What do you think?
Rate this book
Stop met redelijk zijn
Waarom kunnen we mensen niet overtuigen op basis van goede argumenten? Eleanor Gordon-Smith laat in Stop met redelijk zijn zien hoe wij van mening veranderen. Levensveranderingen vinden zelden plaats na een zorgvuldige afweging. Hoe komt het dan dat we nog steeds denken mensen met argumenten te overtuigen anders te leven. Gordon-Smith onderzoekt waargebeurde verhalen van mensen die hun leven radicaal omgooiden: van het uittreden uit een sekte tot het aanpassen van onze herinneringen. De auteur houdt ons met diepgang en humor een confronterende spiegel voor: zijn we wel zo rationeel als we denken?
226 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2019
56 people are currently reading
2190 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
June 28, 2019
I obviously misunderstood. I thought I was invited to dinner, but it turned out to be a late afternoon tea. Instead of a 3 course dinner I was given a cup of tea and a plate of Tim Tams.
Gordon-Smith's book 'Stop Being Reasonable" is jauntily presented, sweetly written and easily digested, but lacks substance. It identifies perceived anomalies in our behaviour around rationalism, but offers only specious explanatory hypotheses. But the greatest wasted opportunity is in not exploring the questions necessarily generated by her assertions.
'Stop Being Reasonable'... And Start Being What?
Gordon-Smith's thesis is that reason, rationalism and evidence are not predominant causal factors in the significant changes of mind we all experience in our lives. She offers some field-work and a few anecdotes to support this, but as I read the book I could not shake off the impression that Gordon-Smith is more concerned with showing us how smart and likeable she is, rather than probing deeply into this complex subject.
Back to the wasted opportunity:
Do we have the right to try to change someone's mind?
If so, what conditions give rise to this right?
Do we sometimes have the duty to try to change someone's mind?
If so, when?
We all spend large portions of our lives attempting to change the minds of others: work colleagues, friends, family. This is usually done out of love and/or kindness, often in the guise of guidance, and sometimes out of self interest. Gordon-Smith has attempted to weaken the rational framework upon which our attempts are typically constructed. In itself, this is an acceptable aim, but it is a job half done. If reason and rationality don't work, what does? Is it ethical to use unreasonableness and irrationality instead to try to change someone's mind?
'Stop Being Reasonable' is witty and engaging, but rather than being hungry for more, I find myself wondering if there is a healthy take-away on the way home.
Gordon-Smith's book 'Stop Being Reasonable" is jauntily presented, sweetly written and easily digested, but lacks substance. It identifies perceived anomalies in our behaviour around rationalism, but offers only specious explanatory hypotheses. But the greatest wasted opportunity is in not exploring the questions necessarily generated by her assertions.
'Stop Being Reasonable'... And Start Being What?
Gordon-Smith's thesis is that reason, rationalism and evidence are not predominant causal factors in the significant changes of mind we all experience in our lives. She offers some field-work and a few anecdotes to support this, but as I read the book I could not shake off the impression that Gordon-Smith is more concerned with showing us how smart and likeable she is, rather than probing deeply into this complex subject.
Back to the wasted opportunity:
Do we have the right to try to change someone's mind?
If so, what conditions give rise to this right?
Do we sometimes have the duty to try to change someone's mind?
If so, when?
We all spend large portions of our lives attempting to change the minds of others: work colleagues, friends, family. This is usually done out of love and/or kindness, often in the guise of guidance, and sometimes out of self interest. Gordon-Smith has attempted to weaken the rational framework upon which our attempts are typically constructed. In itself, this is an acceptable aim, but it is a job half done. If reason and rationality don't work, what does? Is it ethical to use unreasonableness and irrationality instead to try to change someone's mind?
'Stop Being Reasonable' is witty and engaging, but rather than being hungry for more, I find myself wondering if there is a healthy take-away on the way home.
June 26, 2021
One of the greatest books I've had the pleasure of reading. Gordon-Smith's main idea is that our society idolizes "rational debate" as the gold standard of how to change minds. Sure, in practice, people are more convinced by emotional arguments, by what their peers think, by what it's convenient to believe - but we think they SHOULD be convinced by rational debate, ideally. Well, this book argues that, while rational debate has its place, it's not the only (or even the best) way to change minds or decide what's true. Gordon-Smith tells six stories of how people changed their minds. Each story, the change comes from something beyond just rational debate. Traditional philosophers might think there's something wrong or irrational about this. But Gordon-Smith bites the bullet and argues that these people were actually right.
Each chapter tells one story that illustrates one way people do (and perhaps should) change their minds. Every chapter feels like the best possible episode of Invisibilia or This American Life (which is no surprise, because the first chapter is adapted from Gordon-Smith's This American Life episode). They're funny, poignant and educational.
The core lesson of this book is important, but it's also important that Gordon-Smith is bringing contemporary philosophy to a wide audience. Society has this idea that philosophy is something only dead people can do. We think that Plato, Nietzsche, Hume or de Beauvoir already came up with everything, and it's our job to analyse their ideas. Gordon-Smith is a PhD student at Princeton, and knows about all the fascinating new work done by contemporary philosophers. Some of the book talks about old philosophers like Hume or Locke, but it's mostly drawing from newer thinkers like Srinivasan or Haslanger. I did some grad-level philosophy and was shocked by how relevant and brilliant contemporary philosophy can be. Gordon-Smith's book is the first step to bringing these new, better ideas to a public which is crying out for them.
