Ever wondered what triggers radical shifts in beliefs? How did Charlie Veitch, a prominent conspiracy theorist, transform his worldview? How does our social identity and sense of belonging influence our beliefs, and why is it so crucial in accepting new ideas? Discover the intricate dance between psychology, social dynamics, and cultural evolution in the formation and transformation of beliefs.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion

Charlie Veitch was once a leader in the world of conspiracy theorists, especially known for his 9/11 truther views. Charlie's journey from a fervent conspiracy advocate to a man who dared to change his mind is a rare tale in today’s "post-truth" world.

In 2011, he joined a BBC show, "Conspiracy Road Trip," where truthers were confronted with experts and undeniable evidence. Despite his companions clinging to their beliefs, Charlie experienced a profound transformation. Meeting demolition experts, architects, and grieving families shattered his previous convictions about 9/11 being an inside job. Deeply moved, he recorded a video confessing his change of heart, emphasizing the importance of truth over dogma.

The backlash was brutal. Once celebrated, Charlie was now vilified by his community. His website was hacked, his family harassed, and former allies like Alex Jones denounced him. Yet, through the vitriol, Charlie found a new path, leveraging his skills into a successful career in real estate.

Charlie's story raises a significant question: How did he change his mind while others didn't? It challenges the notion that facts alone can sway opinions, highlighting the complex interplay of beliefs and evidence. 

As we navigate a world increasingly divided by information bubbles and confirmation bias, Charlie's experience invites us to explore the deeper psychological mechanisms behind belief change. His story is a testament to the enduring power of truth and the courage it takes to follow it, even when it means standing alone.

Can Charlie Veitch's Journey from Conspiracy to Truth Teach Us to Challenge Our Beliefs?

The streets of San Gabriel seemed endless with their two-story brick homes, as Steve Deline and David McRaney set out for a day of deep canvassing, a technique that had garnered headlines and academic interest for its effectiveness in changing minds on contentious issues. 

Steve, part of the Leadership LAB, a political action arm of the Los Angeles LGBT Center, had been perfecting this method for over a decade. Deep canvassing involves having in-depth, empathetic conversations with people, often recorded by a partner, to understand and shift their deeply held beliefs.

On this particular day, they were focusing on abortion rights. After several refusals, they met Martha, a seventy-two-year-old woman who initially placed herself at a five on a scale of zero to ten regarding abortion rights. Through a series of questions, Steve managed to evoke an emotional memory from Martha's past about a friend who had a botched abortion, leading Martha to move from neutral to somewhat supportive of abortion rights.

This method, discovered rather than invented, was spearheaded by Dave Fleischer after the devastating loss of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Fleischer's team asked those who voted against same-sex marriage why they did so, discovering that many were influenced by fear-mongering advertisements. This realization led to the development of deep canvassing, where canvassers help people explore their own experiences and emotions related to the issue at hand, rather than bombarding them with facts.

Despite a setback with a fraudulent study, subsequent research by political scientists David Broockman and Josh Kalla validated the effectiveness of deep canvassing, showing it could significantly and lastingly change people's views on issues like transgender rights. This technique, now being applied to various social issues, involves engaging people in meaningful conversations, prompting them to reflect on their own experiences and emotions, which helps them see the issue from a different perspective.

The LAB's success has sparked interest from scientists and activists worldwide, demonstrating that genuine, empathetic communication can bridge divides and change minds, even on the most contentious issues.

Empathy in Action: How Steve Deline and the Leadership LAB Revolutionize Activism

David McRaney was at the Knickerbocker restaurant in NYC, when a neuroscientist, Pascal Wallisch, showed David a photo of a fried egg with a neon green yolk. He was working on a project with cognitive scientist Michael Karlovich, aiming to understand a neuroscientific mystery that once broke the internet: The Dress. 

Back in 2015, the photo of a dress went viral as people saw it in different colors—some saw black and blue, others white and gold. This phenomenon sparked debates about perception and reality, highlighting how subjective reality is. 

