I'm Right and You're an Idiot - 2nd Edition: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean it Up

by James Hoggan, Grania Litwin (Primary Contributor)

Become a more effective and powerful communicator in today's highly polarized and polluted public square

The most pressing problem we face today is not climate change. It is pollution in the public square, where a toxic smog of adversarial rhetoric, propaganda, and polarization stifles discussion and debate, creating resistance to change and thwarting our ability to solve our collective problems.

In this second edition of I'm Right and You're an Idiot , James Hoggan grapples with this critical issue, through interviews with outstanding thinkers and drawing on wisdom from highly regarded public figures. Featuring a new, radically revised prologue, afterword, and a new chapter addressing the changes in the public discourse since the 2016 United States election, his comprehensive analysis explores:


How political will is manipulated
How tribalism shuts down open-minded thinking, undermines trust, and helps misinformation thrive
Why facts alone fail and how language is manipulated and dissent silenced
The importance of dialogue, empathy, and pluralistic narrative reframing arguments to create compelling narratives and spur action.
Our species' greatest survival strategy has always been foresight and the ability to leverage intelligence to overcome adversity. For too long now this capacity has been threatened by the sorry state of public discourse. Focusing on proven techniques to foster more powerful and effective communication, I'm Right and You're an Idiot will appeal to readers looking for deep insights and practical advice in these troubling times.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Canada, Sociology, Science, Communication

304 pages, Paperback

First published May 8, 2016

Reviews

[Coan · Rating 1 out of 5]

When purchasing this book, I took a gamble. I didn't know much about it save the blurb and unfortunately I did not enjoy it.

I'd hoped the book would provide practical examples of how to shape and improve public discourse of a variety of contentious issues that do require debate and change (e.g. tax reform, policies aimed at housing affordability, the challenges of demographic change like an ageing population etc). I was also looking to learn about what causes resistance to debate and compromise.

The book covers most of this, but poorly. The examples of how to improve public discourse don't offer anything I hadn't already thought of by extrapolating theory. They would have been more valuable if they broke it down step by step for application to add value for the reader -whom, as mentioned, likely can leap frog the points made with some thinking. The book (as other reviews point out) is very biased towards the environmental debate. The author flags early in the text that they'd originally intended the book to be about negative campaigns against emissions reductions and environment regulation. If they had stuck with that focus, or branched the topic out to where they had later intended (which is what the blurb infers), I think the book would have read a lot better rather than what it turned out to be.

I didn't find the style of writing particularly noteworthy or engrossing. Simply put, the ideas proposed didn't offer much to stimulate my thinking.

1 out of 5 stars. If you like the topic, I'd suggest something else in the public relations and communications field.

[John Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I bought this book, I thought it would be about the current polarization in political ideologies in the United States right now and the problems that causes in communication. I was mostly wrong. This book is about why some people reject an idea even though the facts show it is correct. The primary example used throughout the book is the climate change debate, and why some people still refuse to believe it is happening, despite the scientific research, and even actual physical evidence that shows it is. Also, the author is from Canada, so most of this is from a Canadian perspective.

Part I of the book is about research done to discover why people would reject the truth even when it is very clear. Part II is about how to communicate with those people to try to help them to understand. I thought the second part of the book, and the last two chapters, in particular, were very good. The last two chapters (Speak the Truth, But Do Not Punish, and We Need Warmheartedness) gave me real ideas on how I can better communicate with people who might not understand what I'm saying. Those last chapters made this book worth reading, to me.

The problem I had with the book was in Part I, when I realized the title was very accurate. The author does believe he is right about climate change and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. I think this idea comes through much too clearly, which is arrogant and self-centered and I believe that really hurts the book. I believe that would cause some readers to stop reading within the first 50 or 60 pages, and that's a shame, because it does get better.

[Magdelanye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the rather sassy title, this book is a serious well-researched examination of perhaps the most endemic and puzzling problem underlying all our efforts, which is the inability or unwillingness of people to communicate honestly their feelings and intentions. The title merely refers to the little secret that most people carry.

