How Minds Change.
David McRaney.
One World. 2022. 352 pp.
ISBN 978 1 78607 594 9.
It turns out that for some of the people whose stories David McRaney tells so empathetically, this should read "here's why." All of these people experienced situations that led them to question their own beliefs and those of the community to which they belonged before they changed their minds.
For most of people, however, especially those belonging to minority groups experiencing discrimination, and, of course, politicians and advertisers, the question is how to make others change their minds.
McRaney explores both the why and the how of mind-changing. He begins by telling us about his meeting with Charlie Veitch, who was once a well-known and influential 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and who was viciously turned on by his online community of followers when he announced that he had changed his mind. He also meets two former members of the Westboro Baptist Church (described by Wikipedia as "an American hyper-Calvinist hate group") who left the church, in spite of knowing that they would be disowned by their families and friends.
What McRaney wants to know is why these people changed their minds, and whether there were any common factors that had influenced their drastic life-changing decisions.
Part of the way he goes about this is to join a door-knocking session with David Fleischer, a member of the Californian LAB (Learn, Act, Build) group, set up over ten years ago to try and change peoples' attitude toward same-sex marriage. The group had some well-publicized success in changing peoples' minds, so McRaney was keen to learn their long-practiced techniques. Three things seemed essential: establish friendly rapport with the interviewee; get them to tell stories about their lives and how they came by their beliefs; show you understand their point-of-view; avoid facts-based argument; tell them something about your own beliefs in an open, unthreatening way; then leave them to think it all over. The great skill, it seems, is to find the key to what formed and influenced their beliefs in the first place, and to get them to recognize, and perhaps question, that influence. McRaney eventually lists and explains ten steps.
Politicians naturally became interested in these techniques. Political grandstanding, flyers, and the presentation of "facts" didn't seem to work on voters, but some research seemed to prove the LAB method might. It became known as "Deep Canvassing." Using these techniques on "conflicted Trump supporters" in the 2020 American elections appeared to have created a significant swing "in favour of Joe Biden." However, lying under a tree, "drenched in sweat, woozy and thirsty," after his summer-time door-knocking session with Fleischer, McRaney realizes deep canvassing is no easy option: "This is why most politicians don't do this," [Fleischer] said. "It takes a lot more effort than just shoving a flyer in someone's hands or leaving it on their doorstep."
McRaney has an easy anecdotal, story-telling style, but his research into the science of mind has also been extensive. He interviews social scientists, political scientists, neuroscientists, and psychologists; delves into published research and discusses deep questions about how our picture of the world is formed (it is all virtual! Bats see the world differently to us)—how our minds develop, how we learn, what influences our behavior and our beliefs, and how our minds and perceptions can be tricked (the viral online discussion about The Dress, which some people see as gold and white and others as black and blue, is just one example.
He almost ventures into philosophy:
How we settle on what is and is not true is a two-thousand-year-old conversation, one that has led people smarter than me to set aside the pursuit and go live in cabins where they could focus on needlepoint and perfecting their pancakes.
To avoid that, instead of getting deep into the philosophy of knowledge, we will focus mostly on psychology and neuroscience.
Some of that is not easy to absorb, but he leads us through it as gently as he can.
McRaney is clear from early in the book, we can't change another person's mind. They have to do it for themselves. He keeps until much later in the book the techniques he learned that will lead someone to do that, and he warns anyone using these techniques should ask themselves why they are doing so—and should question their own beliefs.
So, what are the techniques he learned, and how might they be important to us in our world?
The strength and support each individual gets from belonging to a family or a group of like-minded believers is most important. Stepping away from your tribe without support of some kind is traumatic, so endorsing the beliefs of your tribe becomes essential. The interviewer can discuss both sides of an argument, present well-established facts, and show there is a choice, but in the face of facts contradicting a person's beliefs it is always possible, especially on the internet, to find supporting evidence for their own view, or to find reasons to deny those facts (fake news!). However, we are also rational beings and can be encouraged to look at our own opinions, at how we came to have them, and at the reasons why we believe what we believe. So, we can change our minds.
For me, the most interesting chapter in the book is the "Coda." McRaney was invited "to interview Mark Sargent, a prominent flat-Earther, in front of a live audience."
McRaney describes the way in which he used LAB techniques in this interview. He draws Sargent out, discusses his responses and reasoning with him, finds out how he first came across the flat-Earth theory, and how he explored the arguments for believing it. He asks him to explain the theory. Sargent uses models to do this. He also asks him about his status among other flat-Earthers (his "family"), which is very high and an important part of his daily life.
Flat-Earth is a compelling conspiracy theory because it explains all other conspiracy theories. This is why we faked the moon landing. This is why we cover up aliens. This is why Kennedy was assassinated... That's not to say there aren't schisms within the community... Some believe it's more like a snow-globe with a hyper-advanced projection of space... Some have built intricate old-fashioned orreries with gears and mechanical arms to demonstrate how the disc flips through space, producing night and day. Some believe aliens made the disc; others, gods.
Sargent is rational and sensible, and his faith in a flat Earth seems unshakable, although he admits he doesn't "have all the answers. Not even close."
Finally, McRaney suggests, "if he agreed flat Earth is just one hypothesis among many: that it could be tested scientifically like any other hypothesis," then "if he saw evidence that suggested to his satisfaction that the flat Earth model was incorrect, what would he do?"
"Oh, I'd quit." [Says Sargent immediately]. "I'd quit in a second."
Nearly an hour in at this point. I felt like that was a good place to stop, and we talked a bit about experiments flat-Earthers had planned, including an expedition to the supposed South Pole. Then I thanked him, and we moved backstage.
All that left me wondering when I first learned the Earth was round. What evidence did I have to prove that? What explanations did flat-Earthers have to disprove my views? Would I ever be ready to change my mind and drop out of the round-Earth family?
And if Mark Sargent had used the same interviewing techniques on David McRaney, would McRaney have changed his mind?
Editor Note: Thinking about buying How Minds Change or another book today? Please click the book cover link above. As an Amazon Associate, Eclectica Magazine earns a small percentage of qualifying purchases made after a reader clicks through to Amazon using any of our book cover links. It's a painless way to contribute to our growth and success. Thanks for the help!