Pascal's research dives into how our brains construct reality. The Dress, he explained, is an example of how our brains fill in gaps with assumptions, based on prior experiences with light. He found that people exposed to more artificial light saw The Dress as black and blue, while those exposed to natural light saw white and gold. This led him to develop a concept called SURFPAD, where significant uncertainty combined with different priors leads to disagreement.

Pascal and Karlovich recreated this phenomenon using Crocs and socks under green lighting. People saw the colors differently based on their assumptions about the socks' color. This work illustrates how our priors shape our perceptions and beliefs, revealing why we struggle to change our minds when presented with new evidence.

This research sheds light on polarized disagreements in society, showing that when we meet novel information, our brains resolve uncertainty without us realizing it, based on our experiences. It suggests that understanding others' priors and processes, rather than arguing conclusions, can foster cognitive empathy and potentially change minds. Pascal and Karlovich continue to explore how exposing people to new experiences might shift their perceptions and assumptions.

Can Wallisch and Karlovich's Research on 'The Dress' Solve Society's Polarized Perceptions?

After spending time with Pascal Wallisch and neuroscientists at NYU, David thought he understood how minds form. The brain constructs a model of reality, improving over time, based on experiences and interactions. But what happens when new information contradicts old beliefs? How do minds change? 

Psychologist Steven Pinker’s thought experiment illustrates this. Imagine a machine that senses tree rings and makes a mark for each. If it senses rings on a smaller stump and sands off marks from the larger one, it performs subtraction, revealing the age difference between the trees. This purely mechanical process shows how the brain encodes information and updates its structure from experiences.

Mark Humphries explains that dopamine influences our motivation and learning. Surprises, like unexpected free ice cream at an airport, spike dopamine, leading to an update in our behavior. Conversely, unmet expectations reduce dopamine, discouraging repetition of the behavior.

Jean Piaget's concepts of assimilation and accommodation explain mind change. Assimilation integrates new information into existing frameworks, while accommodation rebuilds frameworks to incorporate new experiences. This ongoing process maintains a balance, called equilibration, crucial for adapting to new information.

Traumatic events can disrupt this balance, leading to posttraumatic growth. Psychologists Richard Tedeschi and Lawrence Calhoun found that trauma survivors often report positive personal changes, as they are forced to rebuild their understanding of the world.

The brain's ability to notice errors, driven by cognitive dissonance, is crucial for mind change. Neuroscientist David Eagleman’s work with patients like Mrs. G., who couldn’t update her beliefs due to brain damage, highlights the importance of cognitive dissonance in revising our understanding.

Political scientist David Redlawsk’s study on presidential elections shows that people resist changing their minds until a tipping point of disconfirming evidence is reached. This point, around 30% of negative information, shifts the brain from conservation to active learning mode.

In essence, minds change through a delicate balance of integrating new information and rebuilding frameworks when faced with overwhelming evidence. This process ensures we adapt and survive in an ever-changing world.

How Steven Pinker, Jean Piaget, and Neuroscientists Explain Mind Changes

On a chilly Valentine’s Day in Topeka, David found himself at the doorstep of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. Contrary to his expectations of a secluded compound, it was just a house in a suburban area, marked by its controversial signs and banners. Inside, David met Isiah, a young man who welcomed him to their service with the simple guidance to remain quiet.

The day before, David  had spent time with Zach Phelps-Roper, a former member and grandson of the church’s founder, Fred Phelps. Zach, like his sister Megan, had left Westboro, and David was eager to understand the transformation in their beliefs and attitudes. Their stories, like that of Charlie Veitch, highlighted a fundamental truth about how resistant minds can change.

Westboro Baptist Church, notorious for its extreme views and protests, particularly against the LGBTQ community, had been a part of Zach and Megan's lives since birth. However, Zach’s departure was sparked not by a disagreement over the church’s teachings on homosexuality, but rather a personal conflict regarding medical care. After injuring his back, Zach’s plea for medical help was dismissed by his family, leading him to ultimately leave Westboro.