JH has contacted a raft of experts and devoted a chapter for each to focus on a different aspect of urgency from gaslighting to corporate agendas. I especially appreciate his approach to climate change , not through alarmist statistics or alarming examples but by focusing on practical tactics. There are plenty of suggestions for feasible action, and, even better, suggestions for the kind of questions we need to be asking and to whom we need to be addressing our concerns,

What kind of world do we want to build, and how can we organize a discussion of that without a political institution or forum that has been designed for that purpose? p 60

Do we respond with fear , isolation and self-doubt or find the wherewithal to respond with hope, empathy and self=worth that enables a mindful, intentional and strategic response....p178


What if we presume that people do care, very deeply, and about the same things we care about? p188

This book does not contain an ultimate answer but it does provide an impetus to change our idiotic ways and begin to address the options that remain to us as everything we thought we knew comes into question,

[Elizabeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

I gave up after reading for the millionth time about "climate change". I thought this book was about public discourse. And some of the facts and figures he quotes have been disproven, repeatedly. I gave it a try but it just wasn't worth it. The author was too focused on "climate change" to make this book of any use to its alleged premise.

[Fraser · Rating 3 out of 5]

The name of the book is more than a bit of a misnomer. I was hoping for an examination of the toxic state of public discourse and how to fix things. What I got was an explanation of why so many factions of the general public have turned their backs on the science of climate change. A worthy subject, to be sure; just not what I was expecting.

I especially liked the chapter with George Lakeoff, but that’s probably because I especially like George Lakeoff.

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

An earnest attempt that I thought yielded little useful fruit. But here are a few choice excerpts I definitely appreciated:

Everyone has a story, and you have a responsibility to offer a public account of who you are, why you do what you do, and where you hope to lead. A Yiddish riddle asks, Who discovered water? The answer is, I don't know, but it wasn't a fish.

[To] be effective you must ask yourself, are your actions about your ego and punishing your opponent or are they about real change?

"Speak the truth but not to punish." - Thich Nhat Hanh

When an arrow strikes you there is pain, but if a second arrow drives into the same spot, the pain is excruciating, much worse. The Buddha advised when you have pain in your body or your mind, breathe in and out and recognize the significance of the pain but don't exaggerate its importance. If you are full of anger, worry and fear over the pain you magnify the suffering. This is the second arrow -- and it is directed from within.

Use non-accusatory language so it is easier for others to hear our message. Effective listening does not involve hearing something and comparing that information with our own views. We learn nothing from such an exchange.

Grassroots success is effective and possible only if activists and leaders first deal with their own anger and fear.

[Madison · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hoggan makes some interesting analysis (or at least, his interview subjects do), particularly with regard to cognitive dissonance as it applies to communication theory and the concept of the advocacy trap. However, his suggestions for how to fix the problem seem a little unrealistic, and he relies too much on his sources in each chapter - I get that he's focusing on his interview subjects' opinions, but there are so many long quotes that some of the chapters read almost like straight interview transcripts, and Hoggan doesn't seem to present that many original ideas. I hate to say it, but this also could have done with a serious copy edit, since Hoggan apparently doesn't know how to write a sentence that contains a list. It was repetitive and at times redundant, since he often explained the quotes as soon as he summarized them, and I wanted it to be less about climate change and more about the problem with communication that he pitches with the title.

[Hella Comat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this book was written earlier in 2016, it sounds like the author has been watching the US presidential debates. He explains how inflammatory and argumentative and negative public discussion about issues such as the environment are and what can be done to make this dialog more constructive for decision making.

[Liz Davidson · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent discussion about the current state of discourse in the public field. Through the viewpoints of many people gives the reasons why there is so much acrimony about various subjects from vaccinations to the environment and beyond. The contributors also suggest ways of breaking the gridlock. Worthwhile read for leaders, teachers, as well as members of the public.

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

Full confession, I did not finish this book. Perhaps my opinion would have been different if I had, but it seemed John Haidt's book (the righteous mind - why good people are divided by politics and religion) served as the backbone to his argument and having read that book first, I didn't find much of value in the fist half of this book.

[June · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is amazing. I highly recommend it.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I want to read this book again. It’s full of research-based communication strategies and models for understanding how people think about climate change and why not enough has been done about it.

[André Selonke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Smashing Heads Doesn’t Open Minds

In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.

a healthy mind requires a break from the busy world from time to time, otherwise it’s like using a calculator over and over, and never pushing the clear button.

Toxic conversations stall our ability to think collectively and solve the many dangerous problems that are stalking everyone on Earth.

attacking the motives and character of those who disagree with us distracts the public from the real issues and undermines genuine opposition as it discredits the passion and outrage at the heart of real public debate

We need to strenuously defend the commons from the bombardment of propaganda and tribalism while we explore ways to open up space for higher- quality pluralistic, public conversations.

have an almost extreme situation where the very intelligent elites are sort of mumbling, and bumbling, and proceeding as if they were communicating— when they’re not.

polarization is dangerous because it interrupts lines of communication and leads to gridlock. It stops us from tackling urgent problems because without consensus we cannot take effective action. Rather than highlighting our differences, he said we should be working toward finding common ground, and moving into a place where we can reserve judgment until we have considered other ways to approach controversial issues.

The scientific community assumes the same rules of communication are always applicable and rational, that people are attentive, open- minded, persuaded by facts and believe that those who are presenting information are people of goodwill, and not deliberately trying to manipulate them. But none of those things are true.

in debate we assume we have the right answer, whereas dialogue assumes we all have pieces of the answer and can craft a solution together. Debate is combative and about winning, while dialogue is collaborative and focuses on exploring the common good. Debaters defend their assumptions and criticize the views of others, whereas in dialogue we reveal assumptions and reexamine all positions, including our own

People’s views are inconsistent, and most importantly, people don’t tend to think through the consequences of their views.

self- righteousness develops when you cannot admit there may be an error in your point of view— or the possibility the other side is motivated by something other than evil.

The brain is designed with blind spots, optical and psychological, and one of its cleverest tricks is to confer on us the comforting delusion that we, personally, do not have any. In a sense, dissonance theory is a theory of blind spots— of how and why people unintentionally blind themselves so that they fail to notice vital events and information that might make them question their behavior or their convictions.

The mechanism of cognitive dissonance keeps us committed to our beliefs— especially beliefs that we have acknowledged publicly, that we have a commitment to or that we have invested time, effort and money into maintaining. This discord produces mental discomfort, which people seek to reduce in ingenious and self- deluding ways.

The greatest danger we face on the planet is not only from bad people doing corrupt, evil and bad things, but also from good people who justify the bad, evil and corrupt things they do in order to preserve their belief that they’re good, kind, ethical people.

This is the inherent risk of advocacy, because if you accuse someone of being stupid, or make them feel foolish or dim, it only serves to reinforce their default position— which is to activate their self- justification.

When diversity is understood and valued, we can step out of a battle between good and evil and “use every tool in the toolbox” to create cooperative groups.

In general, our social cognitive abilities are extremely accurate in our perception of others, but extremely inaccurate in our perception of ourselves.

Cultural cognition describes the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact— whether relating to global warming as a serious threat or the death penalty as a deterrent to committing murder— to values that define their cultural identities.

Confirmation bias is a type of selective thinking in which a person tends to notice and look for what confirms their beliefs, while prompting them to ignore or not favor information that contradicts those beliefs. He described motivated reasoning as, “the unconscious tendency of individuals to process information in a manner that suits some end or goal extrinsic to the formation of accurate beliefs.” Motivated reasoning is a unifying theme or general class of mechanisms that makes people resist information that threatens their identity.

The way to respond is to not mention the other frame. Only mention yours. Always start with your frame and stay in it. Always be on the offensive; never act defensively.

facts don’t change minds. They don’t clear up controversies, and they don’t solve problems, especially regarding environmental science communications, where arguments cyclone around facts, confusing the public and getting in the way of action.

At the end of the day, scientists are human beings who have to make a living: they are drawing salaries and competing for grants from government, industry and other institutions.

If you send a message to people that there’s no other possibility, that it’s too late— the result is inaction.

“If you put blinders on a donkey, that donkey is going to do a much better job of going straight down the street and pulling the cart. But it will not see what’s happening at the sides, and it won’t have any responsibility for that.”

“If you are doing rapid measurement of human impulses instead of accumulated human behavior, it’s the negativity that gets amplified,”

We cannot have a society in which, if two people wish to communicate, the only way that can happen is if it’s financed by a third person who wishes to manipulate them.”

combative discourse is a problem when it is used to demonize, to obscure truth and steamroll dissent.

By attacking the credibility of scientists and creating doubt about their findings— without actually doing any science themselves— critics poison the well of democracy and flood the public square with misinformation.

The Right has been very effective in promoting a vision of the world as nothing more than an arena for competitive individualism in which ordinary people are consumers and taxpayers rather than citizens with mutual and shared responsibility.

emotion is the key to change, our best bet to turn things around is still an informed and engaged democracy— and that means opposing, at every turn, the attack on reason, on experts and expertise, on evidence and science.”

It’s a simple tactic: When the public doesn’t trust you and you can’t rely on your own credibility to argue your views, when the public doesn’t share your values or interests, when facts aren’t on your side, why not attack and undermine your opponents’ integrity while making them appear to have a vested interest?