Each chapter tells one story that illustrates one way people do (and perhaps should) change their minds. Every chapter feels like the best possible episode of Invisibilia or This American Life (which is no surprise, because the first chapter is adapted from Gordon-Smith's This American Life episode). They're funny, poignant and educational.
The core lesson of this book is important, but it's also important that Gordon-Smith is bringing contemporary philosophy to a wide audience. Society has this idea that philosophy is something only dead people can do. We think that Plato, Nietzsche, Hume or de Beauvoir already came up with everything, and it's our job to analyse their ideas. Gordon-Smith is a PhD student at Princeton, and knows about all the fascinating new work done by contemporary philosophers. Some of the book talks about old philosophers like Hume or Locke, but it's mostly drawing from newer thinkers like Srinivasan or Haslanger. I did some grad-level philosophy and was shocked by how relevant and brilliant contemporary philosophy can be. Gordon-Smith's book is the first step to bringing these new, better ideas to a public which is crying out for them.
June 16, 2019
I must admit I had a hard time getting into this book at first. It just seemed to me that the author devoted far too much time to the issue of catcalling (I deducted one star for precisely this). Just as I was going to give up on this book, I found myself in a waiting room, so I decided to read on. I am glad I did! I soon found myself engrossed in the engaging narratives of the man who suddenly broke free of a cult he had been born into and happily living in and the reality-show contestant who experienced an unexpected change of perspective which lead him to lead a completely different life on another continent. Each story in the book has a common theme: What we think of as reasonable is all a matter of perspective. “Reasonable” is based on our existing concept of reality, which is usually constructed for us by those around us or via our own inner dialogue of personal expectations. Persuasion based on logic and reason subsequently falls short because how we make-up our minds or change our minds often happens on a personal and sometimes irrational level. This is an interesting book of case studies.
January 25, 2020
Short, witty and clear look at what philosophy has to say about how people change their minds, illustrated with some fascinating case studies. It's a lovely little book that doesn't outstay its welcome while putting together a really compelling case that our idea of 'reason' is pretty problematic.
April 2, 2021
Incredibly insightful. Eleanor Gordon-Smith’s mind is sharp as a knife.
Stop Being Reasonable is infinitely readable, opened up my views and made me consider the moments that I overly engage in being rigid or reasonable (and even agreeable) to an absolutely unnecessary degree. It highlights when we should all be a little more critical of situations that would hope or seek that we suspend belief when shit is actually crazy. For example, the attempted rewriting of truth/reason/logic through the space of the T**** years. A period of time that we do not need to extend any grace or space towards because it’s madness.
I love her commentary on “reasonable debate” and how dumb we’ve let things get as a society based on our own assumptions of knowing where the line is. Especially when people have been moving the goal posts to let in more and more reprehensible commentary publicly.
She goes deep and takes a micro and macro-level look, both externally and internally, at what we have done to put ourselves, our families, our communities and our lives in boxes due to our inherent need to “try to be reasonable” in irrational, illogical, unfounded and conflicting circumstances — public, personal or otherwise. She talks about the madness and liberation that will ensue if we break free by acknowledging the glitch in the matrix, and how much it will be worth it for all involved.
This book will make your wheels turn.
Stop Being Reasonable is infinitely readable, opened up my views and made me consider the moments that I overly engage in being rigid or reasonable (and even agreeable) to an absolutely unnecessary degree. It highlights when we should all be a little more critical of situations that would hope or seek that we suspend belief when shit is actually crazy. For example, the attempted rewriting of truth/reason/logic through the space of the T**** years. A period of time that we do not need to extend any grace or space towards because it’s madness.
I love her commentary on “reasonable debate” and how dumb we’ve let things get as a society based on our own assumptions of knowing where the line is. Especially when people have been moving the goal posts to let in more and more reprehensible commentary publicly.
She goes deep and takes a micro and macro-level look, both externally and internally, at what we have done to put ourselves, our families, our communities and our lives in boxes due to our inherent need to “try to be reasonable” in irrational, illogical, unfounded and conflicting circumstances — public, personal or otherwise. She talks about the madness and liberation that will ensue if we break free by acknowledging the glitch in the matrix, and how much it will be worth it for all involved.
This book will make your wheels turn.
March 9, 2021
Q:
Everyone I know is irrational, and I want to fix them. (c) An expo on rationality, its uses and misuses.
OR, why it's not best street practice to cat call a bona fide philosopher.
Takeouts:
Q:
There is a bigger question underneath it all: when is it ever possible to know anything? Thousands of years before Descartes wondered what it was possible to know, Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus had already fathered scepticism by answering, ‘Nothing.’ This is a possibility so genuinely frightening that people prefer to parse it as a silly thought experiment about whether we’re in The Matrix than to engage with the awful spectre it raises. One philosopher who took that spectre seriously was Stanley Cavell, who spent years trying to answer the sceptic’s challenge, and whose work is so captivating to a certain sort of reader that for years two big East Coast university libraries in the United States refused to restock his books. There was no point – students just did not bring them back. ‘How do we stop?’ Cavell wrote. ‘How do we learn that what we need is not more knowledge but the willingness to forgo knowing?’ (c)
Q:
You are about to read a series of true stories about people who changed their minds while under the kind of pressure that gives a person the bends. Many of them tell their stories here for the first time.
