How Minds Change The New Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion by David McRaney. Oneworld (London, 2022) 352 pages. Pbk £11:99
Reviewed by Digby Hartridge
Journalist David McRaney has written what amounts to a very readable how-to manual on polite debate. He’d noticed some very rapid swings of popular opinion in America on gay marriage and smoking, where commentators were taken unawares, prominent public campaigns on these issues having been ignored for years. Sudden changes also occur in individuals’ lives. Investigating the phenomenon, he came to adopt what he terms deep canvassing and street epistemology (where he acts as a sort of modern Socrates), and induces “comparable mental adjustment”, a process he’s found to be effective. Working with a group you must: establish mutual rapport, agreeing to act with complete honesty; listen to opinions with interest and without challenging participants’ reasoning; repeat back opinions until you have established the words employed are shared; rate the level of agreement on a scale. If the participants are ready to explore further, ask, if applicable, how they first became aware of their view; ask what exactly they had been thinking then; and end, perhaps, by touching on an alternative view but never insistently, always stressing similarities and a readiness to differ; wish them well. Come back to it later. Louis Theroux is an example of someone who deploys such techniques.
Anyway, McRaney found that an emotional insight often induced changes or “flips”; the change might be consolidated by the universal process of rationalisation. This despite the evolving social media, which polarises debate on contentious matters and encourages conspiracy theories and flat-earthers, vaccine-resisters and 911-deniers. Not all his contributors cooperated, but any changes were more likely to withstand being rolled back than changes prompted by conventional debate. Also occurring were what McRaney calls a cascade, as when a mob goes violent or a traffic jam clears, and a few converts with weakly held views became an organic group, albeit with different levels of commitment, albeit few persuaded by every aspect of the case.
The above is a representative process, and populists reject it. However, the basic point: we do need to get round to talking properly, without confrontation, with a wide range of people, face-to-face. Have we not all seen how ordinary persons can be quite friendly towards someone of opposite views and become raving fanatics only when venturing online – and can calm down again after reflection? It’s unfortunate that most journalists are passively addicted to 24/7 rolling news, excited by the ghastly rumpus at PMQs in the House, unable to envision alternatives to the blatant nonsense of it all. I found the book encouraging and have definite views on where some of McRaney’s ideas could be employed to advantage. Maybe in local groups or in preparing for international meetings?