Democracy only works if reasoned debate in the public square is possible. If everything is mislabeled, then conditions for deliberative democracy do not exist.

Free speech alone is not sufficient for delivering the conditions for reasoned debate. It is impossible without trust and sincerity,

the effectiveness of propaganda grows with constant repetition.

If the victim remains silent, rather than responding with hostility, it is much harder to sustain any aggression.

Be slow to pick public fights because fighting fire with fire seldom settles a dispute or issue in your favor.

If you don’t tell your own story, someone else will— and it will be bad.

consensus is what you get in an authoritarian regime, not a healthy democracy where citizens are free to challenge injustice.

Communication is an art not a science, and we all learn in the doing.

Some people will be forever locked into their opinions, but for most others, it is possible to have an authentic, mind- changing conversation.

humanity is increasingly stuck in complex and polarized situations for three reasons: We cannot solve the really tough problems by only working on our little piece. We cannot transform large systems by only working with people we like, with our friends and colleagues. We must learn to work with strangers and opponents, people we don’t know or trust or agree with. Without this simple awareness, we will have gridlock.

scientists are excellent at forming new questions and discovering new areas of uncertainty, but not particularly good at producing consensus around complex issues.

A systems-thinking approach has three characteristics: A deep and abiding commitment to real learning An ability to admit that we too are part of the problem The ability to triangulate, to gather different points of view from people in different parts of the system, so we can see something more holistically that is eluding us individually.

“People don’t necessarily resist change — but they do resist being changed.”


Focus your communication on understanding where people are coming from and what truly matters to them.

profound change and true leadership can evolve by moving through the deepening process he calls the Theory U which happens on three levels: The level of the mind, which involves suspending old habits of judgment Opening the heart and beginning to see problems through the eyes of other stakeholders, walking in others’ shoes Gaining the capacity to let go and let come

mastering generative dialogue is as satisfying as learning to play a musical instrument.

if you want to communicate the consensus, work hard to make people write on paper, or say out loud in front of others, what they believe the current state of consensus is — before shattering the myth. Forcing them to face the reality that they totally misunderstood this important piece of information helped solidify their new opinion.

We don’t generate meaning on our own, or in a vacuum. We create it together, in relationships, in interactions. Meaning is co-constructed and produces a sense of connection, cohesion and validation because we feel part of something larger. We connect with people better when we communicate at a deeper level, when we are meaning centered.

Compassion helps us understand what’s really causing the inaction — the fact that we’re caught up in a series of complicated dilemmas and tensions, contradictory drives and anxieties that we are unable to sort out or negotiate. “We need to begin to recognize what’s being asked of us in terms of how we manage and negotiate these tensions, which are very deep in our identity and part of who we are as human beings.”

There is the drop-in-the-bucket effect: The problem is so big, and I’m so small. It won’t make much difference, no matter what I do. So, why don’t I just do whatever is comfortable.

Our emotional system, for reacting to people in need — which is primarily tuned to protecting people around us — breaks down in the context of distant, large-scale, anonymous suffering. Just like a visual illusion, it’s kind of a moral illusion.”

We have a better chance of sidestepping the advocacy trap and avoiding the triggering of psychological barriers if we stay strongly rooted in the values that emerge from our own story.

the challenge for any organizer or leader who wants to initiate change is to break through the “inertia of habit” and get people to pay attention, to motivate them to risk doing something new and uncertain.

Look into your own heart, discover what gives you pain, then refuse under any circumstances whatsoever to inflict that pain on anybody else. Never treat others as you would not like to be treated yourself.

People are not thinking clearly about consequences and have forgotten that all things are interconnected.

the lack of responsibility and connection we witness today stems from “a race of the ego” and is rooted in a sense of deep insufficiency.

“you will not only want to cultivate your capacity for discernment, but you will also want to engage morally and instrumentally in transforming the psychosocial fabric of the world we find ourselves in.”

citizens should only vote for those who adopt the kind of lifestyle that sets an example to inspire hope and confidence. Leaders should be people who not only have the talent to run the country’s business, but also represent our global ethics.

Speak the truth, but not to punish.

Anger can give us the mettle to speak with courage and conviction, but also the venom that blinds us to the views of others.

What is wrong? Not a lack of judicial system, police force or government organization, but ultimately a lack of ethics and self-discipline. We should be thinking: I am a human being. I should not do this, for my own reputation, for my own interest, my own health, my family’s well-being. We have a moral responsibility to make this known.