Some of them are stories of revelation, like the moment when Susie discovered her husband had been telling a criminal lie since he was twelve years old and began to fear for herself and her young child, or when Peter opened his ailing mother’s mail for her and discovered she wasn’t who he’d thought she was, or when Dylan quit the strict apocalypse-heralding religious sect he’d been raised in after more than twenty years as a believer. Others are stories about not knowing what to believe, like the shifting cognitive sands Upper-Class English Gentleman Alex found himself in when he finished a stint on a reality TV program that had trained him as a London bouncer, only to realise he was no longer entirely sure which of those two identities he’d been faking. Or there’s the confusion former Navy pilot Nicole has spent years in after alleging as a six-year-old that her mother had abused her, then reading an exposé about her own case many years later that argued the abuse may never have occurred.
Each of these people did something in their mind-change that defies the public orthodoxies about how we ‘ought’ to reason. These are not stories of neat deliberation. These people were influenced by the sorts of things our rational pundits tell us to check at the door: their sense of self, or what they’d been told, or how they felt, or the costs of uncertainty, or who (not what) they believed, or even who they loved. These stories show us, in vivid detail, that sometimes it can be perfectly rational to change our minds on the basis of these things. (c)
Everyone I know is irrational, and I want to fix them. (c) An expo on rationality, its uses and misuses.
OR, why it's not best street practice to cat call a bona fide philosopher.
Takeouts:
Q:
There is a bigger question underneath it all: when is it ever possible to know anything? Thousands of years before Descartes wondered what it was possible to know, Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus had already fathered scepticism by answering, ‘Nothing.’ This is a possibility so genuinely frightening that people prefer to parse it as a silly thought experiment about whether we’re in The Matrix than to engage with the awful spectre it raises. One philosopher who took that spectre seriously was Stanley Cavell, who spent years trying to answer the sceptic’s challenge, and whose work is so captivating to a certain sort of reader that for years two big East Coast university libraries in the United States refused to restock his books. There was no point – students just did not bring them back. ‘How do we stop?’ Cavell wrote. ‘How do we learn that what we need is not more knowledge but the willingness to forgo knowing?’ (c)
Q:
You are about to read a series of true stories about people who changed their minds while under the kind of pressure that gives a person the bends. Many of them tell their stories here for the first time.
Some of them are stories of revelation, like the moment when Susie discovered her husband had been telling a criminal lie since he was twelve years old and began to fear for herself and her young child, or when Peter opened his ailing mother’s mail for her and discovered she wasn’t who he’d thought she was, or when Dylan quit the strict apocalypse-heralding religious sect he’d been raised in after more than twenty years as a believer. Others are stories about not knowing what to believe, like the shifting cognitive sands Upper-Class English Gentleman Alex found himself in when he finished a stint on a reality TV program that had trained him as a London bouncer, only to realise he was no longer entirely sure which of those two identities he’d been faking. Or there’s the confusion former Navy pilot Nicole has spent years in after alleging as a six-year-old that her mother had abused her, then reading an exposé about her own case many years later that argued the abuse may never have occurred.
Each of these people did something in their mind-change that defies the public orthodoxies about how we ‘ought’ to reason. These are not stories of neat deliberation. These people were influenced by the sorts of things our rational pundits tell us to check at the door: their sense of self, or what they’d been told, or how they felt, or the costs of uncertainty, or who (not what) they believed, or even who they loved. These stories show us, in vivid detail, that sometimes it can be perfectly rational to change our minds on the basis of these things. (c)
May 17, 2025
Stop met essaytjes opkloppen tot opgeblazen boeken!
Ow en stop met het afzeiken, belagen of kleineren van mensen. Niet alleen in boeken maar overal. Dan mag je van mijn best redelijk of juist onredelijk zijn. Stop dus vooral met een hufter zijn. Dit geldt ook voor de auteur.
“executive producer Stephan Lambert, die eruitziet als een schildpad die een ernstige misdaad moet oplossen, en regisseur Mike Warner, die eruitziet als een schildpad die een ernstige misdaad heeft gepleegd.”
(Over twee oudere kale mannen)
Het eerste deel van het boek was mild interessant. Mannen die niet begrijpen dan catcalling een nare, schadelijke gewoonte is.
Het ongemak druipt van de pagina’s en een oplossing lijkt er niet te zijn. Een onredelijk mens is niet redelijk te benaderen. Dus dan mag of moet je, volgens de auteur, stoppen met redelijk zijn. Tja. Wat is het alternatief?
Auteur maakt zich geen zorgen meer en is recht voor zijn raap (geworden). Dat is eerst is toe te juichen, het tweede is (denk ik) een probleem. Want de gozers die haar op de billen sloegen, laten weten dat ze dingen van hen in openingen van haar wilde stoppen, nariepen etc waren dat immers toch ook? Gewoon “eerlijk” en “recht voor de raap”. Ze voelden dat gewoon zo. Het primitieve ik (breinscheterig als het is) vindt iets en dan kan dat meteen geuit worden. Toch? Daar knapt de wereld zo van op 🙄
Zucht.
