Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think – A Philosophy and Science Guide to Overcoming Tribalism and Polarization

by Andy Norman

Why do people reject science and believe online conspiracy theories? How are people radicalized online and go on to commit acts of violence? Why is our society so politically polarized? Astonishingly irrational ideas are spreading. Covid denial persists in the face of overwhelming evidence. Anti-vaxxers compromise public health. Conspiracy thinking hijacks minds and incites mob violence. Toxic partisanship is cleaving nations, and climate denial has pushed our planet to the brink. Meanwhile, American Nazis march openly in the streets, and Flat Earth theory is back. What the heck is going on? Why is all this happening, and why now? More important, what can we do about it?  In Mental Immunity , Andy Norman shows that these phenomena share a root cause. We live in a time when the so-called “right to your opinion” is thought to trump our responsibilities. The resulting ethos effectively compromises mental immune systems, allowing “mind parasites” to overrun them. Conspiracy theories, evidence-defying ideologies, garden-variety bad these are all species of mind parasite, and each of them employs clever strategies to circumvent mental immune systems. In fact, some of them compromise cultural immune systems – the things societies do to prevent bad ideas from spreading. Norman shows why all of this is more than mere minds and cultures really do have immune systems, and they really can break down. Fortunately, they can also be built strengthened against ideological corruption. He calls for a rigorous science of mental immune health – what he calls “cognitive immunology” – and explains how it could revolutionize our capacity for critical thinking. Hailed as “a feast for thought,” Mental Immunity melds cutting-edge work in science and philosophy into an “astonishingly enlightening and productive” solution to the signature problem of our age. A practical guide to spotting and removing bad ideas, a stirring call to transcend our petty tribalisms, and a serious bid to bring humanity to its senses.

Genres: Psychology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Self Help, Science, Politics

416 pages, Paperback

Published May 18, 2021

About the author

Librarians note: For the illustrator, see Andy Norman

Andy Norman, Ph.D., directs the Humanism Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University. A public philosopher and award-winning author, he is developing the conceptual foundations of cognitive immunology—the emerging science of mental immunity. He thinks this science explains how demagogues short-circuit minds and how ideologies corrupt moral understanding. In his book Mental Immunity, he identifies several mental immune disorders and develops the kind of mind-vaccine that could inoculate future generations against the worst outbreaks of viral nonsense.

Reviews

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a sense, we’re currently living through two pandemics: one biological, and one psychological. From the rise of the most unqualified, anti-intellectual president ever elected to the proliferation of conspiracy theories, science denial, and political extremism, the effects of this “epidemic of unreason” could promise to be more far-reaching and destructive than COVID-19 itself.

At the root of the problem is not simply that there are false and harmful ideas in circulation—although there are certainly plenty—but rather that we completely lack the epistemological grounding to prevent their continued spread. It’s our susceptibility to become infected with false, harmful, or delusional ideas of any variety, in other words, that is the true nature of the problem.

In Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think, philosopher Andy Norman shows us that our collective defenses against the spread of bad ideas—our individual and cultural immune systems—are failing us, allowing for the proliferation of a host of destructive ideas to take hold in our minds. And because our immune systems are compromised, we can’t stop these ideas from spreading—at least not without the proper “mind vaccine” to inoculate us from these mental parasites.

The idea of the existence of mental immune systems is an intriguing take on the problem, and one that I think is more than a mere metaphor. It seems that we really do have functioning mental immune systems, and when those systems are compromised, ideas can propagate themselves with the same alacrity as the deadliest pathogen. As Norman wrote:

“Bad ideas have all the properties of parasites. Minds host them, the ways bodies host bacteria. When bad ideas spread, they replicate—copies are created in other minds. An idea can even induce its host to infect other minds, just as the flu virus can induce an infection-spreading sneeze. Finally, bad ideas are harmful almost by definition.”

Thoughtful readers are unlikely to challenge Norman on these points. There is little question that the world is plagued by a host of bad ideas and that these ideas tend to spread by circumventing the mind’s normal apparatus for weeding them out. How else can one explain the widespread belief in a flat earth, or in the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, for example?

At the root of the problem are two groups of ideas that Norman would refer to as “cognitive immune disruptors”: (1) ideas that lead to radical skepticism, and (2) ideas that lead to rigid dogmatism. These two psychological states correspond to a hyperactive mental immune system (auto-immunity) on the one hand and to an underactive or compromised mental immune system (immune deficiency) on the other. Either bad ideas are filtered out along with the good, or bad ideas are allowed in pretty much indiscriminately (which is why it is often the case that the same person will believe in not one but several outlandish ideas).

The question is, why do the majority of people tend to gravitate to either of these two extremes? The answer, it turns out, lies in the history of epistemology (theory of knowledge). Norman notes how all thinkers have been forced to reconcile a deep paradox uncovered by Socrates millenia ago. Socrates noted how every belief is in need of justificatory reasons for its support, but that those very reasons, in turn, require their own justifications. But if every reason in support of a belief requires its own justification, you’re faced with the problem of an infinite regress of reasons. And if, as Socrates showed, all reasons can be called into question—that there are, in fact, no objectively certain basic beliefs—then this introduces the possibility that we are not truly justified in adopting any beliefs whatsoever.

The inevitable outcome of this line of thinking leads straight to Pyrrhonian skepticism, which teaches that—in the face of this infinite regress—the total suspension of judgment is the only way to achieve ataraxia, or tranquility of mind.

The problem with this approach, however, is obvious: since we all have no choice but to live and believe in something, radical skepticism leads to the idea that any belief is just as good as any other; in other words, it leads to relativism. Without the burden of having to justify our beliefs—on the grounds that justifications are fruitless in the face of an infinite regress—there is no longer any possibility of dialogue or compromise between conflicting belief systems.

You see the echoes of this type of thinking in the relativism of today, or in the general reluctance to challenge a person’s basic beliefs. While it’s true that people do have the right to believe whatever they want, they also have the responsibility to ensure that the direct and indirect effects of those beliefs do not create undue harm for others. When they do, it is perfectly legitimate to challenge those beliefs on logical grounds.

In response to this radical skepticism, the ancient world became disabused with the project of philosophy (this mindset continues today), which was understandably viewed as an empty academic exercise that led nowhere. This, in part, launched the age of faith, where thinkers adopted the opposite extreme: unwavering commitment to the certainty of specific basic beliefs that no longer required justification (if all reasons require justification, and justification faces an infinite regress, you have to stop the regress somewhere). The faithful terminate the regress with the belief in God and the tenets of their particular religion.

The problem with this, however, is similar to that of radical skepticism and the relativism it ultimately leads to. Whether a relativist or a dogmatic fundamentalist, you are equally depriving reason of its regulatory mechanism. Whether you assert that all beliefs are equally valid or that only your specific sets of beliefs represent the final truth, you remove the possibility of rational dialogue, compromise, and intellectual growth and learning. If reason loses its role as mediator between conflicting worldviews (as it does with religion), the only available tools of dispute resolution become violence or coercion, not persuasion.

Norman’s prescription for a mind vaccine, then, is the adoption of the middle path between skepticism/relativism and dogmatism/faith. It relies on reason as the only possible (although imperfect) mediator between conflicting beliefs, and on the idea that we should all challenge our own beliefs with the same tenacity as we challenge others, stopping short of total skepticism toward basic beliefs that warrant our collective assent.

But the real insight of the book is this: don’t expect that the teaching of critical thinking skills alone will produce better thinkers. Most people engage in what psychologists call “motivated reasoning,” whereby they start with a desired conclusion and then proceed to find evidence to fit their pre-existing beliefs. Teach someone prone to motivated reasoning critical thinking skills, and you create a more skilled propagandist, not a fair-minded thinker. In many cases, they will use their newfound skills to be selectively skeptical—i.e., they’ll subject beliefs they don’t like to critical scrutiny while sparing their own favored beliefs from the same examination.

So, for example, if you teach someone that believes in conspiracy theories critical thinking skills, you run the risk of simply making them better at rationalizing ludicrous ideas.

The upshot is this: In addition to teaching critical thinking skills, you must also teach fundamental dispositions like curiosity, intellectual humility, openness to experience, and the adoption of a growth mindset. The fact is, in order to become an effective and responsible thinker, it’s less important that you develop an ability to persuade others than the ability to be persuadable yourself, to change your beliefs in the face of new evidence or better reasons.

For what it’s worth, I think Norman would have been better off spending more time emphasizing these points. Instead, he ends the book with this rather anticlimactic presentation of the long-awaited “mind vaccine” he promised his readers throughout the book:

“A belief is reasonable if it can withstand the challenges to it that genuinely arise.”

Let’s unpack this a bit. The assertion that a challenge needs to “genuinely arise” is Norman’s attempt to prevent the problem of infinite regress. A skilled questioner, remember, can pose challenges to any belief and its associated reasons ad infinitum, as the ancients maintained. But, as it turns out, this is neither practical nor wise, as it leads one to abandon reason altogether.

Here’s an example: The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is, according to Norman’s criteria, a reasonable belief, because the belief fits all known past experience and all known laws of nature. A skeptical questioner, however, could point out that there is no reason to suppose that the future must necessarily resemble the past (the problem of induction), and that therefore there is no reason to suspect that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although this is technically true, this challenge does not render the original belief unreasonable on account of the fact that virtually everyone can agree that it is most certainly true (even if it falls short of complete certainty).

While achieving certainty is impossible, knowledge does not require certainty, only that beliefs are reasonably supported. And when a proposition like “the sun will rise tomorrow” achieves such widespread acceptance and evidence in its favor, it's no longer reasonable to challenge it (the challenge does not “genuinely arise”). If someone were to ask you, “Why do you think the sun will rise tomorrow?” the appropriate response would be, “Why do you doubt it?”

In this case, it’s perfectly legitimate to shift the burden of disproof onto the skeptic, as certain basic beliefs should go without challenge. Legitimate challenges to a more controversial proposition, of course, must be addressed, and this is what keeps the spirit of critical inquiry alive, preventing lapses into dogmatism.

The reader may wonder, however, whether or not Norman’s “mind vaccine” is as profound of a concept, or as useful against the spread of bad ideas, as he thinks it is. Consider that two people can agree that “a belief is reasonable if it can withstand the challenges to it that genuinely arise” but then vociferously disagree as to what counts as a basic belief immune to challenge in the first place.

And this is precisely the source of the problem: What people take to be basic beliefs. Sure, everyone can agree to accept the conclusion that “the sun will rise tomorrow” in spite of the problem of induction and move on with their lives. But what about more complex and controversial issues where what counts as a basic belief is exactly the issue, like belief in God, for instance.

Since Norman offers no criteria for determining which beliefs should be held as basic and which should not, his mind vaccine will do little to resolve the issue. In fact, one could use Norman’s mind vaccine to proclaim as basic whatever beliefs they want, therefore rendering them automatically reasonable.

In addition, I think it’s safe to say that many people already have sufficient critical reasoning skills, they simply choose to selectively apply them. Since Norman agrees with this, it’s surprising that his mind vaccine makes no mention of dispositions or intellectual virtues.

Here, then, is my own proposal for a more effective mind vaccine:

“To become a better and more responsible thinker, overcome your tendency to engage in motivated reasoning by challenging your own beliefs with the same tenacity as you challenge others, and be willing to—and in fact take pride in your ability to—update your beliefs in the face of new evidence and better reasons.”

Since critical thinking is not an exact science, and reason does not lead to certainty, we cannot expect to discover any set rules for establishing reasonable beliefs. The best we can hope for is a world where people honestly and consistently challenge their own beliefs and strive, to the best of their ability, to proportion their beliefs to the evidence in rational dialogue with others.

Overall, this is a timely and important book that contains many deep insights that I could never hope to cover in a short post. Norman takes the reader through the history of the theory of knowledge, examines the ethics of belief, outlines his proposal for a new field of science (cognitive immunology), and much more, making this one of the better nonfiction reads of the year.

[Fiona · Rating 2 out of 5]

All the useful or informative bits of this book could be easily covered in a 10 page essay; Norman rabbits on needlessly about things like his teaching experiences or the history of medical immunology to bring his subject to book-length. The overall tone reads as though the anticipated audience is slack-jawed undergrads who smoke a lot of weed, with unnecessary repetitions and a charmingly condescending warning about the "difficulty" of the concept he is about to introduce. He also seems to be laboring under the delusion that he has developed a revolutionary concept; if he has, nobody would know since his thesis is so mired in unnecessary verbiage.

[Regan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was stoked to receive this book as an ARC. The blurb made it sound like it’d explore a timely and important topic. It may well do just that, but the manner of presentation of that topic made it a laborious read.

The writing style struck me as defensive, bordering on bitter. It consistently perpetuates an us-vs.-them mentality. The author seems to legitimately believe he’s merely an observer of the phenomenon he calls “parasitic ideas.” His aggressive style demonstrates pretty plainly, though, that he feels he has skin in the game.

There were bits I probably would have found worthy of discussion, many of whose premises I even agreed with. But the author seemed more interested in gotcha! moments and in being right than in solutions and understanding. It reminded me of any given online argument between strangers, devolving into ad hominem jabs.

This book won’t change any minds, unfortunately. DNF after about 50%.

Thanks again to Goodreads for providing me with an ARC, Kindle edition.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are you, like Norman, worried that dangerous, counterproductive ideas are so dominating our public discourse that we can hardly talk to each other any more? Norman suggests that some ideas are simply destructive of the capacity to think: “Bad ideas are parasites. Not analogous to parasites’ or ‘metaphorical parasites’ but actual parasites.” For example, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion”—and to their own values, because “values are subjective,” so they’re not subject to rational evaluation.

To deal with this thought-ending bind. Norman proposes and carefully demonstrates an approach to constructive, inquisitive discussion. He makes it a game that anyone can play: “Almost any conversation can become a quasi-scientific inquiry: an illuminating exploration of an idea’s pros and cons.” The method of it is discussed in almost too much philosophical detail, but it makes good sense. Would it work in our hopelessly partisan society? Well, here’s some fairly convincing evidence: “The Black blues musician Daryl Davis has de-converted hundreds of Klu Klux Klansmen. His secret? He asks questions and listens!” This thing has got me interested.

[Dan Connors · Rating 4 out of 5]

How can anybody be so sure about anything these days? In an age of mushrooming conspiracy theories, people are more confused than ever about what's fake and what's real. And unscrupulous politicians, media, and businesses are taking advantage of that confusion to sow doubts to push their own agendas. How do we deal with this?


Mental Immunity is an attempt by an actual philosopher to tackle the question of epistemology, or how we know things. Dr. Andy Norman is a philosophy professor at Carnegie Mellon University and he has put together a timely guide through the history of knowledge to try to help us navigate the confusing world of information and fake news. This is a deep read, but it's worth it to get some perspective on the struggles that have befallen humanity since the times of the Greeks.


Norman describes the problems of bad ideas and fake news, which he calls "mind parasites." The Covid-19 epidemic has produced a cascade of rumors and fake news that has killed thousands of people. Things like hydroxychloroquine, horse medicine, and bleach injections have been proposed to treat the disease while established scientific advice such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing has been attacked as government overreach. Where do bad ideas come from? How do you tell what qualifies as a bad idea? And what can you do to protect yourself and those you love from destructive "mind parasites?"


Inspired by Covid, Norman uses the analogy of infection and vaccines all throughout the book. Like a virus, bad ideas can spread from person to person and turn people into unwitting carriers of disinformation and conspiracy theories that they feel in their bones to be true. He provides a list of six immune disruptive ideas and their antidotes:


- My beliefs are private and nobody's business. (Only true if no actions that hurt others come from those beliefs.)

- We have a right to believe what we want to believe. (Again, if beliefs turn into real world results- like the Holocaust or slavery- we don't have that right)

- Values are subjective. (Tastes are subjective, some values are universal).

- We have no standing to criticize other's value judgements. (If they are directly harming others we sure do- see climate change for instance.)

- Basic value commitments are not subject to rational examination. (We all have basic principles, but if yours involve killing or enslaving others, they deserve scrutiny.)

- Questioning a core commitment is fundamentally intolerant, mean or unkind. (Cancel culture seems oppressive at times, but there are legitimate questions to be asked.)


Norman next takes a deep dive into a basic philosophical dilemma- how can you know something to be true? One camp relies on faith in basic beliefs and principles that can never be questioned. This is the path of religion and partisan politics, and has gotten humans into a lot of trouble while giving them a comfortable base of certainty from which to work.


The other camp is the way of inquiry, championed by Socrates, where everything is up for examination and nothing is sacred or assumed. The problem that humans have faced for centuries is that the way of inquiry can lead to an infinite series of questions that only lead to more questions, called infinite regress. At its worst, constant inquiry leads people to feel lost and powerless as they grasp for any kind of truths. To avoid that trap we've relied on faith in unquestioned principles that are immune from inquiry. But where do you find the principles that can't be questioned? And what happens if things change and the old principles don't apply anymore?


The way of inquiry, aka scientific inquiry, is great in some instances but misses the mark in others. Faith leaders point out that having strong bedrock principles protects people from chaotic events, and having strong vision helps create a more desirable future that doesn't necessarily match current conditions. Norman calls this the downstream effect of faith. People of faith ignore the upstream causes of something so that they can focus solely on their desired results. You can see this dynamic at work today, with motivated reasoning ignoring medical advice while latching onto more congruent and desirable miracle cures.


Norman proposes something called reason's fulcrum, where we are supposed to yield our beliefs when the evidence stops supporting them. No belief in that way is sacred, and if better reasons are discovered, norms and beliefs should follow. This goal has been derailed by a bevy of cognitive biases that keep us from seeing things we'd rather not see and learning things we'd rather not learn. Because our beliefs become a part of our very identities, we cling to them even when they stop serving us. Cognitive biases divide people into camps, and when someone plays the faith card in a debate and says "just because," the exchange dies, especially when both sides have opposing faiths that can never be reconciled.


So after many pages of history and philosophy, the author comes down to what he calls a mind vaccine, that will protect the bearer from bad beliefs. That vaccine comes down to one sentence- "a belief is reasonable if it can withstand the challenges that genuinely arise." The key word here is "genuinely." Many challenges to established knowledge are without merit, in bad faith, or baseless. Rather than put the responsibility on society to defend against every challenge, the onus has to be on the challenger, who must offer real proof that their challenge is legitimate. Listening to conspiracists on Facebook and elsewhere, this is where their arguments fall apart- they hear it from someone who either has no experience in the field in question, or from someone who has something to gain by propagating that idea.


In other words, when someone comes at you with a fanciful but suspicious belief, the best protection you can come up with is to ask them questions. Why do you believe that? Where did you get that information from? Why is the rest of society wrong on this and how can you be so sure of your source?


Many people today have bought into a grand conspiracy theory that all the scientists, teachers, media professionals, and world leaders are hiding the truth for nefarious reasons. This kind of grand conspiracy theory blocks any possibility of intelligent debate. Any conspiracy theory becomes unassailable because discounting evidence come from them- the bad guys. It reminds me of a joke:


Alex Jones dies and goes to heaven after spending most of his life spreading the conspiracy theory that the world is flat. He gets to heaven and expresses his frustration to God that people didn't believe him, to which God replies that earth was indeed spherical the entire time. Alex stares at God and shakes his head. "Wow, this conspiracy goes much higher than I ever thought!" he says to himself.


The grand conspiracy is a fiction, but it enables so many more conspiracy theories because it says that you can trust no one. And it is true that when it comes to knowledge and information, everybody has a bias and an agenda, and you should always keep those in mind when deciding who to trust. But in the end the world is unknowable and the best we can hope for is a partial picture guided by inquiry and experimentation.


Dr. Norman 12-step program that encompasses much of what was said in the book, and it's good general information on keeping your information intake clean of nasty viral content. Here it is:

1- Play with ideas and test them, don't fall for them too quickly.

2- Minds are not passive knowledge receptacles. We are always re-learning.

3- You are not entitled to your opinions.

4- Don't use bad faith arguments. Treat people with respect even if you disagree.

5- Be prepared to unlearn things you thought you knew.

6- Figure out how to order your thoughts.

7- Don't cop out by thinking "who's to say?" We all have a responsibility to correct people who are wrong.

8- Value judgements can be objective.

9- Treat challenges as opportunities instead of threats.

10- Join communities of inquiry, not communities of belief.

11- Upgrade your understanding of reasonable beliefs.

12- Don't underestimate value of ideas that have survived scrutiny. They are generally better than the alternatives.


Mental Immunity proposes a middle path between absolute faith and absolute skepticism that is admittedly squishy. There is a base of knowledge, mostly proven by scientific inquiry, that generally can't be disputed without some sort of proof. We build from that base with empirical studies and experiments that add data, from which we hopefully can get a general agreement on what is true. Science can't deal with death, the supernatural, personal tastes, or human biases, so there is a huge gap in which beliefs and opinions still matter, but at least it's something. And hopefully at some point we can agree on the big things like economic fairness, racism, and climate science, though I'm not holding my breath.


Is this book a best-seller? No, of course not. The current top 10 NY Times non-fiction list is populated by political books that tell people what they want to hear. They are written by ideologues who profit from telling lies and half-truths. Books like this - thoughtful, philosophical, and dedicated to finding evasive truths are for a small audience, but hopefully an influential one, and if enough of us just take in the simple truth that our beliefs and opinions impact the lives of others in ways we don't realize, then perhaps we are making progress.


We are besieged by more information than humanity has ever had to deal with in history. Some of it seems urgent and existential. Sifting through all this information to come up with a workable model of how to live your life is the challenge of the 21st century. Getting fooled by mind parasites and bad information is the great danger of our information age, and we need to be vigilant but humble when forming our beliefs and ideas before sharing them with others.

[John Martindale · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the examples given throughout this book, Andy Norman appears to be a left-leaning philosophical naturalist and gives the impression (at times) that he believes that conservatives and religious folk don’t have a shred of evidence on their side, but instead, blindly believe what they know ain’t so and stubbornly refuse to bow before the facts. They also are morally culpable for this as the ship owner in Clifford’s story, such warrantless beliefs are not only deadly to the individual but to society as a whole. His hope is people could adopt a method that can lead to mental immunity, so as to be protected from delusional conservative and religious beliefs.