It’s one thing to unknowingly harm someone, but another altogether to cause harm once you know damage is being done. There is an obligation to stop. The great tragedy of climate change is that those who will be harmed most are not those who are causing the problem.

Inner peace never comes from things. It comes from a peaceful mind, a happy marriage, a healthy family and a warm heart.

Real communication starts when we stop talking and start listening

listen with one purpose: to help the other person empty their heart

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not what you think from the title

To start, the book’s title is a bit misleading. Hogan is interested not so much in the toxicity of modern public discourse as he is in the very specific topic of why people are not up in arms over human caused climate change.

This serves to focus the 25 interviews that make up the source material for the book. Perhaps too well, because his passion on the subject seems to dismiss the possibility that anyone could have a different opinion that isn’t based on greed, ignorance or malevolence.

With all the shortcomings of such an approach, his own reactions to his interviews are nearly as instructive as a more dispassionate treatment. His sources tell him repeatedly that facts alone are not persuasive, then he asks how to get the facts out better, and why people don’t respond to the facts already out there. They tell him that you must assume good intentions on the part of others in order to engage in dialogue, and after a shudder of revulsion, he goes on to denounce the opposition’s “PR and disinformation” and plans to counter it with “strong narrative skills and positive messages for change.”

With the enemy’s every action described in negative terms, I had begun to despair of his ever really appreciating the practical benefits of assuming good will on the part of adversaries and the unconvinced. In the final chapters, encounters with Thich Nhat Hahn and the Dalai Lama, he at last seems to accept the idea, even if only intellectually. Hahn’s advice to ‘Speak the truth, but not to punish” made a deep impression on him. It’s a brief respite, and he’s soon back to asserting that deniers are deliberately sowing discord, but there’s some hope of realizing the promise in the title of how to clean up the toxic state of our public discourse.

It’s worth noting that in this, the 2nd edition, all of the interviews are with people who already agree with the need for drastic action on climate change. He may be right in doing so. Still, I’d be more impressed if future editions would include at least one interview with a climate change dissenter. He could show in action how to accept the basic humanity of one’s opponents while disagreeing profoundly with their errors.

Maybe he’s tried, but just couldn’t find anyone with sufficient good will to make the point. Still, until I see it in action, I’ll be left wondering if he doesn’t really believe “I’m right, and you’re an idiot.”

[Sandra Schonwetter · Rating 5 out of 5]

James hogan does a fine job of bringing the reader along the journey that he sets out for himself, trying to navigate an answer to David Suzuki’s question, “Why aren’t people paying more attention? There is enough evidence we are destroying the planet. Why aren’t people out in the streets? How do we motivate the public to demand action?” It is an answer of communication, and yet it goes much deeper than that. James introduces a wide variety of authors with a vast array of perspectives to answer this question. Just as the environment is becoming polluted, public discourse is also becoming polluted. It is driven by ego-centric speakers of untruth. There is a manipulation of facts. Tribalism and polarization become central and the issue becomes bypassed. Corporations are required to be socially responsible but this is like self regulating a psychopath. It is an oxymoron. There is a ‘full-service propaganda machine’ functioning just fine to sway people. Facts don’t persuade. Values, logic and emotion do. We need to better understand this propaganda machine and become better aware of manipulation. Be a critical thinker. More importantly, become more self aware of one’s own peace in order to contribute to any peace. ‘The success of any interaction depends upon the interior condition of the intervener.’ Empathy and compassion are a strong force. Become a better listener of yourself, the environment and others. Become aware of judgmental listening, factual listening, empathetic listening and generative listening.the journey lasts beyond the reading of the book.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

With an emphasis on environmental & climate heating issues, Hoggan weaves as series of conversations with people from a variety of disciplines into a pretty coherent garment. One that I would try to wear.

Hoggan's quest: "I was pointed in the direction of one of the most urgent and unexamined human relations problems of our time: pollution in the public square, that literal and figurative place where we assemble to talk freely and debate honestly, where we seek truth without recrimination, whether on a street corner, in a blog, campus hall, political meeting, bulletin board or actual community square. How can we make space for real public conversations? How have we come to a time when facts don’t matter, and how can we begin the journey back to where they do? I was also keen to discover what kinds of conversations can actually change people’s minds about what’s possible, about what’s desirable and about where their personal responsibility lies."

[L C · Rating 1 out of 5]

With the words "how to" featured prominently in the subtitle, you'd think this book would present some practical solutions.

The entire book essentially boils down to "people aren't actually evil, and chances are they sincerely care about the issues they say they care about." No shit.

The problem is that the issues they (extremist conservatives) care about are all based on nonsense. It doesn't matter if they believe with all their little hearts that the existence of transgender people is the greatest challenge facing the United States right now. The entire premise of that so-called argument is based on nonsense.

The author seems to believe that nonsensical arguments are still worthy of our time and attention, and that most of our problems as a deeply divided nation come down to people on the left not being nice enough, not explaining our own point of view well enough, and not listening well enough. Hogwash.

[Paul Rubio · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title was a little misleading, with the only hint that this book would be focused heavily on the discussion of climate change in the words in red, "Toxic" and "how to clean it up". I wish I had known going into it that it would focus on climate change, rather than using as just one case study with other case studies on controversial issues that address how to clean up public discourse as a whole. The author offers some great insights and delves into what's really going on through interviews with experts.

[Rob Black · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book relies on examples surrounding climate change and Canadian politics, but the lessons are true for any issue facing our society. I'd put this in the top 5 most important reads for me right now mostly because it draws together so many important view points and perspectives to really get at the root of what I've been doing wrong in trying to talk about climate change. Incredible read. Quick, fun, on point.

[Terry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Based on the title, you think you will get a helpful discussion of effective public discourse, and that is included. By midpoint, however, it evolves into a discussion of how to convince doubters of the dangers of global warming and other environmental issues. I suggest you read the first half thoroughly and skim the last for the occasional nugget. I won't be buying the hard copy for my library.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by an accomplished PR man from Vancouver with experience helping both corporations and NGOs, this book features interviews with two dozen experts on political communication. And if there's one topic that connects them all, it's how to talk about climate change. Overall, Hoggan advises activists to approach communication with compassion, but to demand truth. Only by balancing love with power, as MLK advised, can a political movement succeed.

[Fiona · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Speak the truth but not to punish" (Tich Nat Hanh). Jim Hoggan has taken a unique approach to solving one of the most difficult questions that face us today......how can we motivate people to take action on climate change? And how could this apply to so many other issues that polarize us? Instead of regurgitating much of what we have heard before, he goes to a diverse and wise group of experts, from social scientists to the Dalai Lama, and digs much deeper, into what really motivates people. What scares them, moves them, inspires them, and most importantly, what will break down barriers to what we ultimately need to save the day - heartfelt collaboration with those who we neither like nor understand. Hard truths, real solutions, and true compassion.

[Diana Bliss · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. The author has taken the time to address the issue of public discourse from as many angles as possible within a volume. He works from the foundation of environmental protection issues but it's easy to extrapolate the salient points to other problems the world is facing. It's very well done.

[Derek Lacoursiere · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first sentence in the prologue reads "the environment is not the main subject of this book". While it stands to reason that the author would use what he knows best to illustrate the subject matter of the book, the environment does feature rather heavily. It is an insightful book and I appreciate that he addresses the topic from a number of different directions.

[Sharon Coyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important discussion of how we can keep a dialogue going in the face of radically differing perspectives. We need to ask questions and really listen to the other side, not to tear them down, but to understand where they are coming from. Also underscores the importance of stories and our hearts in our attempts to communicate.

[David Reaney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Multiple chapters with different experts

This was a tough read. Each chapter covered a different person's thoughts on the problems stifling cooperation in government today. Although the lean was decidedly progressive, it did highlight some of the challenges of the winner take all politics of today.

[Martin Ekeroth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bok från skoluppgift, bra och hade många intressanta spaningar, men också mkt repetitivt. Många frågor som väcktes i mig dock! Skrämmande vart demokratin är påväg och typ hur SD kunde komma undan med trollfabriken?

Kanske hade samhället mått bättre om folk läste denna boken, eller fler böcker generellt bara?

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting and quick to read. loved some of the interviews, but didn't like how upper class or intellectual most of the concepts felt - absolutely worthy of a read, especially for people who talk to other people

[Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thoughtful book arguing for the return of meaningful public discourse. The ideas in the book can be applied to so many issues beyond climate change. It does lose some focus about two thirds of the way through but redeems itself with the last couple of chapters.

[Dustless Walnut · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't know if it was a book about discourse or a book about climate change, and I don't think the author did either. I agree more or less with everything he said but it contained nothing actionable or insightful and was ultimately a waste of time to read.