After leaving, Zach’s journey of change truly began when a simple act of kindness from a gay waiter disrupted his long-held stereotypes. This moment opened his mind to question all the assumptions he had grown up with. Similarly, Megan’s transformation was sparked by interactions on Twitter, particularly with David Abitbol, who challenged her views with empathy and humor.

Both Zach and Megan realized that leaving Westboro allowed them to reevaluate their beliefs, leading to a profound shift in how they saw the world. The love and kindness they encountered outside the church played a crucial role in their transformation.

Today, Zach and Megan are symbols of change, embracing new communities and perspectives while advocating for understanding and kindness. Their stories reveal the power of human connection and empathy in overcoming even the most ingrained beliefs, providing hope that change is always possible.

How Did Acts of Kindness Transform Former Westboro Baptist Church Members Zach and Megan Phelps-Roper?

Charlie Veitch, a self-proclaimed "truther," guided David through the streets, pointing out a mural that seemed like a beautiful bird from afar but revealed a corporate logo up close. This encapsulated Charlie's worldview—seeing hidden truths everywhere. 

Charlie's journey began with a transient childhood, moving from Brazil to Tanzania, and beyond, always feeling like an outsider. His sense of belonging came when he discovered conspiracy theories online, particularly after watching Alex Jones's videos claiming 9/11 was an inside job. 

Charlie became an active member of the truther community, making viral videos and even attracting attention from Alex Jones himself. But his life changed when he met Stacey Bluer at the Truth Juice Gathering, a festival that combined New Age, spirituality, and conspiracy theorists. Through this new tribe, Charlie found acceptance and began to question his truther beliefs.

Psychological studies reveal that group identity heavily influences our beliefs. For instance, Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment showed how quickly arbitrary groups could develop deep animosity. Similarly, Henri Tajfel’s research demonstrated that any minimal difference could activate an “us versus them” mentality. This tribal psychology means that challenging core beliefs can feel like a threat to one's very identity.

Charlie’s shift was facilitated by finding a new community that aligned more closely with his values. This echoes research by psychologists like Sarah Gimbel and Dan Kahan, who found that people are more open to changing their beliefs when they feel secure in their social identity. For Charlie, the Love Police and Truth Juice gatherings provided that security, allowing him to reconsider his truther beliefs without fear of ostracism.

Ultimately, human beings are ultra-social animals, and our drive to belong can often outweigh our quest for truth. However, when we feel affirmed and secure within a group, we become more open to challenging ideas. Charlie’s story illustrates that even deeply-held beliefs can change when we feel supported and understood by our peers.

From Conspiracies to Community: How Alex Jones and Truth Juice Remodeled Charlie Veitch's Beliefs

Back in 2011, David wrote "You Are Not So Smart," followed by "You Are Now Less Dumb." Both explored human reasoning, decision-making, and judgment. The main idea was that we are blind to our own ignorance, a concept known as the introspection illusion. We often think we understand our motivations and behaviors, but we mostly guess and rationalize our actions. 

One experiment by Peter Wason with a number sequence illustrated our tendency to seek confirmation of our beliefs rather than disconfirming evidence, a cognitive bias known as confirmation bias. Another study by Mark Snyder and Nancy Cantor showed how people interpreted the same evidence differently based on the initial question, leading to different conclusions about a woman's suitability for various jobs. 

Motivated reasoning, where we seek evidence to support our beliefs, is common. Peter Ditto's study with construction paper strips showed people seeking confirmation that they didn't have a disease, rechecking the strips repeatedly. This bias extends to everyday situations, like interpreting a bathroom scale's reading.

Evolutionarily, our ancestors' need for survival led to the development of social behaviors and communication. This included epistemic vigilance, a way to filter bad information. Cognitive psychologists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that reasoning evolved not for individual cognition but for arguing within groups. This group-based reasoning helps us reach better conclusions through debate and argumentation.

Mercier and Sperber's interactionist model suggests that reasoning is meant for social contexts. Our biases and lazy reasoning are adaptive when we rely on group deliberation. This process is evident in various studies, such as those by Chris Hsee and Amos Tversky, showing how people justify their choices based on perceived social acceptability.