I take issue with his concept of what belief is. Beliefs happen to us. I believe what I think is true and what I think is true I believe; the assumption of truth is intricately connected with belief. Though I have never been to Egypt, I believe it exists and I could not by the act of the will, decide to believe that Egypt does not exist. My belief in the existence of Egypt is based on trust in a variety of authorities. This belief is grounded in good evidence. There are lots of things I couldn’t believe, for example, the Hindu religion is so far outside of my plausibility structure, as well as philosophical naturalism seems utterly irrational and absurd. Sure, in a sense I could “will to believe” but this wouldn’t result in belief. If I decided I wanted Hinduism or atheism to seem more plausible to me and wanted to belong; I could read their books, surround myself with them, immerse myself in their worlds, and maybe someday, I would wake up, finding “belief” happen to me, meaning materialistic or Hindu assumptions would no longer seem false, but rather true.

Andy is simply mistaken thinking faith is believing what we know is not true, for if we know it is not true, we don’t believe it. Those things which I believe, I rightly or wrongly think are aligned with reality, and unless I have a good reason, it wouldn’t be right to change my mind when I am giving what seems to be weak or fallacious counterarguments.

So now, let's pick up one of Andy’s favorite examples of irrationality, that is the “climate deniers”, those people who know global warming is wholly caused by humanity and will result in human extinction, and yet decide to foolishly suppress the obvious evidence and willfully choose to believe what they know is not true. Andy seems to think that if only they would see they are morally obligated to affirm what is true and bow before the evidence, they would repent of their evil denial and agree with the global warming alarmist, ridding their mind of a parasite.

But this is the problem, we who are labeled as “climate deniers” (an attempt to associate us with Holocaust deniers) actually believe that the “science is not settled” and there is good reason to question whether humanity’s Co2 production is the primary driver of climate change. My belief on the matter is grounded in what I (rightly or wrongly) consider good evidence. Both me and Andy, are in the position of basing our conclusions on faith in authorities and research, for neither of us is capable of personally proving and verifying claims these scientific claims. Of course, both of us are also biased by our political tribe, personalities, and experiences, which will influence who seems trustworthy and what evidence seems weak or weighty.

When I spent some time trying to find the best evidence that global warming is caused by human activity, I was at first humbled, for I learned climate is a remarkably complex system and I was also convinced that human activity could play a role. I understand Mill’s method of similarity and difference that lead to the conclusion that human activity seems to stick out as the primary difference. However, this is induction, and it is also clear that the precise relationships and factors involved in climate are not entirely understood. As the complexities of the human body, so it is with climate.

Anyhow, in my research I learned that the greenhouse gases humanity produces are tiny compared to what nature produces; if nature’s contribution is like a tidal wave, then our contribution is like a teaspoon in comparison. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 98% of our atmosphere is filled with Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and other gases, about 1 to 2% are Greenhouse gases. Of this Greenhouse gas, 95% is from Water Vapor, 3.62% is Co2 and 1.38% is other things like Methane. Of the Co2 96.6% is natural and 3.4% is from human activity. Now, compared to water vapor, the human contribution is 0.28%, and for all the alarmism; I thought 0.28% seems rather a small amount. Now, when forced to, global warming alarmists acknowledge these facts and of course, they have a quick response, and that is that human contribution is causing a positive water vapor feedback loop.

But it was when I went to investigate whether humans are causing a positive water vapor feedback loop, that I learned that little is determined or known; that there is yet solid evidence that human activity is causing this, and it isn’t even certain that there is a runaway feedback loop. The whole bloody thing seems to rest upon a weak premise that hardly anyone ever even addresses.

As I have not found convincing evidence, I would have to accept what the global warming alarmist claim based on blind faith. I guess if I really wanted to belong and be accepted by progressive democrats, I could believe what I don’t think is true, and eventually, one day I might find I actually believe it. But in this case, it does not seem responsible or wise to do so. Because
1. we have decades of failed predictions by global warming alarmist1, they have a track record just as good as Christians attempting to predict the end of the world.
2. Climate is a complex system, and yet scientists can only receive funding to look for “evidence” that supports that humanity is the primary cause, it is agenda-driven.
3. There is evidence that scientists who are not in lockstep with the orthodoxy can have their careers destroyed. There is remarkable pressure not to go where the evidence leads, but instead to fit in so as not to be spotted by the modern inquisition.
4. There is hard evidence of falsification of data, propaganda, and crooked research procedures. Considering this is a “global problem”, in need of global “solutions” and politicians know that the only way to “save the world” would be to obtain near absolute and global power, then it is of little surprise then why politicians have entangled itself themselves with the entire thing, which also makes me skeptical.
5. The whole thing has all the trappings of fundamentalist religion and has ironically become anti-science, with the claims that the “debate is over” and the “science is settled,” hell, talking about having no concept of Karl Popper’s falsification principle! Then the loose way that everything, I mean literally everything bad, no matter how contradictorily the claims, is attributed to global warming, makes me rightfully suspicious; when I know causation is remarkably hard to determine.

If I can be convinced that humanity's microscopic contribution to the greenhouse effect is the primary driver of global warming, I will change my mind. I can honestly say outside of mere assertions (a hell of a lot of them); I’ve yet to be given any convincing evidence. I just don’t appreciate the smug assertion throughout this book, that anyone who doesn’t agree with Andy on this matter, is a “climate denier”; is knowingly and immorally believing what they know is not true, and have absolutely no evidence or reasons at all for their position.

Once again, no doubt I have biases and life experiences that shape how I understand the evidence and what seems plausible and persuasive to me, however, I am not consciously refusing to bow before what I perceive as the better reasons. No doubt it is the same for Andy. He, of course, thinks he has the better reasons and it would be wrong for him to reject his view, and to affirm what he knows to be false. It is easy for me to think he is bound by ideology and has the will to believe (to belong with his leftist tribe), that he is non-objective and credulous towards fashionable secular views on the left, while unwilling to even consider the evidence on the opposing side as “evidence.” And likewise, it would be easy for him to think the same of me.

On another issue, as a naturalist, it seems he has assumed at the outset that only that which supports his strict materialistic view of reality can be considered evidence, and everything that does not support his position cannot even be considered evidence of anything, and thus his opponents have no evidence and everything they believe is completely groundless. Sure, he would be open to changing his mind, if given “evidence” but that is the rub, nothing could count as evidence. When Bill Nye said he would change his mind if given “evidence” that was an utterly vacuous claim since Bill Nye would simply deny anything could even count as evidence if outside of his naturalistic assumptions. In other words, if in reality, there is a God, there is literally nothing that could count as evidence of God’s existence. It would be like someone with a telescope saying the only thing that is real can be seen with the telescope, and when told, about the microscopic world, looks at it with his telescope and insist there is no evidence for it while continuing to dogmatically assert that only what can be seen through his lens is reality.

1. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-y...

[Tristan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Andy Norman did not convince me that we have a cognitive immune system which is directly analogous to our biological immune system. That was the promise that led me to read this book, but the analogy felt tacked on rather than integral.

[Fanona · Rating 1 out of 5]

So many biases from the start. You can't teach people to think independently if you are programming them with your bias & questionable information & stance on issues. Very disappointing.

[Philip of Macedon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Andy Norman’s book Mental Immunity is an impressive accomplishment, all things considered. Norman tackles what I see as one of the biggest societal problems of the day. He frames the problem in a way that sets his book up to be the fix, or at least a step in the right direction to a fix. And despite a few blemishes in an otherwise ambitious work, I think he succeeds in paving a clear path forward. His path is a composite of many borrowed ideas, standing on the shoulders of giants. He gives proper credit to these thinkers throughout the book, discussing their works in detail.