Verder is materie van het boek best interessant, maar de uitwerking vind ik minder geslaagd. 2,5 ster.
Ow en stop met het afzeiken, belagen of kleineren van mensen. Niet alleen in boeken maar overal. Dan mag je van mijn best redelijk of juist onredelijk zijn. Stop dus vooral met een hufter zijn. Dit geldt ook voor de auteur.
“executive producer Stephan Lambert, die eruitziet als een schildpad die een ernstige misdaad moet oplossen, en regisseur Mike Warner, die eruitziet als een schildpad die een ernstige misdaad heeft gepleegd.”
(Over twee oudere kale mannen)
Het eerste deel van het boek was mild interessant. Mannen die niet begrijpen dan catcalling een nare, schadelijke gewoonte is.
Het ongemak druipt van de pagina’s en een oplossing lijkt er niet te zijn. Een onredelijk mens is niet redelijk te benaderen. Dus dan mag of moet je, volgens de auteur, stoppen met redelijk zijn. Tja. Wat is het alternatief?
Auteur maakt zich geen zorgen meer en is recht voor zijn raap (geworden). Dat is eerst is toe te juichen, het tweede is (denk ik) een probleem. Want de gozers die haar op de billen sloegen, laten weten dat ze dingen van hen in openingen van haar wilde stoppen, nariepen etc waren dat immers toch ook? Gewoon “eerlijk” en “recht voor de raap”. Ze voelden dat gewoon zo. Het primitieve ik (breinscheterig als het is) vindt iets en dan kan dat meteen geuit worden. Toch? Daar knapt de wereld zo van op 🙄
Zucht.
Verder is materie van het boek best interessant, maar de uitwerking vind ik minder geslaagd. 2,5 ster.
July 23, 2021
The point of this book was that people don't change their minds by being rationally persuaded that they are wrong. I think the focus here is on fundamental beliefs, not a belief that a person has not given much thought to and is not very invested in.
So an atheist is not going to be rationally persuaded to join a religious cult, and a member of a religious cult is not going to be rationally persuaded to become an atheist. But if these two people marry each other, it's quite possible that one of them will change because they love each other, and they don't want to have incompatible beliefs.
Likewise, after a person has become committed and fully invested in a relationship, the person may enter a state of total denial about the shortcomings of their lover. When people fall in love, they make a leap of faith and trust the other person, even when skepticism would be more rational. The belief that you love another person is often not an evidence-based belief, and people's lives revolve around the people they love, whether that is reasonable or not.
The examples in the book are of people who did change their mind, but not because of rational persuasion, or people who did not change their mind despite learning that the facts that were the basis of their beliefs were wrong. I didn't always find these example to work. A guy who loved his parents continued to love his parents and to think of them as being his parents even after finding out he was adopted. Well, so what? That does not seem irrational at all to me. One story was about a person who claimed to be abused as a child, but then as an adult she could not decide whether she had really been abused or not. This story seems to be more about the unreliability of memory than about reason.
Overall, I agree with the author that people are motivated by emotion, relationships, and their sense of self (especially the person's values). Few people are truly motivated by reason. I think that's because the question of how a person should live their life is not a question that can be answered logically. There is no logical formula for living a good life. Given the choice of one or the other, I think just about everyone would choose to be happy over being reasonable.
Many of the stories in this book were about people who changed their minds about who they were. I liked the story of Alex, who "pretended" to be someone else on a reality TV show, and then decided that the person he was pretending to be was who he really was.
I believe the author is Australian, which made the book seem a little quirky and interesting to me.
So an atheist is not going to be rationally persuaded to join a religious cult, and a member of a religious cult is not going to be rationally persuaded to become an atheist. But if these two people marry each other, it's quite possible that one of them will change because they love each other, and they don't want to have incompatible beliefs.
Likewise, after a person has become committed and fully invested in a relationship, the person may enter a state of total denial about the shortcomings of their lover. When people fall in love, they make a leap of faith and trust the other person, even when skepticism would be more rational. The belief that you love another person is often not an evidence-based belief, and people's lives revolve around the people they love, whether that is reasonable or not.
The examples in the book are of people who did change their mind, but not because of rational persuasion, or people who did not change their mind despite learning that the facts that were the basis of their beliefs were wrong. I didn't always find these example to work. A guy who loved his parents continued to love his parents and to think of them as being his parents even after finding out he was adopted. Well, so what? That does not seem irrational at all to me. One story was about a person who claimed to be abused as a child, but then as an adult she could not decide whether she had really been abused or not. This story seems to be more about the unreliability of memory than about reason.
Overall, I agree with the author that people are motivated by emotion, relationships, and their sense of self (especially the person's values). Few people are truly motivated by reason. I think that's because the question of how a person should live their life is not a question that can be answered logically. There is no logical formula for living a good life. Given the choice of one or the other, I think just about everyone would choose to be happy over being reasonable.