In group settings, argumentation helps us refine our thoughts and reach better decisions. Cognitive psychologist Tom Stafford refers to this as the "truth wins scenario," where group reasoning often leads to correct answers. However, social media can distort this process, leading to polarization and echo chambers.

Mercier and Sperber remain optimistic about the future of deliberative democracy. They believe that better online environments can foster productive arguments and help us overcome the current challenges of misinformation. The key is to create spaces that encourage healthy debate and expose us to diverse perspectives, ultimately leading to a more informed and rational society.

Can Deliberative Democracy Thrive in the Age of Social Media Echo Chambers?

In the chaotic world of persuasion research during the 1980s, understanding how influence worked was like trying to piece together a jigsaw puzzle with mismatched pieces. After World War II, the burning question was how the Nazis managed to sway so many people. This led psychologists, many on the U.S. government's payroll, to delve into the mechanics of marketing, advertising, and propaganda. 

It wasn't until a team, including Hollywood director Frank Capra, was tasked with creating films to counter German propaganda that a significant realization struck: beliefs and attitudes were distinct entities. Capra's "Why We Fight" films, despite being informative, barely shifted opinions, highlighting that beliefs didn't directly alter attitudes.

The breakthrough came with the realization that attitudes—a spectrum of feelings from positive to negative—played a more crucial role in shaping opinions than mere facts. This insight led to the creation of the Yale Communications and Attitude Change Program, sparking a wave of research into attitude change. However, the field soon became cluttered with conflicting findings, making it difficult to form a cohesive theory.

Enter Richard Petty and John Cacioppo, two graduate students who, frustrated by the disarray, developed the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) in 1984. They discovered that persuasion depended on how deeply people processed a message—either through the "central route," which involved careful consideration, or the "peripheral route," where superficial cues held sway. Their experiments revealed that motivated individuals engaged deeply, while others were swayed by surface-level attributes like celebrity endorsements.

Complementing ELM, Shelly Chaiken and Alice H. Eagly's heuristic-systematic model (HSM) highlighted how people often rely on mental shortcuts to evaluate messages. Together, these models revolutionized persuasion research, offering insights into crafting effective messages based on audience motivation and context.

In essence, persuasion is a dance between message content and audience engagement, a dance that can either waltz through the central route or shuffle along the peripheral one. As we delve deeper into these insights, the next step is learning to harness this understanding in real-world conversations, unlocking the superpower to change minds with just the right questions.

From Capra to Cacioppo: The Evolution of Persuasion Post-WWII

In the sweltering Texas summer, Anthony Magnabosco stood in the shade at the University of San Antonio, ready to engage students in street epistemology. This method involves asking people to explore and question their deeply held beliefs, using a series of thoughtful questions. 

Anthony had developed a large following, with many tuning in live through Discord to observe his conversations. Equipped with a dry erase board, kitchen timer, and Tic Tacs, he would invite passersby to challenge their beliefs.

One day, a biology student named Delia stopped to chat. She was grappling with her Catholic faith, feeling torn between her beliefs and the exposure to other religions. Anthony gently probed her reasons for belief in God, seeking to understand her motivations without judgment. Delia admitted her belief brought comfort and a sense of community, but she also experienced moments of doubt and isolation.

Anthony's approach, inspired by philosopher Peter Boghossian, focused on guided metacognition—encouraging individuals to think about their own thinking. By asking non-confrontational questions, he helped people examine the reasons and methods behind their beliefs. His work had evolved from challenging religious beliefs to exploring a wide array of topics, as he realized the power of street epistemology to foster deeper understanding and empathy.

This technique, alongside others like deep canvassing and Smart Politics, emphasizes building rapport and exploring the underlying reasons for people's beliefs. The goal is not to change someone's mind outright but to encourage a more rigorous way of thinking. Anthony and others in the community believe that by focusing on the "how" and "why" behind beliefs, rather than the "what," they can promote a more thoughtful and open-minded society.

As Anthony's story demonstrates, these methods require patience, empathy, and a genuine curiosity about others. They remind us that changing minds is less about winning debates and more about fostering understanding and connection.

Can Anthony Magnabosco's Street Epistemology Revolutionize How We Understand Beliefs?

Around 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had made some advancements in tool-making, but for a long time, nothing much happened. Despite growing brains, Stone Age technology remained largely the same for over 100,000 generations. They preserved behaviors and passed them down generations, but true culture had not yet taken off.

Then the Ice Age, or Pleistocene, brought dramatic changes. The environment became unpredictable with alternating harsh weather, causing many animals to perish. However, our ancestors thrived. They adapted quickly, developing new behaviors and technologies such as hammers and fire, breaking free from the cultural stasis.

The ability to create and accumulate culture set humans apart. Living in groups, they could imitate and spread innovations quickly. This adaptability helped them survive and evolve faster than genetic changes could.

Fast forward to more recent history, cultural changes often lag behind environmental changes but are inevitable. For example, the Industrial Revolution led to social changes as people moved to cities and relied more on peers than family. This shift allowed norms like the importance of large families to fade, and values like marrying for love emerged.

Changes in attitudes towards same-sex marriage illustrate this well. Once economic stability allowed for values of individuality and self-expression, attitudes shifted rapidly. In 1997, 73% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage; by 2016, 70% supported it. Key figures like President Obama publicly changing their stance reflected and accelerated this shift.

Activism and contact with LGBTQ individuals played crucial roles. Protests like the Stonewall riots and widespread media representation helped normalize LGBTQ issues. The contact hypothesis explains that meaningful interaction with out-group members can reduce prejudice.

Social cascades show how change spreads through networks. When conditions align, a small spark can ignite widespread change. This was seen in the rapid acceptance of same-sex marriage and changing attitudes towards drinking and driving.

Persistence is key to change. Throughout history, whether in the fight for racial equality or LGBTQ rights, it’s the relentless efforts of individuals that eventually lead to societal shifts. Change may seem slow, but when the conditions are right, it can happen rapidly and transform society.

From Stone Age Stasis to Modern Shifts: Obama, LGBTQ Rights, and the Power of Persistent Change

Altering deeply held convictions involves more than just presenting facts. The transformation often requires a confluence of factors such as personal experiences, emotional connections, and social dynamics. 

Stories like that of Charlie Veitch show that stepping away from entrenched views can lead to severe backlash, but also to personal growth and new paths. The concept of deep canvassing highlights the power of empathetic dialogue in shifting perspectives by engaging people emotionally rather than confronting them with information alone.

Cognitive studies into phenomena like "The Dress" reveal how our brains interpret reality based on prior experiences, illustrating why changing one's mind is challenging when it involves reassessing these ingrained assumptions. Theories like assimilation and accommodation explain how we integrate new information by either fitting it into existing frameworks or overhauling those frameworks entirely, a process influenced by cognitive dissonance and dopamine-driven motivation.

Social identity and belonging heavily influence belief systems, as seen in studies and anecdotes of those leaving rigid groups for more supportive environments. This underscores the importance of feeling secure within a community to allow openness to new ideas.

Persuasion research further indicates that the effectiveness of a message depends on how deeply it's processed by its audience—whether through careful consideration or reliance on superficial cues. This suggests that understanding and engaging with audience motivation is crucial in effectively communicating and potentially changing minds.

Lastly, historical and cultural shifts, such as the changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage, demonstrate that societal change often requires persistent effort and the right conditions to trigger rapid and widespread acceptance. These insights collectively highlight the nuanced interplay of psychology, social dynamics, and cultural evolution in how beliefs are formed and transformed.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion

David McRaney

Ever wondered what triggers radical shifts in beliefs?

How did Charlie Veitch, a prominent conspiracy theorist, transform his worldview?

How does our social identity and sense of belonging influence our beliefs, and why is it so crucial in accepting new ideas?

Discover the intricate dance between psychology, social dynamics, and cultural evolution in the formation and transformation of beliefs.

Key Ideas

#1