This is a hard problem to fix, even to understand. But it looks something like this: political hyperpartisanship, extremism, radicalism, tribalism, ideology, conspiratorial thinking, these things are infectious ideas, mind parasites, pathogens that take over our cognition if we do not have strong mental immunity. Those with low immunity, or even those with hyper-immunity in the form of radical skepticism, akin to an autoimmune disease, will either adopt any terrible idea of the right shape that interacts with their mind, or will reject all ideas including the good ones. This fosters a society of rigid ideologues, zealots, dogmatists unable to change their minds about their articles of faith, or a society of infinitely cynical critics unable to commit to values or knowledge.

As Norman puts it though, this is not simply an analogy. We shouldn’t think of terrible and divisive and regressive movements as merely being “like” a plague spreading through the populace — it actually is a plague spreading through the populace. It’s not due to germs but to ideas. And the minds that are exposed to high enough levels of bad thinking, if those minds haven’t been in some way inoculated against bad thinking, will take on that sickness.

Initially I liked the idea but found it hard to see it as anything more than an analogy. It’s a fact that rotten ideas, but more importantly the minds that have low immunity to bad ideas, are a bane on human flourishing and peaceful coexistence even beyond the species. But I didn’t appreciate the effectiveness of seeing the problem as an invasive parasitic entity until about a third of the way through the book.

After establishing the idea as more than mere comparison, Norman gets to work discussing how we can collectively improve our mental immunity, remain open minded, free thinking, with healthy skepticism, all rooted in critical thinking, submission to reason, and intellectual humility. Since this is a topic I’ve been invested in for over a decade, very little of what is discussed was new to me. I think anyone who reads philosophy or takes this issue seriously enough for their friends to think there’s something wrong with them will feel like they’re part of the choir being preached to. Still, the book taught me new things, offered perspectives I hadn’t explored before, and clarified some issues I’ve found difficult to navigate.

Norman outlines current approaches to critical thinking and their drawbacks, exploring more serious ways to engage with ideas, not just through the potentially infinite regress of Socratic reasoning, but with what he develops over many chapters: the New Socratic model. It allows for the reliance on axioms that may not be purely fundamental. He examines the value of challenges, discussing bare challenges and onus-bearing challenges: the first being a challenge that does not place the burden of proof on the one being challenged, but places the burden of explaining disagreement on the challenger, and the latter placing the burden of proof on the challenged.

Of historical interest, he spends many pages looking at pragmatism and its benefits to cultivating our minds toward responsible belief: not merely looking at the upstream justifications for a belief, but considering also the downstream consequences of those beliefs. Ideology becomes the focus for a time, as we unravel its corrupting influence and disease-like hold over political and religious activity. One of the main themes in Norman’s process for developing robust cognitive health is the rejection of ideology. This does not mean rejecting responsible belief, but remaining curious and having a questioning mind even on the most sacred of one’s personal values.

His model of cognitive immune health is meticulously put together through the chapters, until after many enlightening discussions we are left with a satisfying program to apply to dialectic. In full, it’s a very competent model, perhaps lacking a few things but still more cogent and comprehensive than anything we see in the realm of idea-engagement in our culture. At the end of the book it is summarized like this (I am summarizing his summary):

First, play with ideas, test them, ask questions, pose challenges. Treat them with care, but pry them open and try to understand them. Then, recognize willful belief as a dangerous avenue to ideology, which can warp the mind. Learning must be not only additive, but subtractive. Learning new things and facts does little good if we cannot unlearn old and wrong ideas. Let go of the notion that you are entitled to your opinion. What you believe affects others, so believe and think responsibly.

Question your convictions, test your method of knowing, examine the logic you are using to arrive at your beliefs and see whether or not the same logic could be used to arrive at beliefs you disagree with. Distinguish between good and bad faith, distinguish between resolute hopefulness and tenacious dogmatism. Promote pro-social attitudes but don’t excuse willful irrationality. Clarify and order your thoughts, meet challenges to your ideas, admit it when your opinions or beliefs don’t add up. Disassemble and reassemble your worldview, studying each part of it as you do so, trying new configurations, look for truth in dissenting voices, internalize their message and adjust your confidence levels accordingly.

Reject the notion of relativism as a brain dead shortcut to settling difficult moral or intellectual questions. This is kicking the hard questions down the road, avoiding truth, and is a coward’s way out. There are more and less responsible ways of thinking about everything, and to refine our understanding requires inquiring into values. Along this line, forget the notion that value judgments can’t be objective. The notion that we can’t develop responsible shared understanding of what is good and right is mistaken. Treat challenges to your beliefs as opportunities rather than threats. Do not tie your identity to your beliefs, see that it is not you being challenged but your ideas. See this as an opportunity to clarify your thinking, gain enlightenment, refine your belief.

Find belonging in a community of inquiry rather than a community of belief — celebrate reason, commit to yielding to better reasons, promote dialogue over dogma. Treat no beliefs as above scrutiny or as perfectly secure. Be always open to upsetting the balance of ideas in your mind. Have your convictions undergone rigorous and regular testing? If so, grant them provisional assent. Last, rely on presumptions that have survived scrutiny, have the courage of well-tested convictions, but always be ready to re-examine and discard them.

Norman recognizes the boldness of his program, but seems optimistic that it can catch on. I certainly want it to. The difficulty is that this book is only going into the hands of people already interested in this path, it isn’t finding its way into the hands of extremists and ideologues and zealots. Norman has envisioned many ways these ideas could be shared and spread, nurtured in classrooms and public. It remains to be seen how well these methods would work but I am hopeful.

I said the book has some blemishes. There’s nothing overwhelmingly wrong with it that I can see, but there are enough small problems sprinkled throughout that they start to add up.

First, when he relies on history other than fairly recent philosophical history, he gets things wrong. He characterizes the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages as times of absolute knowledge regression and stagnancy, as completely captured by religious violence and no serious thought, which is a common mischaracterization of those periods. His criticism of religious dogma is well placed, but given the extreme variants of ideological mind-poison that is seen in Islam right now around the world, his arguments fall flat when he can only seem to level earnest criticisms of Christianity, ignoring the more problematic religion except in short mentions of extremism.

Some of his philosophical excursions are too sparse and unrefined, especially when it seems most necessary for meticulous clarity and precision. Other times he spends too many pages discussing rather simple ideas that don’t need that much build-up or unpacking. Some of this is a matter of personal taste or familiarity, but I think there’s an imbalance in his focus. He also has a tendency to write in a condescending way that makes me wonder who the intended audience is, and if he respects his readers or thinks of them as knuckle-dragging idiots. Given the way he expresses himself, and the way he turns his nose up at entire swaths of the population whose views he hasn’t bothered to understand, he probably hasn’t thought very hard about who will read this book. He will, within the span of a few pages, write in a way that suggests his readers share all his unfounded biases and so he doesn’t have to explain his point of view, and also write as though everyone is unwashed and waiting for his guidance through the world of ideas. There are a lot of things it doesn’t appear he has thought through. To give credit where it’s due, though, there are plenty of satisfying discussions in the book that do exactly what they should, at just the right pace. This is a complicated topic, so even giving it the attention it deserves warrants praise.

At times he discusses modern forms of ideology and hyper-political-partisanship in the US culture, but his analysis was outdated even for 2021 when the book was published. He is suspiciously blind to some of the most glaring examples of ideological capture of the popular culture of the last 20 years. Other than his vague mentions of Trump and the disdain the author has for anyone who voted for the guy, which he doesn’t feel needs to be explained, should simply be self-evident, Norman almost seems to be writing from the year 2002. It appears he is going to great lengths to pretend the only examples of negligent and toxic mind parasites are those that occur on the right. They do occur there, but not in the popular culture. And the culture is his primary focus. He loses an enormous amount of credibility on the subject when his blind spots are so glaring and unashamed. For a philosopher pushing a program of careful, reflective, reasoned thinking, this isn’t excusable. This might suggest the intended audience of the book is a certain sect of ideologues who share his political articles of faith but also believe themselves to be practicing what he’s preaching, without a sense of irony.

This oversight detracts from the very message he keeps pushing: to examine one’s biases, to challenge one’s beliefs, to disassemble one’s worldview and reassemble it carefully, configuring it to be more in line with the truth. He is repeatedly unable to do so, despite giving himself plenty of opportunities to do so. He admits he has biases, but he is not attempting to correct for them. Even in the acknowledgments at the end of the book, many of the thinkers he says he admires and looks up to are intellectuals with enough cognizance and clarity to recognize the ideological and intellectual plagues that occur across the political spectrum. He is either selective in his reading of and listening to these people, or he does not want to believe there can be blemishes in his own tribe. This reveals that Norman hasn’t successfully implemented his own model yet. He is frank enough to admit this at different times, so we shouldn’t be too harsh. But since he is so fond of pointing out when others are wrong we should take a moment to recognize he is wrong more often than he thinks. And he should know better than to rest so comfortably on wrongheaded ignorance.

It is an important book that delivers on its promise, while having a few egregious blindspots, oversimplifications, dumbed down platitudes, and minor errors that detract from its quality. Even with its drawbacks, few and far between as they are in an almost 400 page book, it is a worthwhile work taking a serious look at a fundamental intellectual problem in US culture. It is a problem rarely discussed by many so-called public intellectuals, especially by those signaling a performative concern for the consequences of this issue. Fortunately the weaknesses of the book do not affect its thesis.

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Drawing on his experience as a philosophy professor, the author offers new ways to evaluate information in an increasingly post-fact society. While the book is largely theoretical, I found it fascinating. It covers the history of philosophy and the search for truth going back to Socrates. It discusses some of the reasons for the current breakdown in rational discourse, from confirmation bias to the dubious notion that "everyone is entitled to their opinion." Told from a humanist perspective, it imagines a world where people are taught as a matter of course to question everything they believe.

Overall, I found the book to be mostly balanced and inclusive. There are a few areas where I think this work could be expanded on, either by this author or someone else. First, most people aren't as interested in logical discourse as this author is. Most people base their decisions on emotion rather than on rationality, even if they convince themselves otherwise. Second, like many humanists, the author doesn't seem to understand the human impulse toward religion. Spirituality isn't about logic—it's about mystery. It's about joy and awe and wonder. There doesn't seem to be any place for mystery in the vision the author describes. Third, how will these ideas be put to work? These ideas won't go anywhere unless they're incorporated into school curricula, business training, and public policy organizations.

We could all benefit from the ideas in this book. The next step is to put them into action.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

A prescription for rationale thinking. The author compares bad ideas to viruses and proposes a way of thinking that will protect minds from bad ideas, ideologies, conspiracy theories, and the like, the way vaccines protect the body from bad diseases. Two of the things I liked about the book were the author's explication and critique of the history of rational thought and his ability to explain philosophical ideas in a way that lay people can understand them. I didn't give it 5 stars because I think the analogies between bad thinking and physical microbes were a little strained or overblown at times, and I think the author is overly optimistic about the likely success of his prescription (or, more accurately, the likelihood that it will be followed by enough people to make a difference). The reason I say this is because his prescription depends on what he calls "reason's fulcrum," namely, that better reasons trump worse reasons. I don't think that is the case any more. Today, ideology trumps everything. You can argue with the best reasons and all the facts in the world, and the person you're trying to convince won't change his or her mind but will double down on his or her erroneous beliefs.
I would not recommend the book to my religious friends unless they are prepared to challenge and change their religious beliefs. (The author considers religion one of the bad ideas that is a stumbling block to rational thought.)

[Christer Jansson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The bad news about this book is that the author uses way too many words to explain things, which makes it difficult to extract the important parts.

I still initially wanted to rate this book a 5, but when I read the other reviews, especially the negative ones, I realized that the wordiness is a real obstacle for understanding, not just for me, but for others as well; this is a real flaw that needs to be recognized.

But, the important parts really matter, and are well worth the trouble if you're willing to invest the time and effort, or just select the chapters that interest you the most - there is an introduction early on that can help you choose.

So despite the wordiness and the associated difficulty with understanding the text, I still give it a 4; this is because:
a) the core message is that important, and
b) you have an obvious option to skip some chapters and still get the gist of it.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good popular discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of rationality, buried in a cringeworthy metaphor equating reasoning with biological immune response to the "pathogens" of bad ideas. That Norman's attention has obviously been called repeatedly to his problem, and yet he doubles down relentlessly on it for the first third of the book, casts a bit of a shadow on his qualifications to propose a method for critiquing bad ideas. Once that settles down, though, the book gets better in the back half.

[Amna A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

read up to 50%. insightful arguments that can be interesting discussions but too laborious to read

[Chris Hays · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well...I gave it four instead of three stars and I am not sure what that speaks to. This book starts out amazing. Then it delves into tons of philosophy that is still relevant. However, the long trains of thought are hard to keep up with. I am not sure what the non-audio version is like, but it was challenging to stay focused and know what was going on. Kudos to Andy Norman for tackling the subject and helping to break our current stagnation. Unfortunately, I doubt this book finds a giant audience.

[Emma Rudie · Rating 4 out of 5]

At least read the intro and the 12-step program at the end. Some good ideas in here, but could be a lot shorter.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must-read, and my concern is that I won’t be able to explain how incredible it is within this short review. Andy Norman is a philosopher that has been teaching his students how to build mental immunity for years. So, what is mental immunity? Like viruses, bad ideas can spread, and there are a lot of misconceptions about our ideas and beliefs. We feel that we’re entitled to our beliefs or others are entitled to theirs, and sometimes we fall into the trap that all things are morally subjective. The reality is that there are consequences when bad ideas spread, which is why we need to have better conversations and challenge bad ideas in a healthy way. Mental Immunity will help you to not only have better conversations with people you disagree with, but it assists you in practicing some intellectual humility and challenging your own thoughts and beliefs as well.

I think the best analogy from the book is when Norman describes having ideas like weeds growing in a community garden. If it was just our garden and we didn’t clear out the weeds, that’s fine, but ideas and beliefs aren’t like that. Bad ideas are like weeds in a community garden, and if we don’t keep them in check, they can harm others. So, get this book and share it with others. Once my son is a little bit older, this is definitely going to be a book I have him read so he can grow and hopefully help decrease the spread of bad ideas while also encouraging healthy conversations.

2nd read:
This was my second time reading this book, and it was just as fantastic as the first time. The book only came out earlier this year, but I kept thinking about it, and when a friend said he just started it, I wanted to read it again. This book brings up the idea of cognitive immunology, which Andy Norman describes as a way to innoculate ourselves from bad ideas. This is crucial in a time with misinformation spreading like wildfire and how easily we can fall into our own bubble and discredit science and evidence. The biggest takeaway from this book is how we all need to be more humble and not hold onto our beliefs so tightly. Norman mentions regularly throughout this book how we need to yield to the better reason, but too often, our ego gets in the way, so it’s something we should all be practicing on a regular basis.

3rd read:
Books help me feel sane in an insane world. After Trump was elected…again…I couldn’t stop asking, “Why did so many people vote for this guy?”, and this is one of my favorite books on how people fall victim to bad ideas. Andy Norman is awesome, and this book really breaks down how people and groups fall for bad ideas, and he discusses how to inoculate ourselves from these bad ideas. He teaches the reader that we have to yield to the better reason but also explains how we also have to be skeptical.

This is one of my all-time favs, and I highly recommend it.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book and found it thought-provoking. I think it presupposes an understanding of basic philosophy and may be inaccessible as a starting point for some readers. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in philosophy. Also, I think this got better toward the end so if you stall out getting started, hang with it!

[Andreas Bodemer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Others have done an excellent job of reviewing this book, so I’ll spare details.

The short story is that this book reminded me to push back against relativism and towards eternally perfecting a more accurate understanding of reality and of the good life.

Some ideas and ways of life are better than others. Some harmful others beneficial. Reason is our immunity. And reasoning together is our collective duty.

[jason wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book seriously holds many good ideas to inoculate us from bad ideas. For anyone who wonders what a world would look like without mental contagions and parasitic thinking, this book is for you. Suspend your politics, your dogmatic thinking and open up your mind to this enlightening read. A beautiful blend of science and philosophy, easily the best book I have read this year.

[Kseniya Kosmina · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book lasted waaaaay longer than it should've. the author just went on and on and on and oooooon with dull anecdotes that did nothing to prove the point. thought this would be a useful read, but it turned out to be a waste of time.

[Matthew Luttmann · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the idea of this book and like some of the ideas in it. But it’s a 350 page book that should have been shorter by 100 or more pages. I spent too much time plowing through text waiting to get to the next main idea.

[Christopher Tarr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe the most important book that the people who need it wont read.

[Victoria Wilde · Rating 1 out of 5]

Never dropped something into the goodwill box faster. I read the whole thing waiting for him to do something other than stroke his own ego, but that moment never arrived.

[Pi]

Musiałam wykazać się dużą odpornością, by przebrnąć przez ODPORNOŚĆ UMYSŁU Andy'ego Norman'a. Ta książka jest niezwykle jednostronna, ideologicznie podporządkowana obranej narracji i dzieląca społeczeństwo, ludzi na lepszych i gorszych - przy czym rzekome "argumenty" autora są absolutnie niewystarczające, bazujące na jednostce, która ma charakteryzować całą społeczność. Wybiórczość, uogólnienia, pisanie historii na swoją modłę - cóż, ODPORNOŚĆ UMYSŁU, to pozycja dla bardzo konkretnej grupy odbiorców i ci z pewnością będą dawać 10/10.
Zacznijmy od WIELKIEJ METAFORY, "genialnej" metafory, którą Norman uczynił kręgosłupem swoich rozważań. ODPORNOŚĆ CIAŁA, system immunologiczny człowieka przełożył na ODPORNOŚĆ UMYSŁU, ponieważ uznał, że to wprost wspaniale odda jego "znakomite" wynurzenia. Otóż, jak dla mnie, metafora ta jest banałem, infantylną próbą zbudowana czegoś pozornie nowego, posługując się starymi ideologiami. W tym "dziele" można odnaleźć niemal na każdej stronie marksistowską myśl, co nie jest komplementem, choć dla niektórych (o zgrozo! patrz pomniki Marksa w Niemczech) jest.
Sam Andy Norman nie jest żadnym naukowcem - do czego na szczęście się przyznaje. To filozof, a notka o nim na skrzydełku jest tak samo teoretyczna, jak owa książka. Ten człowiek niczego nie odkrył, niczego nie udowodnił, on tylko tworzy na zgliszczach starych idei - myśl ubraną w nowe stroje. Cóż, jeśli chodzi o filozofie, to ją bardzo cenię, to wspaniała droga do poznania, to dziedzina, która zadaje pytania i szuka odpowiedzi - lecz najlepiej trzymać się filozofii realistycznej, bo w mnogości innych można utonąć i zagubić zdrowy rozsądek.
Argumentacja Normana jest bardzo słaba i krzywdząca. Potrafi, na podstawie zachowania jednego człowieka (wariata) scharakteryzować np. wszystkich ludzi wierzących. Ponieważ tak zrobił, to dał mi niepodważalne prawo do wytknięcia mu jego uwielbienia dla Nietzsche - otóż był to ulubiony myśliciel Hitlera i nazistowskich Niemiec, czy to znaczy, że Pan ma z nimi po drodze?
Innym (jednym z wielu, wielu, wielu), oburzającym fragmentem jest "Ludzie religijni nie mają oczywiście monopolu na moralny zamęt. Dezorientować i sprowadzać na manowce mogą również ideologie świeckie." !!! Nie mają monopolu, ale rzecz jasna są w większości? I o łaskawy panie Norman miło, że zaznaczyłeś, że ideologie świeckie też mogą "sprowadzać na manowce" - może jednak słyszałeś o np. KOMUNIZMIE?! Super, że jednak to dostrzegłeś.
Przyznaję, że książka ma swoje zalety. Zmusiła mnie do krytycznego myślenia, trochę może podniosła ciśnienie, ale w sumie to rozbawiła. Zdecydowanie Andy Norman potrafi pisać "naukowo", a raczej sprawiać takie wrażenie. Przytacza wiele przykładów, sięga do historii - tylko, że to zawsze miecz obusieczny. Norman wyciąga ASY z lewego rękawa, ale zapomina, że w prawym też znajduje się ich całkiem sporo.
Mogłabym pisać o tej pozycji jeszcze długo i może powinnam, np. bardziej konkretnie, wyciągać te "złote myśli" autora i starać się ukazać ich niesprawiedliwość i całkowity brak zrozumienia poruszanej tematyki (wiara, patriotyzm, chrześcijańskie korzenie Europy). Oczywiście, ma on w wielu miejscach słuszność. Straszne zdarzenia z historii, z tej dalekiej i nie tak dalekiej - jasne, to są fakty, ale czy tworzenie KOŚCIOŁA UNIWERSYTECKIEGO nie jest tworzeniem kolejnej religii? Czy to w świetle jego filozofii nie jest zagrożeniem dla zdrowego społeczeństwa? Czy taki KOŚCIÓŁ nie wymaga wiary? Myślę, że wymaga jej całkiem sporo biorąc pod uwagę stopień niewiedzy choćby o własnym UMYŚLE.
Oczywiście Andy Norman sprytnie wybrnął i wyprzedził możliwą krytykę swojego dzieła - jak? A no tak, że ci, którym książka się nie podoba, są zwykłymi głupcami, ślepymi idiotami, zwyrodniałymi prawakami, fanatykami religijnymi, co to nie przyjmują jego absolutnie niepodważalnych argumentów. I choć ODPORNOŚĆ UMYSŁU ma momenty bardzo dobre i ciekawe - bo tego, że książkę się czyta dobrze, że jest świetnie zaprojektowana i chwytliwa odmówić mu nie mogę - to nie uważam, że jest obiektywna, a on, jako filozof, powinien wiedzieć, że coś takiego jak "obiektywizm" nie istnieje. Zawsze patrzymy z własnej perspektywy - czyli ODPORNY UMYSŁ nie jest aż tak ODPORNY jakby chciał autor.

oj trzeba być odpornym
Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mental Immunity is an interesting analogy on critical thinking. I think the author did a good job of defending the analogy, and why it is a helpful one. I also think that Norman's insight on how arguments are created is a good one, even if I'm not sure it really resolves all epistemological issues.

This book is about the analogy of cognitive immune systems to bad ideas with biological immune systems to diseases. In fact, the analogy is a bit deeper as Norman considers autoimmune cognitive diseases (where the cognitive immune system attacks critical thinking like autoimmune diseases are the immune system attacking its body) and a functioning immune system must know not to over-react or under-react to possible pathogens (or ideas in the analogy).

This analogy I think is ably defended by Norman. Some might call it only an analogy, but I think humans think mostly in analogies and that as long as the limits of the analogy are known, they are helpful. The author explains how he wants the cognitive immune system analogy to be taken, and it seems reasonable to me.

Norman also gives the insight that when we talk about arguments we think of them as claims given support. That is, all claims require an underlying foundation (he calls this something like giving a gravitational field onto the space of reasons, which I did find illuminating). Norman argues for some claims (under certain circumstances) we should treat them as axioms and someone should give a good reason not to take them as true for the situation. Again, I think this is reasonable, and a good insight into real world reasoning. On the other hand, I think this is still asking for support [instead of something like supporting (claim A), it is like supporting (not claim A)], and so I think it is more useful as a tool to more properly imagine the space of probabilities. I also think that the distinction between upstream evidence and downstream consequences seems like a tool rather than a proper distinction, but, again, mental tools can be useful.

My primary criticism is that while well-written overall, I think it could present its arguments better and more quickly upfront and then delve into things. There were a couple of times where I felt like I wanted the author to get to the point more quickly, but this was minimal and I found the insights into thinking about reasoning more than enough to counter this (for me) negative style choice.

I think it's worth a read if you're interested in critical thinking and a skim if you just think it sounds mildly interesting. Reading the introduction and conclusion should be enough for you to determine if you think it's worthwhile. (As a practical matter, I do wish the author had chosen examples that would seem less controversial/political. The underlying ideas on critical thinking seem sound to me, but I think the packaging might appear as too much in sync with the author's biases for those of a different persuasion.)

[Myles · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I saw the cover of “Mental Immunity” the first thing that came into my mind was “Oh, here’s a book about the light treatment politicians on Parliament Hill or Capitol Hill get when they say outrageous things. They simply declare “Mental Immunity,” sort of like diplomatic immunity for diplomats, but in this situation they get to say whatever they want without journalists calling them out for their stupidity.”

Or maybe what its like to get a spot on FOX and Friends, where you can say completely crazy things and the others simply nod their heads.

Then I saw that Anthony Doerr had come out with a new novel (which I haven’t read yet) called “Cloud Cuckoo Land” which has to be about some of the conversations I’ve read on facebook.

But Andy Norman’s project for this work of psychology is a little more serious. He wants to launch a new science to cut down on the number of lousy ideas people use in public discourse and, worse, which people use to develop public policy.

He starts out using the science of immunology as a metaphor for the kind of restorative science he wants largely philosophers to brandish. He talks of “infectious ideas” and “mind-parasites” in much the way we view medical viruses.

If I were a cynic I might treat Norman’s thesis as a subtle means for improving the status of philosophers on campus these days. Or possibly improving their pay scale.

I imagined philosophers running around campus in white lab coats with stethoscopes dangling on their necks. They’ll claim brain parasites as pre-existing conditions for health insurance claims. It could be a great boondoggle for private universities to get public subsidies.

There may even need to be isolation wards for the worst afflicted, something like the mental hospitals of old but for FOX News hosts and freshmen Congressmen.

Material for a great lampoon? For sure.

His diagnosis is largely correct: crazy ideas are over-running the air waves and average people are consuming them like lollipops.

Norman proposes that general education includes a new Socratic method for training better, more critical thinking, and better consideration of the impact ideas have on society. All in all, it’s not such a bad idea.

But I shudder to think we would have to re-train our over-burdened police forces with special training to handle mental outliers. They already have trouble handling schizoid personalities.

[Xipu Li · Rating 2 out of 5]

It turns out that borrowing this book from the New York Public Library was an excellent financial decision.

The author did a good job whetting my appetite initially, and I was very eager to explore the solution to strengthen my mental immunity. However, I could not finish the book, even though I was only 10 pages away. And I still have a feeble understanding of how I can strengthen my mental immunity. Hell, now that I'm thinking about it, I did not take away anything useful from the book.

The book's premise is attractive, but the way the author presented it absolutely ruined it. He spent too much time describing the problem and tried to establish causal relationships between the problem and thoughts that he disagrees. The “solutions” were in the last chapter, but this final chapter was the most challenging text of the entire book. I don’t understand why the author suddenly makes the tone so academic. If you want mass adoption of your idea, you need to get out of the ivory tower and make the language easy to understand and straight to the point. The author mocked armchair philosophers, but the “solutions” proposed were plainly impractical to implement.

As a non-US citizen, I find this book shockingly and weirdly political when I read how strongly the author sides with pro-Democrat arguments. I thought the entire idea was to purge toxic biases induced by the system? It feels like propaganda to me. And the author was/is a professor, so I’m very disappointed to see how emotionally immature the writing is.

[Ryan Lesica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Relevant and important points worth discussing that ultimately get bogged down by the authors repetitive and tedious self-indulgent rants.

Halfway in, Norman actually makes a strong case for why our modern conception of rationality manifested into the cluster it is today; manifested from the holes in the models and approaches laid out by Socrates and Plato. He points out how their methods have led to cynical skepticism and problematic dogmatism which can be used in healthy doses but too often gets abused, and that a method that finds a middle road without pivoting one way or the other will improve our rationalizing capabilities. This here is the best part of the book.

The rest however, is the proposal of his "New Socratic Method" that seeks to find that middle ground. But instead of breaking down how it can be properly utilized in a real-world setting or giving proper examples, he simply rants on and on about how his method is superior and that it will revolutionize our way of rational thought. But how can you do that if you're just regurgitating vague concepts instead of constructing a digestible method? He mentions how "we philosophers" hate step-by-step methods because it holds them hostage of proper inquiry and that the very idea is "authoritarian" in their line of work...oh please! If you can't properly simplify your method into a process, summary, or abstract in a way that can be useful, your concepts are too vague, too complicated, and too abstract for practical application.

[Craig Amason · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an extensive study of how false information works like an infection that, left unchecked, can do serious damage to the intellect and result in poor decisions. I was impressed with how Norman transforms the metaphor of bad ideas as a viral infection into a literal disease for which we need "mental immunity." His prescription for training and strengthening our minds against infection is straightforward, centering on questioning and dialogue, both internal and with others. He takes the Socratic Method to a whole new level, but it isn't just an endless and senseless series of asking "why" or "why not." He presents an honest approach to getting at the truth - the ultimate goal of a healthy mind.

Norman makes such a compelling argument for the presumptive in human discourse, admitting that not all opinions are valid, not all ideas are good, and not all judgments are moral - a concept that is often shunned by a supposedly enlightened society that assumes keeping an open mind about everything is a virtue. If nothing else, the author made me completely rethink the phrase "critical thinking."

Norman makes readers recognize that, even though we cherish foundational statements of our republic like "we hold these truths to be self evident," we also may be totally blind to some of the most obvious truths all around us. Some of the reader reviews I saw immediately made me wonder if they even read a page of the book or just reacted negatively because they know they are the population that Norman considers "infected." Somehow they acted surprised and disappointed that he brings politics into the discussion. Really?

The deeper analysis of logic and ethics gets a bit dense at times, and Norman even invites readers to skip some sections if they aren't interested in a particular line of discussion, which I find admirable. This is a solid, extensive study that deserves a careful reading, and perhaps a bit of re-reading.