There are so many things about this book that I loved on so many levels.... let me list the ways :)

Topic-wise:
It's a very relevant topic for the social climate. Pretty much any book about changing minds and opinions written before 2017 or so can be thrown out the window, because almost all of them presupposed the reason for 'wrong' beliefs was a lack of information. Even now, in the internet age, I'm shocked to see how many people still believe that if someone is given the right information in some sort of ancient-greek debate setting, they'll be swayed. Such books talk about reason and debate. They mention things like being respectful, but the 'meat' of most of these books is still about logical fallacies, rhetoric techniques etc.

This book puts it on its head. Without basic respect, the chances of changing minds is close to zero, so it goes in to depth about that, and doesn't really go in-depth on all the innards of human reasoning, fallacies etc (most likely because the author has spent most of his life covering those exact things, I'll talk about that later)

Anyways, a very topical and, if nothing else, a good place to point you to other resources about other people who are (effectively) changing minds.

Research-wise:
I love this too!! I feel like most books are either too personally anecdotal or too detached and academic.

"Personally anecdotal" books are books where someone is basically writing "this is what works for me" and pads it out with old tried-and-tested studies we've read about 1000 times before. These are annoying because there's no way to know if the factor that leads to the author's results is because of the things they're aware of, or whether there's some other factor in there that's unique to them.

"Too detached" books are usually ones written by academics. They usually try to give a gigantic, 'objective' view of whatever it is they're covering (also usually with the same handful of tried-and-tested research results we've all read about 1000 times) and offer a weak opinion, and usually an untested one. It'll be a book full of research trends and then some sort of "so maybe this would work in the real world, but I dunno, I never tried, and there's so many factors in the real world that make it hard to say. So, (shrug) that's the book".

This book does none of that. It's overwhelmingly information I've never been exposed to before, presented with strong real-world aspects that are from the author observing the effects directly. In fact, 2 of the major groups mentioned (deep canvasing and street epistemology) started from a real-world approach and iterated rigorously (which would make them scientific in my book), rather than starting with established research and theories. That's also how you innovate... I'm glad he looked at innovators first instead of researchers first, made for a better book.

Presentation-wise:
Love this as well!

He's telling a personal story of learning. It's how he learned what he did, the threads he followed and the results he got from it.

Other books (again, mostly academic ones) feel like they're arguing. They're trying to convince you of something, they present the pros and cons, because they want it to be a fair argument. Even if it's not really an argument.

This book could have been written as an argument: it could have been "these are the reasons why you should engage in discussion this way", with pros and cons and imagined rebuttals and all that. But it's not written that way. He's not trying to convince you, he's just telling you a story. And in that way, the convincing becomes that much stronger. That's also sort of the actual message of the whole book itself, so you see it work through the book too. Again, incredible.

Author-wise:

He's the guy behind You are not so smart the book and the podcast. It's mostly about reasoning fallacies and it's presented that way, even in the title. "Look at you with the broken brain! Hahaha" (I don't interpret it maliciously and I quite enjoy all his works, but knowing what I know now, I see that it can also come across this way both directly and indirectly)

In many ways, this is the exact attitude that has spurred the 'post-truth' world. Some of us see past this attitude and decide to learn about why our brains work as they do; we take it as a challenge and call-to-action to learn. But some of us only see the arrogant attitude. Evidently (as this book shows in detail) some would prefer a welcoming community (no matter how indefensible their beliefs) to that kind of attitude.

Reading this book, you really get that this message has hit home with the author. He's spent so much of his life talking about 'broken' cognition, only to finally realize it's not 'broken' at all -- it serves a purpose and serves it well. In fact, it's pretty impossible to change someone's mind if you don't understand that they're not 'broken' to begin with.

Title-wise:
It's How Minds Change and not How to Change Minds. I think I missed the subtlety of the difference for a while, but the book clearly shows that you can't change someone's mind if they don't want you to.

The best you can do is treat them with respect and hope they change themselves and be a supportive witness to that process. There's a huge difference between that and "how to change minds".

I just finished the book so I haven't fully internalized that difference yet, but I hope to.

I'm going to follow-up with some of the resources presented. ( )