflected attitudes I've been looking for in political theory. My one note would be that the emphasis on infrastructure felt like a natural endpoint of the argument. While the exploration of social atrophy was interesting, it felt like an unnecessary detour driven by the author's interest rather than adding to the main argument of the book. An analysis of social atrophy could have been fleshed out a bit more in a whole other book and would've given the author more space to convey her passion on the matter.
I loved it though and the conclusion managed to bring it all together.
Compelling and reflected attitudes I've been looking for in political theory. My one note would be that the emphasis on infrastructure felt like a natural endpoint of the argument. While the exploration of social atrophy was interesting, it felt like an unnecessary detour driven by the author's interest rather than adding to the main argument of the book. An analysis of social atrophy could have been fleshed out a bit more in a whole other book and would've given the author more space to convey her passion on the matter.
I loved it though and the conclusion managed to bring it all together.
March 27, 2026
Really interesting. Lubrano makes some some very insightful arguments throughout this book, though neither the tile or the subtitle really fits. I think "Why Changing 21st Century Minds is so Difficult" may be more accurate. Loved the first 3/4 of the book, but Lubrano's conclusions/what-do-you-do-now section felt very half-baked and general... almost like she handed in the book on Friday and her editor was like: hey you forgot a conclusion, you've got until Monday. Still a great place to start for lefties and liberals at a loss about talking to people with... alternative viewpoints. (3.9 stars)
December 31, 2025
Read this book. I can’t recommend it enough. Really easy to consume and takes a great look at what actually does (and doesn’t) change people’s opinions in the long term.
Lubrano presents facts, backs them up with research, then considers how we can utilize this information in the real world (many books of this style neglect that last part).
Rarely can an author cram as much information about research into a book while maintaining an approachable narrative, but Lubrano has done it here.
I suspect I’ll return to this one many times, while also taking the ideas into the real world!
Lubrano presents facts, backs them up with research, then considers how we can utilize this information in the real world (many books of this style neglect that last part).
Rarely can an author cram as much information about research into a book while maintaining an approachable narrative, but Lubrano has done it here.
I suspect I’ll return to this one many times, while also taking the ideas into the real world!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews