Cautionary Tales with Tim Harford - Cautionary Conversation: The Conspiracy Theorist Who Changed His Mind

Episode Date: October 21, 2022

Charlie Veitch was certain that 9/11 was an inside job. The attack on the World Trade Center wasn't the work of Al-Qaeda, but an elaborate conspiracy. He became a darling of so-called "9/11 truthers" - until he actually visited Ground Zero to meet architects, engineers and the relatives of the dead. The trip changed his mind... there was no conspiracy.   His fellow "truthers" did not take Charlie's conversion well.  David McRaney (host of You Are Not So Smart and author of How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion) joins Tim Harford to discuss what happened to Charlie Veitch; what it tells us about those who hold strong beliefs even in the face of damning contrary evidence; and why persuasion isn't always the right answer.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pushkin I have been preparing a special Halloween episode of cautionary tales, but this week isn't Halloween, so that's not right. We don't want to annoy the spirits, so we'll release the cautionary tales Halloween episode next week. Well, watch we do this week. This week I will be dropping another of our occasional cautionary conversations, an interview with someone with a story to tell that I think you might enjoy. In June 2011, Charlie Vich boarded a British Airways flight at London's Heathrow Airport. He was headed to New York City, in fact, to Ground Zero. There, on September 11, 2001, the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed, killing

thousands. After being struck by two passenger aircraft hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists. That's the official story anyway, but Charlie didn't believe it. Charlie Vich was a truther, a man who didn't believe that the world Trade Center collapsed because of a terrorist attack, who thought instead that it was a controlled demolition, part of a deadly conspiracy. Charlie didn't just believe this, he was evangelical about it. He was a leader in the truth of community, making a good living from his YouTube videos, in which he explained that jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel beams, or that the neat collapse of the skyscrapers into their own foundations could only have been the result of precision explosives.

The 9-11 conspiracy theory was his faith, his social life, and his job. Charlie flew to Ground Zero as part of a BBC TV series Conspiracy Road Trip. The premise of the show was that in each episode, a different tribe of conspiracy theorists would travel around in a bus, meeting the eyewitnesses and the experts who might challenge their views. And maybe, with the cameras rolling, when presented with the most authoritative facts in the most riveting circumstances, they'd change their minds. Of course, they never did.

Except once. Charlie Veech, after listening to all the experts and all the witnesses, went home to think. And then, after a few days, he posted a short video for his fellow truthers. The evidence had convinced him. He couldn't hold on to the conspiracy theory any longer. 9-11 really had simply been a terrorist attack that caught the US unawares. Yes, he said. I have changed my mind. And that, to his fellow truthess, was utterly unforgivable. I'm Tim This is another one of our cautionary conversations. As usual, you'll hear a story of something going wrong, a pair of adventure with a lesson we can all learn, but I'll be joined by an expert to help tell the story and reflect on it. Today I'm joined by David McCraney, the host of the hugely influential podcast You Are

Not So Smart and the author of several books, including his new and brilliant How Minds Change, the surprising science of belief, opinion and persuasion, which weaves Charlie Vitch's story together with many others, along with the latest research, and David's own adventures in persuasion and conversation. David McCrainy, welcome to Corsian retails. Oh wow, thank you so much. It is a great honor to be here, a big fan of your work, and this is going to be the best. I'm just looking forward to hanging out with you and having a conversation. So thanks for having me. It is my pleasure and I'm a huge fan of you and not so smart and of the book. And you begin

quite early on in the book with the story of Charlie Veech. Just tell us a little bit about the things that Charlie believed before he came into contact with this BBC program. And what were the conversations that he had that changed his mind? Yeah, for him, he had been a curious young man. He had moved around a whole lot. He had Brazilian heritage and his father worked in the oil business.

And so they moved around from country to country, to country, several countries in the Middle East and then back and forth. And eventually when they settled in the UK, he had sort of a Brazilian lute to his accent. And he was, as he told me, that he just was made fun of a lot. When he was in the Middle Eastern countries, people there were very prejudiced against him

and made fun of him. And then when he came to the UK, people there were prejudiced against him and made fun of him. So then he wanted to do something and he wanted to question the world. And so he pursued a philosophy degree. And then he eventually ended up in banking and he said, that was something that that he felt like he had gotten into that sort of hamster wheel loop. He just gets up, goes to the cubicle, sits there all day,

does something a machine could do, gets back up, comes home. And he just felt very trapped and isolated and not validated. And nothing about this philosophical urge that he had to question the world was being satisfied. And then after 9-11, he watched a video. I want to say it was loose change, but I think he watched all of them. But I know that one of them in particular, he was like, okay, this is clearly a conspiracy.

And he had already been playing around in this space. He would take a megaphone and he would run been playing around in this space. He would take a megaphone and he would run around in London and other areas and he would just shout at people and tell them they were being controlled that their lives were part of the military industrial complex. He was very into anonymous and all these other organizations that felt like there's a sort of a benevolent anarchy that I want to be part of and He didn't like the idea of being stuck in a loop that removed his humanity. That was something he reiterated over and over again He felt like he wasn't a real human being and these were things that helped him feel like he was

So when the 9-11 video came along he felt like okay now this is evidence for what I am been talking about, I think you about feeling for so long. This really justifies my beliefs and attitudes and that is how he found his way into the truth or community, the online community of people who share those anxieties and together they talk about it all the time and to the point that they became a real community to him. So it's really interesting the way that you've set the stage there. So we haven't even yet talked about specifically what he believed, but you've phrased it in emotional terms. His emotional journey, the kind of person he was,

the kind of longing he had to believe, and his perspectives on the world, which have not always treated him very well, the idea that there was a community out there, of like-minded people, this benevolent anarchy. None of this yet is about the specifics of the conspiracy theory. It's all about the emotional resonance of the conspiracy theory,

which I think is important in itself. Yeah, I wanted to lay the foundation of how he arrived in that conspiratorial community, because it's odd to even say it out loud even after all those research that the conspiracy actually is irrelevant, and the beliefs are irrelevant. But you don't know that when you're in the conspiracy. The anxieties and the values and the emotions that lead a person into a conspiratorial community, that's what's the motivating factor. That's the drive.

But in an online ecosystem like we have, and the information ecosystem like we have now, you can go online and look for confirmation that your anxiety is reasonable and you will find it. And you'll find it in other people sharing their anxieties. And at a previous year, it would be very difficult for that to go any further. You might have some meetups maybe. You might be able to correspond in some way. You might subscribe to people's newsletters or their, by their books.

But now there's this thing that can happen where people form communities very rapidly, very quickly, and then spend a lot of time exchanging ideas with them. So some of the researchers I spoke to about this, they were like, we find our way into these groups, up and off, for all sorts of reasons. But once you're in the group, the anxiety is set aside for the desire to be in this community, because it satisfies this other drive, you really weren't aware of maybe that you wanted that validation in community. So that's true for Charlie at the moment that he gets into this. And once you're inside the community, these beliefs that you made and never have entertained before

start becoming part of the dynamic. And his beliefs, for instance, were that the buildings filled directly into their footprints. He believed that the steel beams of the towers, the jet fuel couldn't have burned hard enough to melt them. So how could they have fallen? He had other beliefs that were even deeper conspiratorial where that the airplanes may have been remote controlled. There may have been dummies on the airplanes. And his fellow conspiracy theorists pretty much shared almost all those beliefs, but they all knew that they shared one thing in

common, which was, it definitely was a conspiracy. And all those people were then brought over by the BBC, and they were given what you always want to give someone who's in a conspiratorial community. The thing we often do online is, let me dump as many facts as I can on this person. Let me just show them, look at this link, look at this link, look at this link. Well, they went all the way in a way that we all wish we could do. They took them to ground zero. They've had them meet the architects who designed the World Trade Center, who told them about how it couldn't resist a modern plane.

It was designed to resist an impact from an older prop driven plane. They even had them get into a flight simulator, the kind that commercial airline pilots use, and had them learn how, yeah, it's tough to land one of these, but it's very easy to just point it at something big. They had them talk to two demolition experts who talked to them about what kind of explosives we required for this and how difficult it would be to go into the building. And you would have to take these gigantic jackhammer type devices and drill into every one of the columns all the way up and you'd have to put explosives into those holes that you made all the way up. Then they went even further and said, okay, what if we also took these people and had

them meet people who were there, meet people who experienced this. So they talked to people who were at the Pentagon when it was attacked, who were there and helped with the cleanup before first responders could get there, people who lost people they knew, people who lost people they knew, people who saw that the corpses of their own coworkers. Then they went to Pennsylvania to the crash site of one of the planes and they did everything you could imagine to give people a chance to see, okay,

clearly, I mean, like there's facts and then there's this and the whole premise of this show, because it's like a reality show, is that when you do all this, everybody goes, yeah, well, nice job trying to trick me, I still believe it. And that usually is what happens in the show at least. But Charlie, he said the thing that really since different was they met the widows and widowers of people who died in the crash. Charlie, in particular, hugged one of these people when he heard her story, he held her while she sobbed. And when he got back to the hotel room with the other truthers

on the trip with them, he was very eager to hear what they thought about all this. They opened the dialogue by saying, wow, those crocodile tears, huh? What a great actress that they hired to trick us. And he told me that he thought, privately, you're a group of disgusting animals to me. And that was overwhelming. He couldn't believe that they had zero empathy for this. And from that point forward, he started seeing himself a little bit separate from the group. It's incredible, but that I think is this interesting moment. This really sets off the whole exploration in the book, how minds change, because they all came in with the same belief, pretty much the same belief. They all saw exactly

the same thing. So I want to come back to Charlie's story because I think that this mystery of why he changes mind and why the others didn't, I think, is fascinating. But before we come back to him, I wanted to ask David about your own views. You seem to have gone on a bit of a journey. The beginning of the book, you're pretty much a facelift, like the BBC TV crew, you're thinking, well, when you show the conspiracy theorists the facts, of course they don't change their mind. Who ever changes their mind about anything. But then you make the point that actually people do change their mind all the time.

We managed to do quite a good job of ignoring it when it happens. Yeah. I mean, I had this podcast. You're not so smart. I have the book. You're not so smart in a follow up. And I, this become my beat as a journalist was talking to people about motivated reasoning, which is just all the psychological mechanisms and neurological mechanisms that influence us. We're very motivated to justify and rationalize and explain ourselves in a way that always seems to suggest we were right all along. And yeah, I was very cynical.

I had this pessimism and I was not giving prescriptive advice. I was just describing, here's a thing in the world and that's not to engage in it. And then around the same time period, the norms and attitudes and then the law about same's not to engage in it. And then around the same time period, the norms and attitudes and then the law about same sex marriage in the United States. And LGBTQ issues in general had changed so rapidly. And I had this thought experiment pop in my mind. I was like, what if you took all those people and you put them in a time machine and sit the back 10 years,

would they argue with themself? Would they look at each other and find it impossible to convince each other of something that in the future, that same person will then absolutely accept. I wanted to understand what must have happened in those people's brains. And I felt like to understand it from the bird's eye view, I could go all the way down into neurons and work my way up.

And I became obsessed. It felt like it was an opportunity to give myself some cumuppance. And I was eager to do so because I didn't want to hold this cynical attitude. So I had motivated reasoning. I was motivated by something that I didn't even quite understand. And that's what sent me off on this super

obsessive journey and all over the world trying to meet experts and people who change minds, people who have had their minds changed, drastic ways and so on. I mean, not everyone is as knowledgeable about the subject as you are, David. And not everyone is as obsessed with the problem of changing minds as you are. But a lot of people are kind of, we all

like to think of ourselves as people who should be able to change other people's minds. I was quite interested, I published my own book, The Data Detective last year. And that's a book about how to think clearly about the world and about how numbers might help you think clearly about the world. And I was quite interested by the response because lots of people came to me and said, well, yeah, I enjoyed the book. I've got this friend, and he or she, well, he's this dumb thing.

And I, could you tell me how to use numbers to set them straight about this stupid thing that they believe? And my book had never, the way I thought about it, is if you can set your own thinking straight, isn't that enough? So, do we think too much about trying to help other people see clearly, about trying to change other people's views, and not enough about seeing clearly ourselves? It's so nuanced. I think that it reminds me of something Tom Stafford told me,

the great cognizant psychologist. He said germs were always a problem for human beings. And then when we built cities, they became this existential crisis because, well, put a lot of people together in a big group, germs become a major problem. You have plagues, outbreaks, and so on. So we developed sanitation at the level of the community. And then we developed best practices for Individuals which would be washing your hands and stuff boiling your water he said for misinformation and The inability to develop where is the good source of the information all these problems with information have always been the problem for human beings

But then you get the internet which is the informational equivalent of gigantic cities. And now it's an existential crisis. And so we'll have to develop the generational equivalent of both sanitation at the context level, at the platform level. And we have to develop best practices as individuals. We have to develop the generational equivalent of washing your hands when it comes to misinformation. This is what Tom Stafford told me. So, the answer to your question is, both things have to happen simultaneously because we all

do need to become better critical thinkers. That's true. We all do need to become more amenable to changing our minds, more amenable to being wrong, more likely to consider things hypothesis and not a conclusion and all the things that go into that. But the context in which we discuss these issues are going to also have to change because if we're good critical thinkers, we're going to come across things that other people aren't. We're going to have experiences they're not going to have.

We're going to have expertise they don't have. We're just going to be in worlds that they don't live in. If we're all a great critical thinkers, we're going to discover things that, oh, this might not be true. We're going to see that certain attitudes might be harmful. We're going to see that maybe certain value structures need to be rearranged. Each person who's doing their due diligence is going to become aware of things that might help everybody else to understand better.

If you don't have a way to actually do that, if you don't have a way to do that, that doesn't create massive resistance and pushback, then it will remain one-sided. The current thinking is the natural selection did a great job of creating psychological mechanisms within us that are set up to have that kind of discussion. You ever go to a movie with someone and you love it and you can't wait to tell them about it and then when you get out of the movie,

they say, boy, I hated that. Yeah. But you don't say, I can never talk to you again. I reject you forever. I don't trust you. Like, no, you, you, you talk about it. And you have a great conversation. Those, I mean, conversations about movies, whether they suck on or so, the, the best kinds of conversations, because they're so interesting, but the stakes are low. It's a friendly chat. So why is it so hard to do? Well, there's, there are real reasons why this is hard to do.

One reason is that we're not very good at it. And another reason is that there is a massive amount of identity defense going on. There's a massive amount of reputation management. And in a case like talking about a movie, that's probably not going to be that way. But let's pretend you're two movie critics to go see a movie that work for two different organizations. And let's say you're the director of the movie, and somebody is just a, well, I should do it with you,

it's just some random fan. And then they come out and you're like, what do you think? I think it's the worst movie I've ever seen. Different conversation, most likely, right? Yeah. There's a reason for all those things. And oddly enough, it can seem like everything

is as just as neutral as everything else, but clearly not. Clearly, there are other factors that motivate us when we get into these dynamics. So the celebrated 9-11 conspiracy theorist, Charlie Veach, had indeed changed his mind. And no longer thought that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job. The evidence of witnesses, experts, and most importantly, widows, had convinced him. It had been a personal journey of discovery, but for the 9-11 Truth of Community, it was a betrayal and one that demanded punishment.

Corsinary tales will be back in a moment. Influential YouTuber Charlie Veach had changed his mind about 9-11. The twin towers hadn't been toppled by demolition charges planted by the government after all. Keen to share his new views, Charlie uploaded a video for his fellow conspiracy theorists. If you're presented with new evidence, he told them, take it on. But as my guest, David McCrainy explains, the reaction of the 9-11 truthers was far from measured. As I say in the book, he was swift and it was brutal. At first, there were a lot of these just comments and quickly put together videos wondering what happened, who got to them.

That was the initial response. Like there was this sense that maybe somebody put a gun to his head or that somebody was threatening him. And then that started to transition into. But he couldn't possibly have just looked at the evidence and changed his mind. Like that is inconceivable. Couldn't possibly have done it. There were comments that were like that's like exchanging the belief and change his mind. Like that is inconceivable. Couldn't possibly do that. There were comments that were like, that's like exchanging the belief and gravity

for something else. There were comments that were like, someone must be coercing him. Someone must be threatening him. They didn't went to, oh wait, maybe he was a double agent all this time. And then you would think, okay, maybe some of this seems like what I would expect,

but it goes further and further. They start trying to reach out to his family. They start, they, they, they go so far as they find his sister's Facebook page. She didn't have a, she had just not made it private. They found pictures of his niece and nephew. They took those pictures of his niece and nephew. They photoshopped their faces onto child pornography and then they sent that to his mother and his mother not being very internet savvy Was devastated and he had to explain what was going on which was difficult to do

They found out who his partner was they have sort of just Sitting here all these death threats and messages saying that their children were gonna be the spawn of the demon spawn She sort of becoming scared. It was this incredible awful campaign to destroy his life just for saying out loud in a YouTube video, I've changed my mind. Is this the tribal reasoning that you talk about in the course of the book? Always this just, is this a particularly extreme version of it? And actually the tribal reasoning is something much broader and much more common. It's hard to say if this is just an extreme version of it and actually the tribal reasoning is something much broader and much more common? It's hard to say if this is just an extreme version of it because I've seen people react this way to just about anything.

If not in this very coordinated sort of awful way, at least in the other side of the spectrum where people go to great lengths to demonstrate that they're good members of their groups and will put everything in their lives aside for whatever they're doing. I think we saw it very clearly with COVID where people would refuse to wear a mask, refuse to get vaccinated on their deathbed, say that I'm totally okay with the fact that I'm dying from this, even though it's pretty clear that they're being motivated by a political ideology to their trying to signal to their most trusted peers, they're a good member of their group by not getting vaccinated. I think it's extreme in all sorts of different ways.

This particular thing seems bonkers and heinous and so weird, but the reason it has that patina to it is that this was just a very coordinated group of people already. They already had this network where they could very quickly coordinate and make new actions. And I think that there are a lot of other situations where people had that ability to coordinate it

would look just as extreme when someone did something that felt like it was absolutely worth their ex communication. You have to see Charlie is more someone who is an elite within the group. It would be like the head of a political party walking out on stage and saying, my political party is the worst political party.

I have been convinced of it and I will never, ever support anything they ever do ever again. And I don't think you should ever vote for people in this particular political party. I have been convinced of it and I will never, ever support anything they ever do ever again. And I don't think you should ever vote for people in this particular political party. Like imagine the head of a political party saying that it seems strange in a belief structure like a conspiracy theory, only if you look at it as a belief structure, it's a community first. And I argue in the book that that's true for a lot of the things that we think of as just something that we like, we love we believe in and we also have met some other people who feel the same way at a certain point that crosses a line into being a social identity a group identity the great sociologist Brooke Harrington told me that the equals MC square of social science is that the fear of

social death is greater than the fear of physical death. And so if the ship is going down, you'll put your reputation on the lifeboat and you'll go down with the ship. It seems like that might be some sort of motivating illusory thing, but in the case of Charlie, he demonstrates when he did change his mind, that fear that we think, oh, something bad might happen to us, it happened to him. They almost ruined his entire life. He left his job, he had to change his name, he had to move. Now, listening to this, I think people will be plunging into the despair and fatalism that you describe yourself as holding

before you started writing the book of course, no one listens to the facts, no one ever changes their mind about anything, but you do have stories really really striking and persuasive stories of people changing their minds and of conversational methods that help to make that possible. Could you tell us a bit about deep canvassing? There's a little vignette about the Mustang man and I found it very moving. So just tell me about him and the context in which he was talking to a campaigner. Sure. So around the time that we were discussing same-sex marriage in the United States, I had heard about this group of people in California who were changing people's minds by going door-to-door

and just talking to them. I was very curious about it. I wanted to see what was going on. So I read some of the reports about them and then I emailed, can I come out there and can I just do this with you? And they said, yeah, of course. So I flew out to Los Angeles and I went to the LGBT center of Los Angeles. They have several buildings in LA and I went to the one where Dave Fleischer works and Dave Fleischer had developed this thing called deep canvassing after they lost on prop 8. There was this legal thing that went through it in California where they said no same-sex marriage will not be legal here and they were stunned that they had been defeated. And so he just

wanted to understand how that happened and And he had this radical idea of, why don't we just go door to door and ask people? And many of the conversations people would change their minds and they were recording the conversations. And they did this AB testing thing, this sort of playback to see what happened there. And over the course of more than 17,000 conversations, almost all of them recorded on video,

AB testing it, throwing away what it doesn't work, keeping what does work, they develop this method for you not going to person's door, you talk to them in a particular way, you ask questions in a particular order, you nonjudmintally listen to what they have to say about the issue, and then you help them introspect in a way they've never introspected before by giving them a number scale. And all of the persuasion techniques I talk about in the book have this number scale, where you just say, how strongly do you feel about X? Or how much do you believe this is true? How much confidence do you have in X and so on? And then when a person gives you the number from,

say, zero to 10 or one to 100, you then say, why does that number feel right to you? And the conversational leaves immediately the binary debate space becomes this unspooling of what are my reasons for thinking this way? What motivated all this? And you allow the person to do that on exploration, you're just there to kind of help and move it forward. And over time, this has became so successful as a technique that they were actually getting a lot of people to change their minds to the point that The scientists sort of studying them and today it's being used in phone banks for all sorts of different topics They have this huge archive and one of the times I visited I said can I just go to the archives? They said sure and it really felt like something out of like a FBI thriller or something They have this room all to itself that has

something. They had this room all to itself that has several ways to read and watch and view all their stuff. And they have this amazing archive, very well organized, going all the way back to the beginning. And I watched 80 of these. I spent days in there. It was incredible. And there was one in particular that just stuck out, which was the Mustang man, they call him the Mustang man. And one of the camera's approaches this man, he is in the garage with him and they ask him how he voted on same-sex marriage, he voted against it. And he's in his 70s, he's wearing shorts, he's got a dress shirt, he's smoking a cigarette, he's got the zip-o-lotter that he's towing with. And he tells them, I'm not against gay stuff necessarily, I just wish they wouldn't call such a ruckus

as the way he put it. He said, the country has enough problems as it is. I don't know why they have to keep causing all these problems. And so the canvassor doesn't respond like how dare you. Doesn't say you should be ashamed for saying such a thing. They just start asking questions. Oh, that's, I'm wondering why you feel that way. And were you at on the number scale?

And it's just opening up space for this person to explore how they feel about it. And in one of the questions, he asks, they feel it ever been married before. And the Mustang man says, yeah, for 43 years, and she passed away, she passed away about 11 years ago. And I'm never going to get over it because I was supposed to die first. And then he says, let me show you something. And he takes him out and he uncovers his tarp over it, his wife's vintage Mustang. And he still maintains it. It's like his central hobby.

He works on it all the time. He keeps it in perfect pristine condition. And he's smoking a cigarette. He says, you know, she never smoked a day. She didn't even drink. She wouldn't let me smoke in the car. And he explains that one day, she found a black spot on her gums, it was cancer, spread to her throat. She couldn't speak. They had to talk to each other across a note pad and she died. And just out of nowhere, he wasn't

prompted. He said, don't pursue money or other riches. Just find happiness with somebody because material things are loaned. Happiness is not loaned. It's yours. I feel like I'm going to tear you up. Think about this again. Then the cameras are responded by just listening, by just opening this, holding the space and says, you know, it seems like 11 years is a long time to be alone. And he says, it gives you a lot of time to think. And he said this statement where he stopped and let there be silence. He said that sometimes he hears songs that they loved.

And he cries. And sometimes he remembers jokes that he laughed about and laughed and he said he's never gotten over her and that's okay by him I don't want to get over her. And so without any prompting, he then says while looking in the distance, I would want these gay people to be happy too. And he convinces himself that he was wrong. And he says, you know what, I'd vote for it this time. And it was incredible to watch this conversation unfold because he clearly was against it. And until he had this conversation with a deep canvass or he didn't know that he could feel otherwise, he required someone opening his space and going through what they would consider in psychology guided metacognitions,

something that takes place in a lot of therapeutic models, where you give a person an opportunity to discover where their current attitude comes from and an opportunity to discover that perhaps they could see it otherwise, which was already available to them. And that's why I say in the book that persuasion, the kind that I advocate and the kind that really works is more about giving a person an opportunity to understand that they can change their mind that it's possible than anything else because all mind change takes place on the other side. People change their own minds, and you're encouraging them to engage in some sort of metacognitive process that will get them there. It's incredible to see it when it unfolds and works in that way. You've got to open that space up for people to change their own minds.

But I wanted to come back to Charlie Veach, because he, apparently, he had the same space, he had the same context as all of these other truthers, and none of them considered changing their minds for a second, and he wasn't subjected to any clever, deep canvassing or street epistemology. There was something in him Yes, that was different. So what was different about Charlie? What was different about his life when he went into that process with a BBC that let him coming out on a different path from the others? Sure. And I can say also to preface this, every person that I met who had left either a conspiratorial

community or a cult or a pseudocult or something in the long those lines, there was something else at play and it was this. In Charlie's case, all those things I talked about, when we were first sort of talking about them, all those things that led him into the conspiracy, that led him to even search for something, to be amenable to it, to be open to it, they were being satisfied in the truth of community in a way that he enjoyed. Plus he had some fame there that felt really good as a person who had been considered lesser than.

He also was interested in all sorts of anarchy-themed communities, and he had found another one called Truth Juice. There was a group that was more open your third eye. Let's play around psychedelics. Let's discuss the simulation theory of the universe, stuff like that. And in that community, he was finding that all those same things that motivated him to go into the truth of community were being more nurtured there. And he was slowly moving up there too. He was, he's very charismatic, his great public speaker. So he was doing a great job of do this kind of things that made him move up in the truth of world inside the truth juice world. None of the other truthers had anything like that. They didn't have a foot in two social worlds the way he did. In other words, they didn't have a social safety net.

Even though the evidence was persuasive to them, the costs of accepting it were something they could not absorb, whereas he could. They had to think of the same things. I'm going to be shamed. I'm going to be ostracized. And none of this is articulated. Now, this is salient. This is the things that are motivating their behavior without their knowledge for the most part. But he feels safe to change his mind. He feels safe. So he could change his mind, so he did. Yeah.

This thing that everybody said, the other truth is said, like who got to him? The answer is, well, this slightly wacky pyramids and crystals, energy circles, truth juice movement, got to him, not in the way that they put a gun to his head or paid him off, but just that they were offering him an alternative slightly wacky, but much more benevolent community that he knew he could flourish in. And it's not totally unlike what happens in deep canvassing, because in deep canvassing,

one sort of representative of another community comes along and says, I will listen to you in a non-judgmental empathetic way, and I will hear you out, and I won't push back against it, and I won't shame you for what you're saying. In many cases, the first time that person's ever experienced that, but someone who they thought would immediately jump into a debate and argue with them and get angry and possibly a good of fisticos. And with the people I'm at who left Westboro Babies Church, particularly Megan Felsropper, very similar to what happened with Charlie, then the... We should say, Westboro is this church that's famous for just being incredibly inflammatory

showing up at the funerals of veterans who've died in Afghanistan and saying thank God for dead soldiers and just deliberately getting in people's faces. And it's kind of this strange cult-like organization. But you talk to several people who had left about that, Jim. Yeah, they're one of the most prominent hate groups in the United States. They're very anti-Semitic. And when I say very, they're about the most anti-Semitic that a group could be. Megan Phelps, who was, she was a younger member of the group who was active on social media. be. Megan Phelps, she was a younger member of the group who was active on social media.

They loved this about the fact that she was good at getting on social media and she pretty much spent all day arguing with the people and somebody who was prominent in the Jewish community, they reached out to her over a Twitter and they extended a hand. They said, I'd like to spend time with you. I want to talk to you about this and hear you out.

I want to understand your position. I want to hear more about what you think, feeling, believe. I'm curious in you. In a compassionate, transparent, non-judgmental way, they opened up a space just to talk. And then as they started building a bit of rapport with each other, he started making fun of her, making little jokes. The kind of stuff that you would do with your friend when you leave a movie theater. He started just trolling her and they developed a friendly rapport, even though they both knew they were on two different sides ideologically. Over time, it had an effect to the point that she was at some sort of a public event where

people kind of circled her because a lot of people hate Westboro's church. He was there in person and he defended her. When some things happened in the West Coast that she didn't like, which is similar to what happened with Charlie, that he had that experience where he's like, oh, that was gross. I don't like this. And she started having the foot in both worlds. And when it came time to leave, that was the off ramp that got her out of that world. What I find compelling about all these stories is that I always thought people changed their beliefs and they left the groups. But most often what happens is they leave the groups and then they change

their beliefs. And there's something else that is involved that for making them feel like I don't think this community is the right community for me. And it should offer you some cognitive empathy for the people on the other side of issues where if you can recognize they may be trapped by those same tribal tendencies, they may actually be imprisoned by this thing. Then you can approach them with this sort of non-judgmental compassion, listening frame in a way that addresses that part of the motivation that is keeping them away from accepting the evidence that you think should just speak for itself. There's more than one story towards the end of your book, in which it seems that you are setting up to use your clever psychological hacks and conversational strategies to change somebody's mind. And in both cases, actually, you don't. And that's okay. Do you think what sometimes we're just too desperate to change other people? I do.

In the introduction, I try to make it very clear that you really need to ask yourself why you want to do this. Because I had had several experiences after getting what I felt was like, wow, I have this incredible superpower now. I can just change minds. I spent time with a flat earther, the great Mark Sarge

and we were having a good time in Sweden. We both got one of those invites that just comes out of nowhere. Come to Sweden, come on stage and talk about this, because they had to hurt me talk about it. Flat-earthers in the podcast, and he's a prominent flat-earther. But we had such a good time hanging out, and he was such a fun person.

It was such a, it was interesting. I took the technique up to the point where he said, he was totally open to changing his mind maybe. And then I could tell that if I pushed more than that, that it would ruin everything, that we'd never be able to talk for the rest of the time. And it felt, it felt what's the good in that? I would rather have a good time in Sweden and go get some food. It's very easy to assume that the facts are on your side.

It's very easy to assume that you're the hero in the story. And I was so excited about deep-camusing when I left the first time that I went there, that I sat down with my friend, Misha Gloverman, who is a conflict resolution, actual professional negotiator. I told them they're trying, they're one of the great statements they make is, I'm just trying to solve a mystery together with you. And I was telling you, you know, the mystery is like, why do we disagree? He's like, the mystery for the deep canvases is, why are you wrong and I'm right?

I was like, no, no, that's not where they're coming from. And he's like, David, they're biased. I mean, I agree with them. You agree with them. We share their values. And we think that what they're doing is good because we feel that, that we want LGBTQ people to have more freedoms in this world.

We want the laws to change. We want that. But don't kid yourself that it isn't persuasion. But at that point in the journey, I had thought to myself, no, they were just putting people on the correct path. But I had to admit, yeah, that is persuasion. And they were biased. So be honest with yourself at least that you are biased.

And be sure that your bias in the direction of what you're trying to do is reduce harm in this world. And be aware of the fact that it's possible you could be misleading yourself into thinking you're reducing harm and you're not. I think that the LGBT center of Los Angeles is absolutely reducing harm in this world. But I can imagine other people who would try to employ such techniques who would be convinced of such a thing And I would not agree with them Dave McCraney is the host of the you are not so smart podcast

You should all be subscribing and he is the author of the wonderful new book How minds change David, thank you so much for joining cautionary tales. Thank you so much for having me. It's been such a pleasure. Corsion Ritails is written by me, Tim Haferd with Andrew Wright. It's produced by Ryan Dilly with support from Courtney Garino with Emily Vaughn. The sound design and original music is the work of Pascal Weiss. It without the work of Mia Label, Jacob Iceberg, Heather Fane, John Schnarrs, Julia Barton, Carly McGuori, Eric Sandler, Roister and Beserv, Maggie Taylor, Nicole Marano, Daniel Lacan, and Maya Caning. Corsury Tales is a production of Cushkin Industries. If you like the show,

please remember to share, rate, and review. Tell a friend, tell two friends. And if you want to hear the show, add spree, and listen to four exclusive cautionary tale shorts, then sign up for Cushkin Plus on the show page in Apple Podcasts or at pushkin.fm-plus. plus.