Many of the stories in this book were about people who changed their minds about who they were. I liked the story of Alex, who "pretended" to be someone else on a reality TV show, and then decided that the person he was pretending to be was who he really was.
I believe the author is Australian, which made the book seem a little quirky and interesting to me.
December 14, 2019
3.5 stars. Oh for that ten point scale! An interesting short book that turned out not to be what I was really expecting. The subtitle: How We Really Change Our Minds, led me to expect that there would be clues as to how in fact, as to how we could better be prepared to move people from their mistaken views to our own more rational and reasonable ones. I'm being a little tongue in cheek here. But in fact I was left with the idea that I already had, that really it's impossible to get people to change their minds by talking to them. The only common factor among some of the stories here was that empirical, irrefutable evidence was the only thing that might possibly persuade someone to change their mind, and maybe not even then. Enjoyable, thought provoking, but not earth-shattering.
July 3, 2020
Love the writing style of this book – very conversational and funny yet intelligent. I didn’t feel like it went as deep as I wanted it to, though – a lot of the reflections are pretty surface level, or not altogether convincing. But then again I also understand that the point is probably more to begin discussion, rather than provide an answer.
June 29, 2019
I loved this. Very highly recommend it to anyone.
October 25, 2019
I won this in a Goodreads giveaway.
Thought provoking.
Thought provoking.
April 28, 2023
People have opinions. Sometimes these opinions are dangerous or misguided. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could change that person’s mind and make them see reason?
Author Eleanor Gordon-Smith used to debate people on a stage. She’s used to the three persuasive arguments a person can make. When she exited the scholastic setting, though, she found herself at a loss. Why won’t men stop catcalling her?
The book is a collection of six stories about people who changed their minds. There’s the tale of a man who left a religious cult, a woman who thought she was molested as a child by her mother, a child molester who married and had a child with an unsuspecting woman, and more. Some of the stories are disturbing and not for the faint-hearted.
All in all, the book was good. There is no way to make someone change their mind if they obstinately cling to a belief, but all is not lost. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
Author Eleanor Gordon-Smith used to debate people on a stage. She’s used to the three persuasive arguments a person can make. When she exited the scholastic setting, though, she found herself at a loss. Why won’t men stop catcalling her?
The book is a collection of six stories about people who changed their minds. There’s the tale of a man who left a religious cult, a woman who thought she was molested as a child by her mother, a child molester who married and had a child with an unsuspecting woman, and more. Some of the stories are disturbing and not for the faint-hearted.
All in all, the book was good. There is no way to make someone change their mind if they obstinately cling to a belief, but all is not lost. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
May 12, 2021
More inclusive and applicable than I thought it would be, Stop Being Reasonable is a spark notes sampler plate of the different philosophies of thought. Gordon-Smith touches on the different fallacies of human thinking and provides little to no moral judgement on each. She does a good job of keeping things in laymen's terms, which made this easier to consume and digest.
I came out of this with more questions than answers, but alas, that is the (annoying) sign of a philosophy book that's done its job. 4/5
I came out of this with more questions than answers, but alas, that is the (annoying) sign of a philosophy book that's done its job. 4/5
July 7, 2019
An interesting exploration of how people really change their minds, and how persuasion is possible told through six diverse case studies. Most significantly Gordon-Smith illustrates the limits of human reason and rationality as the gold standard for changing minds.
What made each of her case studies change their courses? How what can we learn from each about how we form our own opinions or how we can influence others? Fascinating stuff.
What made each of her case studies change their courses? How what can we learn from each about how we form our own opinions or how we can influence others? Fascinating stuff.
September 7, 2024
I feel like the book threw a bone but didn’t deliver on what it promised. The case studies mentioned showed significant changes in people’s lives or opinions but the author didn’t discuss these in a broader sense. I get that persuasion is relative to everyone’s background but I was hoping for more in-depth analysis of larger-scale case studies. Overall I’m disappointed because I didn’t learn anything new.
3.25/5
3.25/5
November 13, 2024
i have genuinely never finished a book so fast in my life. this book has also changed my thought processes and how i see the world. which is the whole point! yay
February 2, 2025
This book is a bit difficult to rate. On the one hand, Gordon-Smith procured some excellent stories to illustrate the shortcomings of using reason to persuade people. People are simply too idiosyncratic, and their social, moral, and political views are bundled together with matters of identity, self-perception, and emotion. As such, simply showing up with better facts and logic isn't going to convince them of anything that they don't already believe.
The stories Gordon-Smith shares do a great job of challenging the idea that you just need to "do your homework" or try to understand opposing viewpoints if you want to become a great persuader who can convert anti-vax mouth-breathers into public health nerds (to pick one example at random). It's not that simple, and what ends up converting those people is very difficult to pin down—and often very specific to the individual.
That's where my ambivalence about the book comes into play. In spite of the subtitle, the author offers next to nothing in terms of practical advice—virtually nothing that will at least give you a fighting chance against a Cult 45er, a Holocaust denier, a climate change skeptic, or any other peddler of pure nonsense. If you're looking for that kind of practical advice, I would recommend Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection by Charles Duhigg. It doesn't have all the answers, but it certainly has more answers than this book.
The stories Gordon-Smith shares do a great job of challenging the idea that you just need to "do your homework" or try to understand opposing viewpoints if you want to become a great persuader who can convert anti-vax mouth-breathers into public health nerds (to pick one example at random). It's not that simple, and what ends up converting those people is very difficult to pin down—and often very specific to the individual.
That's where my ambivalence about the book comes into play. In spite of the subtitle, the author offers next to nothing in terms of practical advice—virtually nothing that will at least give you a fighting chance against a Cult 45er, a Holocaust denier, a climate change skeptic, or any other peddler of pure nonsense. If you're looking for that kind of practical advice, I would recommend Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection by Charles Duhigg. It doesn't have all the answers, but it certainly has more answers than this book.
October 20, 2019
Good stuff- and very readable. That last chapter (perfect emoji)
February 22, 2023
I thought all the true stories included in this book were fascinating and well chosen. I didn’t completely agreed with the conclusions drawn from them about rationality but still interesting perspectives and ideas.
April 24, 2024
Debunks the pervasive myth that people's minds are changed with "logic," and troubles the idea of debate when certain voices in society go unheard no matter how loud they speak.
(I read the paperback, not the Kindle, but couldn't find my edition listed.)
(I read the paperback, not the Kindle, but couldn't find my edition listed.)
March 28, 2020
Towards the end of this book, the author laments "turning on the TV and finding a climate of public argumentation that treats changing minds as combat or worse, entertainment – by trading on the lucrative fiction that being reasonable is just being really good at arguing" To me, this sounds a fair thing, particularly as at the start of the book she identifies herself as a debater in her oyuth.
The point here (which can be readinl seen in what passes for political debates across much of the Western world) is that not only is this presumption incorrect, it's not particularly helpful.
The way she demonstrates this is by providing chapters on the lives of particular people and their experiences – their sense of self, if you like – and constructs a narrative about the self, particularly what one accepts and rejects, fact or otherwise. These examples range from discussions with males about catcalling and whether women like it or not, a person of privilege becoming a bouncer and family issues (or issues around the family and relationship).
The text comprises interviews after a researcher/journalist fashion, with relevant context and the ideas of a number of philosophers sprinkled around , provoking thought about how people become who they are, perhaps even change who they are (depending on definition), what they accept and reject and how that comes about.
This is an interesting book, easily read and provides a lot to think about if you're interested in personality and the self.
The point here (which can be readinl seen in what passes for political debates across much of the Western world) is that not only is this presumption incorrect, it's not particularly helpful.
The way she demonstrates this is by providing chapters on the lives of particular people and their experiences – their sense of self, if you like – and constructs a narrative about the self, particularly what one accepts and rejects, fact or otherwise. These examples range from discussions with males about catcalling and whether women like it or not, a person of privilege becoming a bouncer and family issues (or issues around the family and relationship).
The text comprises interviews after a researcher/journalist fashion, with relevant context and the ideas of a number of philosophers sprinkled around , provoking thought about how people become who they are, perhaps even change who they are (depending on definition), what they accept and reject and how that comes about.
This is an interesting book, easily read and provides a lot to think about if you're interested in personality and the self.
November 6, 2019
This book checks all the boxes for interesting: good topic (people aren’t “reasonable” duh), written by a philosophy student, not too academic, not too pop-sci/Malcolm gladwell, real life situations. But it turned out to fall flat. My guess is that Ira Glass told Gordon-Smith to write a book after doing a thoughtful NPR show, and she tried to come up with material to fill up a whole book.
The book consists of six stories I didn’t find relatable to one another, and an epilogue where she says she doesn’t have any answers. In the first story she says she doesn’t have luck changing the minds of the crude guys she’s interviewing, yet she does actually change one’s mind and gets him to stop slapping “arses”. In another she describes a young guy who changes his whole life after being in a character swapping reality show, but to me it sounds like he was just learning who he really was. In the last story, a person learns at a late age he was adopted. That’s not a unique story and doesn’t say much at all about being reasonable or changing minds.
For a book about changing people’s minds, I wish it did a better job of changing mine when I started realizing it’s not very good.
The book consists of six stories I didn’t find relatable to one another, and an epilogue where she says she doesn’t have any answers. In the first story she says she doesn’t have luck changing the minds of the crude guys she’s interviewing, yet she does actually change one’s mind and gets him to stop slapping “arses”. In another she describes a young guy who changes his whole life after being in a character swapping reality show, but to me it sounds like he was just learning who he really was. In the last story, a person learns at a late age he was adopted. That’s not a unique story and doesn’t say much at all about being reasonable or changing minds.
For a book about changing people’s minds, I wish it did a better job of changing mine when I started realizing it’s not very good.
September 16, 2019
This book contains Six illuminating case studies on decision-making.
Not that I would ever get the opportunity, but I don’t think I could walk around Kings Cross, Sydney, confronting the people who cat-called me.
That, in itself, is reason enough to read this book, because the author actually did this. The results are sad, funny and illuminating.
But, more importantly, this book shines an inquisitive light on the question of whether or not reason is always the most reasonable way to make decisions.
The author makes a compelling case to the contrary and each annecdote explores different, extreme cases, where reason was not capable - in fact, was a hindrance to - solving the problems that people faced.
Not a long read, but lots to mull over when you're done.
Not that I would ever get the opportunity, but I don’t think I could walk around Kings Cross, Sydney, confronting the people who cat-called me.
That, in itself, is reason enough to read this book, because the author actually did this. The results are sad, funny and illuminating.
But, more importantly, this book shines an inquisitive light on the question of whether or not reason is always the most reasonable way to make decisions.
The author makes a compelling case to the contrary and each annecdote explores different, extreme cases, where reason was not capable - in fact, was a hindrance to - solving the problems that people faced.
Not a long read, but lots to mull over when you're done.
August 22, 2023
Thoughtful and witty, infusing some ideas about the philosophy of knowledge into real, human struggles and situations.
Downside is that the book's main message wasn't delivered coherently. Even in the intro and conclusion, the author covers a variety of ideas related to rationality, persuasion, and knowledge, but sums them up only awkwardly into a vague thesis.
However, the thesis is important and would benefit from more development, I think: We must give more consideration to the dynamics of relationships between people and within single individuals to better understand how beliefs are formed and altered. Concepts such as trust, complacency, obedience, coercion, and selfhood play central roles in how people make important decisions about their personal life
Downside is that the book's main message wasn't delivered coherently. Even in the intro and conclusion, the author covers a variety of ideas related to rationality, persuasion, and knowledge, but sums them up only awkwardly into a vague thesis.
However, the thesis is important and would benefit from more development, I think: We must give more consideration to the dynamics of relationships between people and within single individuals to better understand how beliefs are formed and altered. Concepts such as trust, complacency, obedience, coercion, and selfhood play central roles in how people make important decisions about their personal life
October 27, 2019
One of the best books I have read this year. 6 stories about how people change their minds- or don’t. You will be challenged about how you face off with those who hold unshaken belief systems. You will question your own position- or you should. Either way you won’t finish this book without seeing logic and reasoning in a new light.
From introduction:
“So why, when we know that changing our minds is as tangled and difficult and messy as we are, do we stay so wedded to the thought that rational debate is the best way to go about it?”
From introduction:
“So why, when we know that changing our minds is as tangled and difficult and messy as we are, do we stay so wedded to the thought that rational debate is the best way to go about it?”
December 18, 2019
Have just finished this on this book on the train. What is reasonable ? What is perspective? Can we rely on our thoughts? Can we rely on the knowledge and authority of others? Can we rely on evidence? How is our own concept of reality created and how much is it really influenced by others, our environment or from the little voice gnawing away in our head ... is that really your voice? I loved this book. Anything that can encourage me to question what I question and think, and what I don't, gets my attention.
Read it and tell me what you think.
Read it and tell me what you think.
August 26, 2019
I ordered this because an extract in the Guardian made it resonate with me. It's about rationality and changing one's mind. In the extract I read, the example used was a total change of identity. I'm finding myself gradually but firmly losing interest in much that used to matter to me, and taking more interest in now and the future than in the past. This is at a time when many of my contemporaries are getting nostalgic about - or at least reflective and protective of - our shared past. I did this myself too for a ling time, but now find I can't really be bothered anymore. So a book on the topic of changing your mind was worth a read.
I'm not sure Stop Being Reasonable tells me a lot about my own situation, though I could no doubt think that through more carefully to get some insights. Either way, it's well-written, accessible, engaging and yet at the same time not at all dumbed down in how it presents its case, drawing on a seamless collection of contemporary and canonical philosophy, popular culture, journalism et al. What its argument boils down to is that conventional rationality is not sufficient (or even adequate) to explain why people change their minds, using a quite varied set of empirical case studies to support the argument. The people concerned have changed their minds in quite dramatic - but not conventionally rational - circumstances. This then has implications for how people can be persuaded to change their minds by others, and therefore it is significant to politics, public education campaigns etc.
Perhaps a more rounded conclusion would have been nice (what does it say about Russian interference in western politics, social media marketing etc?), but then she has mostly avoided being too academic in her style here, so perhaps that is deliberate. One other observation that has only occurred to me as I'm writing this review is the fact that this is an empirical philosophy approach - I was recently told that is fairly uncommon.
As a final point of praise, I read this in a week (albeit on holiday), whereas I usually take months to finish books.
I'm not sure Stop Being Reasonable tells me a lot about my own situation, though I could no doubt think that through more carefully to get some insights. Either way, it's well-written, accessible, engaging and yet at the same time not at all dumbed down in how it presents its case, drawing on a seamless collection of contemporary and canonical philosophy, popular culture, journalism et al. What its argument boils down to is that conventional rationality is not sufficient (or even adequate) to explain why people change their minds, using a quite varied set of empirical case studies to support the argument. The people concerned have changed their minds in quite dramatic - but not conventionally rational - circumstances. This then has implications for how people can be persuaded to change their minds by others, and therefore it is significant to politics, public education campaigns etc.
Perhaps a more rounded conclusion would have been nice (what does it say about Russian interference in western politics, social media marketing etc?), but then she has mostly avoided being too academic in her style here, so perhaps that is deliberate. One other observation that has only occurred to me as I'm writing this review is the fact that this is an empirical philosophy approach - I was recently told that is fairly uncommon.
As a final point of praise, I read this in a week (albeit on holiday), whereas I usually take months to finish books.
July 22, 2019
Stop Being Reasonable is both an intriguing and frustrating book. I've heard of Gordon-Smith's catcalling segment on This American Life (which is an amazing podcast for anyone wondering), so when I saw this book at the library I was interested enough to borrow it.
Gordon-Smith's book is all about the limits of "reasonableness", on the limits of rational discourse and the fetishisation of rationality and calmness, and how we are so eager to discard emotion and human behaviour when searching for "truth". This is especially true when you get into online debates, where "rationality" and surface level civility are given preference over emotion-driven perspectives which are just as rational. This was a really interesting premise, and Gordon-Smith's case vignettes are incredibly interesting. The illusive sense of self and the importance we place on an inner coherent narrative with which to understand ourselves, the inability to truly know another person etc. are all interesting questions that Gordon-Smith raises.
The problem with a pop-philosophy book is that the discussion felt entirely too short and left me wanting much more. I was really interested especially in her ending statements by the seeming illogicality of love and our failure to value emotion when engaging in discourse. What is love is a question that hasn't really been answered, and Gordon-Smith's musings on it were incredibly interesting. The catcalling segment was also engrossing, where men are confronted with how women don't like cat-calling yet are unable to square that with their inner narrative of women liking it and them just being normal men instead of utter creeps. The ending felt incredibly abrupt. I can't help but think this book could have been so much more because the thesis of this book is incredibly strong.
It's a thought-provoking read that's worth being read, but it is also a frustrating read that could have offered so much more.
Gordon-Smith's book is all about the limits of "reasonableness", on the limits of rational discourse and the fetishisation of rationality and calmness, and how we are so eager to discard emotion and human behaviour when searching for "truth". This is especially true when you get into online debates, where "rationality" and surface level civility are given preference over emotion-driven perspectives which are just as rational. This was a really interesting premise, and Gordon-Smith's case vignettes are incredibly interesting. The illusive sense of self and the importance we place on an inner coherent narrative with which to understand ourselves, the inability to truly know another person etc. are all interesting questions that Gordon-Smith raises.
The problem with a pop-philosophy book is that the discussion felt entirely too short and left me wanting much more. I was really interested especially in her ending statements by the seeming illogicality of love and our failure to value emotion when engaging in discourse. What is love is a question that hasn't really been answered, and Gordon-Smith's musings on it were incredibly interesting. The catcalling segment was also engrossing, where men are confronted with how women don't like cat-calling yet are unable to square that with their inner narrative of women liking it and them just being normal men instead of utter creeps. The ending felt incredibly abrupt. I can't help but think this book could have been so much more because the thesis of this book is incredibly strong.
It's a thought-provoking read that's worth being read, but it is also a frustrating read that could have offered so much more.
August 15, 2019
This is a refreshing take on various questions about some of the presumed uses of reason and argument in everyday persuasion, self-persuasion and psychological processes. I enjoyed receiving input from sources as diverse as John Locke and David Hume, a deconverted Jehovah's Witness (though the "cult" in question is mysteriously not named), and the reality show Faking It, all within the space of a few short chapters.
I did feel it was lacking end-chapter conclusions, to really summarize and drive home with clarity the point of each case study and it's accompanying philosophical questions. But on the plus side this omission makes you formulate the summary for yourself.
Where doubts are raised about some of the presumed uses of reason or rationality, they are not really replaced by recommendations about how to proceed, as the author openly concedes in the final chapter. Gordon-Smith is doubtless right about some of the failings of - for example - argumentative public debates, and she doesn't quite suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater (despite the title, the uses of reason do come up throughout the book one way or another, and while she outlines other processes at work, reason is usually there trundling along as a baseline). There's some good food for thought about everyday decision-making and everyday psychology, I just didn't get much of a feeling about how the various critical insights could alter the less 'everyday' concerns, such as the structure of public discourse or science communication.
This would be a good book to recommend to a really naive rationalist (though, how many people who are likely to read it who are quite so naive as to hold the unadulterated positivist views about reason, usually represented in the chapter epigraphs by early modern philosophers, I'm not so sure).
I did feel it was lacking end-chapter conclusions, to really summarize and drive home with clarity the point of each case study and it's accompanying philosophical questions. But on the plus side this omission makes you formulate the summary for yourself.
Where doubts are raised about some of the presumed uses of reason or rationality, they are not really replaced by recommendations about how to proceed, as the author openly concedes in the final chapter. Gordon-Smith is doubtless right about some of the failings of - for example - argumentative public debates, and she doesn't quite suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater (despite the title, the uses of reason do come up throughout the book one way or another, and while she outlines other processes at work, reason is usually there trundling along as a baseline). There's some good food for thought about everyday decision-making and everyday psychology, I just didn't get much of a feeling about how the various critical insights could alter the less 'everyday' concerns, such as the structure of public discourse or science communication.
This would be a good book to recommend to a really naive rationalist (though, how many people who are likely to read it who are quite so naive as to hold the unadulterated positivist views about reason, usually represented in the chapter epigraphs by early modern philosophers, I'm not so sure).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews