Drawing on decades of research in psychology and human connection, the authors introduce five practical mindsets designed to transform how we relate to others, which involves embracing vulnerability to expressing genuine curiosity. At the heart of their framework is a simple idea: feeling loved requires being truly known, and allowing others the space to be known in return.

We interviewed Sonja about her new book and she explained why these ideas should reshape the way we think about identity and connection — and why something as small as asking one more thoughtful question might be the key to a more meaningful relationship. You can buy their book HOW TO FEEL LOVED here. We are also giving away a few free copies—see the details at the end of the interview to enter the draw.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

The book teaches us that we can build connections with other people even when we don’t share a common identity with them, and even across political, religious, and cultural divides. In How To Feel Loved, I describe the kinds of questions that are likely to foster meaningful conversations rather than ho-hum responses. For example, rather than staying on the surface, ask questions that dig deeper into what makes the other person a unique, thoughtful human. When you do this, it is more likely that your conversation partner will feel seen and appreciated, and you will have learned something important about them. That's the kind of conversation that builds connections.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

Many of us ARE loved, but we don’t always FEEL loved. If you want to feel more loved in a particular relationship in your life, you don’t need to broadcast your successes or try to make yourself more lovable. By contrast, feeling loved requires being truly KNOWN to the other person and truly knowing THEM. This means talking to others in a way that takes down the walls between us.

We encourage readers to embrace five mindsets to make this happen:

1. Sharing Mindset (open up, be real, be vulnerable),

2. Listening-to-Learn Mindset (listen like there’s going to be a quiz tomorrow, as opposed to waiting for your turn to respond),

3. Radical Curiosity Mindset (show enthusiastic, authentic interest in the other’s inner world; ask them deep questions),

4. Open-Heart mindset (show warmth, kindness, and a belief in their dreams), and

5. Multiplicity Mindset (be accepting of their flaws, don’t define a person by one trait or one behavior).

What is one factoid, statistic or study in your book that everyone should know?

70% of people don’t feel loved as much or as often as they’d like, and 40% don’t feel loved as much or as often as they’d like by their romantic partners.

In 2024, we gave a survey to a large and representative sample of Americans, asking how much they felt loved in various relationships, and whether they wanted to feel more loved. 70% of people don’t feel loved as much or as often as they’d like, and 40% don’t feel loved as much or as often as they’d like by their romantic partners. The takeaway message from this survey: there’s much room for improvement. A large majority of us want to feel more love in our lives. The 5 mindsets we describe in our book will help people achieve that goal.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Not feeling loved isn’t about personal deficiencies or a partner’s behavior--two convenient explanations most of us fall into. When we don’t feel loved, we believe that we should make ourselves more lovable (e.g., by broadcasting our positive qualities and hiding our weaknesses). We argue this is a myth.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

1. Share something real about yourself, be vulnerable, but start small. Pacing is really important. Start with a small or medium thing to open up about--e.g., instead of saying, “I’m fine,” explain how your day is really going (e.g., “I had a rough morning”)

2. Listen to the other person in order to learn, not to respond. Quiet your voice and your inner chatter, so theirs can be heard. Stay with them instead of mentally rehearsing your next story.

3. Ask the other person one more question than you’d normally ask. Like, “How did that really feel?” or “What was the hardest thing about it?”

The three words that everyone loves to hear? They’re not “I love you.” They’re not “you’ve lost weight” and not “you were right.”

Those three words are “tell me more.” Such questions, when they’re authentic, signal that you’re right there with them. They’re a gift.

🎁 Book Giveaway Details 📖

To enter Sonja’s book giveaway, either…

1. Be a paid subscriber to the newsletter. Paid subscribers are automatically entered into all our monthly book giveaways!

   You can subscribe or upgrade your subscription below.

2. If you are not a paid subscriber yet, make sure you have a free subscription and simply leave a comment answering the question below:

   Which mindset can you embrace to improve your close relationship with someone in your life? (Sharing Mindset, Listening-to-Learn Mindset, Radical Curiosity Mindset, Open-Heart Mindset, Multipicity Mindset)

3. This giveaway is open to U.S. residents only. Enter before April 28th, 12 pm PST. Three winners will be selected at random and will receive an email from powerofusbook@gmail.com on April 29th, 2026.

Notes of the week

We are now sharing several new studies each week as they come out on our Power of Us substack app account. Please follow us on the app if you want to see the latest research on topics related to our newsletter. Here are some sample studies we shared this week:

Ask me Anything

We have one final monthly virtual meeting (Ask Me Anythings) for paid subscribers this spring! This is a chance for you to meet one-on-one or in small groups with Jay and Dom to talk about anything you want (e.g., our book, the topics we cover in this newsletter, our latest research, a problem you’re struggling with, or whatever else you would like). Our summer series will be announced soon.

• May 6th, 2pm EST with Jay

Paid subscribers recieved an email from powerofusbook@gmail.com with details on how to sign up. Reply to this email with any questions you have about this, or feedback on paid subscriber offerings.

Catch up on the last one…

Our last newsletter explained why social media is harming society, drawing on recent court cases, national polls, whistleblower testimony, internal documents, and our own research on the topic—they are all beginning to converge on a clear picture about these technologies.

In a new book, How to Disagree Better, Harvard University public policy professor, Dr. Julia Minson, argues that most of us have been approaching disagreement the wrong way. You can present your case with bulletproof logic. You can share compelling data. You can explain exactly why you’re right. And somehow, the other person digs in even deeper.

She argues that the best frameworks for disagreement that are grounded in scientific evidence are the ones that focus on language. The H.E.A.R. strategy acknowledges the counterpart while making your own point. It’s also important that people increase their use of positive language (rather than words like “don’t”, “never” and “no”) and emphasize agreement. These strategies create a bridge and a sense of empathy and respect.

Click here to learn more about How to Disagree Better and order a copy now! Plus, we are giving away 5 free physical copies to The Power of Us subscribers. To enter the giveaway, check out the details at the bottom of this newsletter.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

My book offers evidence-based approaches for effectively navigating disagreement. People’s beliefs are often correlated with their group identities, with group members sharing particular attitudes and convictions, and making unfounded assumptions about the attitudes and convictions of out-group members. To the extent that we can learn to have thoughtful, engaged, authentic conversations with people whose opinions we don’t share, we can start becoming more comfortable crossing group boundaries and making interesting connections with “the other side.”

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

There are a lot of books out there on navigating conflict and disagreement, but very few of them are based on rigorous empirical science. As a result, we do some things right, but also waste time on ineffective approaches. I want people to know that there is a growing experimental science of conflict and if they follow the research they will save themselves time and drama.

Perhaps the most important thing I have learned from doing research in this area is that our mental efforts in disagreement do very little to improve outcomes. Well intentioned attempts to take our counterparts’ perspective, be more patient, be better listeners, feel more empathy, etc. don’t help as much as we expect because people don’t have access to our internal mental states. In order for a strategy to improve the outcome of a conversation, your counterpart must notice it so they can react appropriately. Instead, we need to use externally visible, easily interpretable behaviors to telegraph our intention to disagree constructively. The most salient and consistently interpreted behavior in disagreement is language. So that’s where we should all be focusing our efforts.

What is one factoid, statistic or study in your book that everyone should know?

Expressing a willingness to learn about your counterpart’s perspective in a way that is transparent and recognizable, is one of the most powerful tools we have found for de-escalating conflict. Yet, people are truly abysmal at doing this in the course of a conversation.

When we put Democrats and Republicans into a chat room and asked them to discuss an upcoming election, the vast majority of them did not express any kind of interest in the opposing view. A handful of people asked questions, but the questions were often rhetorical or sarcastic, not ones than an opposing partisan would interpret as an expression of curiosity. In later studies, we found that getting people to verbally express a desire to learn is incredibly difficult — people seem to see the willingness to learn from opponents as a low status move and they don’t want to sound submissive in a competitive situation. Giving them specific words and phrases to say helps, and so do financial incentives. But a non-trivial proportion of people still won’t do it, and feels proud of it.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

A common belief in the popular conflict literature is that people are threatened by opposing views and for this reason avoid engaging with them or updating their beliefs. However, my research finds that threat has little to do with it.

People don’t want to engage with opposing views because they think they are right. They have respected sources, experiences, and evidence to support their beliefs. When somebody tries to offer a contradictory perspective, the reaction is not a feeling of threat, but usually a feeling of irritation, anger, or even disgust because we are quite certain in the fundamental correctness of our own beliefs and don’t like our time being wasted. This interpretation is in line with research on Naive Realism and suggests a different approach for navigating disagreement than an approach grounded in the idea that disagreeing others are all feeling threatened by our brilliance.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

Yes! In a lot of my writing and teaching, I have advocated for the use of “conversational receptiveness” - a communication style that allows us to express our views in disagreement in a way that persuades our counterpart that we are actively engaging with their perspective even as we are making our own point. The easiest way to get started on conversational receptiveness is by using the H.E.A.R. framework.

• H = Hedge your claims, even when you feel very certain about your beliefs. It signals a recognition that there are some cases or some people who might support your opponent’s perspective.

• E = Emphasize agreement. Find some common ground even when you disagree on a particular topic. This does not mean compromising or changing your mind, but rather recognizing that most people in the world can find some broad ideas or values to agree on.

• A = Acknowledge the opposing perspective. Rather than jumping in to your own argument, devote a few seconds to restating the other person’s position to demonstrate that you did indeed hear and understand it.

• R = Reframing to the positive. Avoid negative and contradictory words, such as “no,” “won’t” or “do not.” At the same time, increase your use of positive words to change the tone of the conversation.

News and Updates

Jay is giving a talk at the Stanford Tech Impact & Policy Center on “Morality in the Anthropocene” on May 19th. You can attend in person or via zoom using this link.

🎁 Book Giveaway Details 📖

To enter Julia’s book giveaway for How to Disagree Better, either…

1. Be a paid subscriber to the newsletter. Paid subscribers are automatically entered into all our monthly book giveaways!

   You can subscribe or upgrade your subscription below.

2. If you are not a paid subscriber yet, make sure you have a free subscription and simply leave a comment answering one the questions below:

   Who is someone in your life (e.g., spouse, parent, child, team member) you disagree with often? Which component of H.E.A.R. can you focus on incorporating in your conversations with them?

   Note: Giveaway is open to U.S. residents only. Enter before April 5th, 12 pm PST. Five winners will be selected at random and will recieve an email from powerofusbook@gmail.com on April 6th, 2026.

Catch up on the last one…

In their interview below, they offer a sneak peek at some key themes in the book — one of which is a takedown of a false and harmful dichotomy: the idea that we must either make better personal choices or change the system. This “either/or” mindset between individual versus system change leaves many people feeling like their efforts are too small to matter. This can lead to paralysis and inaction. They argue that to solve large-scale problems, we need both individual action and collective effort — personal behavior and institutional reform.

Click here to learn more about Somebody Should Do Something and order a copy now! Plus, we are giving away 5 free physical copies to The Power of Us subscribers. To enter the giveaway, check out the details following the interview…

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Our book tells stories of changemakers, organizers, and movements around the world—from the US Temperance Movement to the “Green Tide” for gender and reproductive rights across Latin America. We make the case that success requires leaning into the power of a shared social identity. We explore a range of variations on this theme. Sometimes it means leaning into an “us vs. them” mentality, but more often it means building solidarity within a group while also expanding the sense of who “we” are.

For example, we discuss research investigating the mindsets of protestors in high-risk, repressive countries. These protestors do not tend to have an inflated sense of their personal power to make change. They don’t think they’ll make all the difference, or even expect their movement to succeed. Rather, they speak out and show up because they feel loyal to their community and the people they identify with. These individuals understand themselves as part of a “community of fate,” as Margaret Levi puts it.

We make the case that social identities are center stage in pretty much every successful endeavor to promote justice. Some social identities foment hyperpartisanship and tribalism, sure, but others don’t. They are inescapable anyway, so the real challenge is finding ways to practice identity politics well.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

None of us are solitary individuals. It’s easy to underestimate how deeply intertwined with each other we are. But because our culture is soaked in ideals of rugged individualism and self-reliance, we often forget how much we are influenced by other people, and also how much influence we can have on them.

Economist Robert Frank offers a striking illustration: the biggest danger of secondhand smoke isn’t that someone else’s cigarette might harm others’ lungs; it’s that smoking in public creates more smokers, by making it seem normal. Conversely, the number one predictor of when people quit smoking is after their spouse quits. Friends, family members, and role models exert a huge influence here, too.

Similar lessons apply to social change. College roommates have a large and lasting effect on each other’s voting behavior, and the number one predictor of when a household installs solar panels is when their neighbors do. Social influence is the air we breathe, but we exhale it, too. We are all, each of us, agents of social change.

What is one statistic or study in your book that everyone should know?

We got mad about the endless either/or debate between the “individual action” versus “systemic change” and decided to try to fix it.

Whether the topic is climate change, racism, housing policy, diabetes, gun control, or online misinformation, people get stuck thinking, “these are massively complicated, ‘systemic’ problems; aren’t the things I can do as an individual insignificant?” Our book assembles ideas and images and models and stories showing how individuals, working together, can change institutions, systems, and social structures.

In our own lives, we’ve learned to talk more about our hopes, fears, questions, and plans with others. We often don’t know what each other cares about. For example, Americans think about 1/3 of other Americans want stronger climate action from the federal government, but in reality, the number is more than 2/3rds. So, even in simply talking about climate change, we can help reshape the situations in which others make their choices.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Some of the people we profile in the book embrace politics and tactics we expect many readers will dislike. After her daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Janice Lightner founded MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Lightner is one of the most successful agents of change in recent American history. 25 years after starting MADD in 1980, 94% of Americans had heard of it and alcohol-related traffic deaths have decreased by 50%. MADD was instrumental here, e.g., by convincing legislators to raise the national drinking age to 21.

What struck us about this story is how MADD combined an effort to change social structures — in this case, both federal law and social norms — with a controversially punitive focus on blaming individuals, unabashedly framing drunk driving in terms of personal responsibility. In fact, the organization’s original name was “Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.”

MADD rode the 80s and 90s wave of attacking social problems through punitive criminal-justice policies, blaming individuals for broader social problems. That’s not a tactic we or (we expect) much of our readership would endorse in 2025. Emphatically, we are not saying “find someone to blame and build a coalition around demonizing them.” But the key point, for our purposes, is that Lightner was successful because she tapped into ordinary people’s attitudes and beliefs about the problem—the ambient individualism in her social environment. (An even more controversial example in the book explores the devastatingly effective identity-based tactics pursued by the NRA.)

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

1. Some activists say that the antidote to despair is action. This is good advice, but adding one word would make it better: the antidote to despair is taking action together. Creating community is the building block of social change.

2. Doing anything is better than doing nothing. The effects of our actions, and broader social trends, are incredibly difficult to predict. This can be disheartening: maybe we toil away for long stretches without noticing any tangible results. But the unpredictability of social change cuts both ways. Big positive change could be just around the corner, and it could be that the small action you take today sets it all in motion.

3. Change often takes time, so take the long view. Don’t get defeated about short-term setbacks or seemingly incremental steps toward progress. Remember, for example, that many incidents of democratic backsliding in the last hundred years were followed by “u-turns,” when democratic institutions emerged even stronger than before. But those took people working steadfastly together, playing a million different roles in making change.

🎁 Book Giveaway Details 📖 [CLOSED]

Thanks to everyone who participated in our giveaway! We have contacted the five winners.

To enter Michael, Alex and Daniel’s book giveaway, either…

1. Be a paid subscriber to the newsletter. Paid subscribers are automatically entered into all our book giveaways! We will have more book giveaways with different authors every month. You can subscribe or upgrade your subscription below.

   The Power of Us is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

2. If you are not a paid subscriber yet, make sure you have a free subscription and simply leave a comment answering one of the questions below:

   What’s the most urgent structural change you think we should prioritize, and what’s one thing that everyday individual people can do to promote it?

   What’s one thing you could do today to help create social change?

   Note: Giveaway is open to U.S. residents only. Enter before December 30th, 12 pm PST. Five winners will be selected at random and will recieve an email from powerofusbook@gmail.com on December 31st!

News and Updates

Check out our new Ask Me Anything sessions for the Winter/Spring! Paid Subscribers can join us for our monthly live Q&A with Jay or Dom where you can ask us anything from workshopping research questions, career advice to opinions and recommendations on pop culture happenings—for paid subscribers only. Upgrade your subscription using the button below. Look out for an email from powerofusbook@gmail.com to RSVP.

• January 21st @ 2:00 EST with Jay

• March 4th @ 2:00 EST with Jay

• May 6th @ 2:00 EST with Jay

Catch up on the last one…

Ideas can spread like the flu. Which ones go viral and why? Decades of research and history point to the same factors.

One of the most dangerous forms of hypocrisy explored in the book is “double standards hypocrisy,” where people judge their own group leniently while condemning out-group members for the very same behavior. Decades of research has found that when people are placed into arbitrary groups, we almost instantly favor our own group and derogate the other. Another form of hypocrisy that threatens fair democratic processes is…

Read more

In our interview, Colin explains how group structure dictates results more than most people think. When grou…

Read more

In Jenara’s interview with us, she unpacks how our human needs for safety, connection, purpose, and acceptance can both bind us together and drive us apart. She introduces readers to theories like Michael Hogg’s uncertainty-identity theory and the concept of entitativity, which can explain why people gravitate toward groups with strong norms and identities, so…

Read more

Steven Sloman’s new book, The Cost of Conviction: How our Deepest Values Lead us Astray compares these two primary strategies for making decisions: evaluating outcomes or sacred values. Steven is a professor of Cognitive and Psychological Sciences at Brown University and his research focuses on how people think, reason, make decisions, and form attitudes and beliefs. He has also been Editor-in-Chief of the journal Cognition, and author of Causal Models: How People Think about the World and Its Alternatives.

Drawing on his research, Steven argues that, while both outcomes and beliefs are helpful tools for a good decision maker, people lean on their sacred values more often than they should. In this interview, he explains how shared sacred values are also what lead societies down rabbit holes that can fuel anger and division, and lead to larger-scale ca…

Read more

Understanding why we believe certain stories—and how misinformation spreads—is essential. In Misguided: Where Misinformation Starts, How It Spreads, and What to Do About It, social scientist Matthew Facciani shows how to combat harmful falsehoods at scale. As a postdoctoral researcher in Notre Dame’s Computer Science and Engineering Department, he investigates the psychological and social forces that shape our information habits.

Beyond fact-checking, Matthew reveals how identity, trust, community, and emotion determine what we accept as “truth.” In our interview below, he explains how to engage someone who’s bought into false claims: approach with genuine curiosity rather than trying to prove them wrong.

Learn more about Misguided and order your copy here. Plus, The Power of Us subscribers can win a free physical copy! To enter the giveaway, either…

1. Be a paid subscriber to the newsletter. Paid subscribers are automatically entered into our book giveaways! We have three more book giveaways with different authors coming up in August, September and November. You can subscribe or upgrade your subcription below.

   The Power of Us is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

2. If you are not a paid subscriber yet, not to worry. Simply leave a comment below about what topics in Misguided interest you the most at the bottom of this post to enter the giveaway.

   Note: Giveaway winners must be a resident of the UK, Mainland Europe, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, United States or Canada. (Due to shipping and customs restrictions). Enter before August 5th, 11:59 pm PST. One winner will be selected at random and emailed on August 6th!

   

Matthew, what does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Misguided reveals how our beliefs are shaped by social factors. We tend to adopt ideas that reinforce our group identity—whether that’s political, religious, or cultural—because belonging and acceptance matter deeply to us as social creatures. When a claim signals loyalty to our group, we’re more inclined to believe it, even if it’s false. The book explores how this dynamic works, what conditions make it stronger, and what can weaken its grip. Understanding these patterns helps explain why people often cling to misinformation and resist corrections that feel like personal threats.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

One of the core lessons from Misguided is that our beliefs are shaped as much by our social connections as by evidence or reasoning. We like to think we form opinions based on facts and logic, but in reality, we often adopt beliefs that align with our group identity. What we believe is deeply tied to who we are and where we feel we belong. This helps explain why misinformation spreads so easily. People may share false claims not because they’re misinformed, but because doing so signals loyalty to their group. Correcting those claims with facts can also backfire when beliefs are tied to identity because challenging them can feel like a personal attack. As mentioned above, Misguided, dives into the specific conditions of how identities and groups influence our beliefs so we can all better protect ourselves against misinformation.

Another major lesson in the book is about the social elements of trust. We’re more likely to believe information when it comes from someone we see as “one of us” and who we believe has our best interests in mind. So, if we want to communicate more effectively, especially about polarizing issues, we need to focus less on debating facts and more on listening, establishing respect, and meeting people where they are. That can also mean using trusted messengers and framing messages in ways that resonate with people’s values. Trust is relational, and built on perceptions of both warmth and competence.

In short, combating misinformation isn’t just about sharing facts, it’s also about understanding identity, building trust, and creating space for truth to take hold. Education and media literacy are helpful tools, and the book explores both, but they aren’t enough without recognizing the social dynamics that shape how we process information. We’re all vulnerable to misinformation because our social needs drive us to seek belonging and support from our groups. Recognizing this is key to reducing our susceptibility to falsehoods.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I finished my PhD in June of 2020, where I was studying political polarization and misinformation. Seeing all the misinformation surround COVID-19, and the poor responses to it, made me want to write some of article or op-ed. I realized I had more to say than what might fit in an article, so I tried shopping a book idea around to a few publishers, and was pleasantly surprised to see interest!

More broadly, I was frustrated by how often we treat misinformed people as irrational or stupid, instead of recognizing the powerful social and emotional forces that shape all of our beliefs. I wanted to go deeper than fact-checks and instead offer readers a clearer picture of how identity, trust, community, and emotion influence what we accept as “truth.” The more I explored the social dynamics behind misinformation, the more I saw how everyone is vulnerable, not just “other people.” It pushed me to focus less on winning arguments and more on building understanding.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

I’ve found that some people resist the idea that our beliefs aren’t entirely our own—that identity, community, and emotion often shape what we accept as “truth” more than facts or logic. Misguided challenges the myth of the purely rational individual and invites readers to see belief as a deeply social process. That can feel uncomfortable, especially in a culture that prizes personal responsibility and individualism.

But that discomfort can be a powerful starting point. When we understand how social forces influence belief, we become more aware of our own biases and less likely to dismiss others as simply ignorant or irrational. Instead, we’re more inclined to respond with empathy. That doesn’t mean giving up on truth; it means meeting people where they are and acknowledging how belonging and identity shape how we all interpret the world. That’s where real progress begins.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

1. One key tip is to broaden your own social identities. In Misguided, I explain how having a more diverse set of meaningful identities can make us less vulnerable to misinformation by reducing the pressure we place on any one identity for meaning and self-worth. In practice, this might look like exploring new hobbies, forming friendships with people from different backgrounds, and staying open-minded in how you engage with the world.

2. Another important strategy is improving how we talk with people who see things differently. Trust is essential, and that starts with curiosity and connection, not correction. People are more open to new perspectives when they feel heard and respected, so begin by asking questions, listening closely, and finding shared values. The goal is not to try and change their mind, but instead to increase the chances they'll truly hear your perspective.

3. Finally, media and digital literacy are more important than ever. Being media literate means pausing to ask who benefits from a message, recognizing when content is designed to provoke strong emotions, and cross-checking claims with credible sources. Don’t rely on popularity or credentials alone; context and expertise matter. Slowing down and thinking critically is one of the best defenses we have against misinformation.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, we shared an exclusive first look at content from our upcoming book, Smarter Together. On the verge of the greatest prize in exploration, polar explorer Roald Amundsen lured his unsuspecting crew aboard his ship, the Fram, with promises of an Arctic voyage—only to reveal beyond the glare of prying eyes that their true destination lay at the planet’s icy bottom. As secrets thawed and loyalties crystallized, the team found itself united in a daring race to the South Pole, bound together by “ours” instead of “mine.”

The Power of Us

Smarter Together: The First Dispatch

Over the next few months, we’ll be workshopping parts of our next book. These posts—mostly for paid subscribers—will offer early glimpses of our ideas and a chance for you to shape them with your feedback. We are genuinely eager to hear what you think. Consider this your backstage pass! Welcome to the first such dispatch…

Read more

9 months ago · 3 likes · Dominic Packer & Jay Van Bavel

Drawing from her experiences as a BBC journalist and leadership coach, Emily offers an eight-step approach to shape productive conversations with people we disagree with. She has wrestled with her own habits to interrupt in conversations and realized how she used to assume that what she had to say was more important than what the speaker is about to discover or articulate. In this interview, she previews her book and offers actionable tips for cultivating better dialogue in our everyday lives.

We first met Emily when she edited our column for BBC on “Why 'cartooning' political opponents is bad for us”. The column was popular—read by over 500,000 people—thanks in large part to Emily’s editing and insights. It’s exciting that she has now written her own book on the topic.

You can learn more about Deep Listening here and order the book here.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?
Deep Listening reveals that our fears of engaging with “outsider” groups are often rooted in unconscious projections and ingrained social scripts. We tend to approach those we see as different-whether by politics, class, religion, or culture-with suspicion or defensiveness, sometimes without even realizing it. My book illustrates, through stories like that of Ana Luiza and her stepfather in São Paulo - who lie on opposite sides of the contest political divide in Brazil, how these divides can be bridged not by trying to win arguments, but by first listening to ourselves and acknowledging the shadows or biases we project onto others.

When we take the time to reflect on our own assumptions and emotions, we become more capable of truly hearing others. This process is not about erasing differences or pretending to agree; rather, it’s about creating the psychological safety necessary for authentic exchange. In practice, Deep Listening enables people to move from seeing the world in binary terms-us versus them-to recognizing the legitimacy of multiple perspectives. This shift doesn’t necessarily resolve all disagreements, but it transforms the quality of the interaction, making it possible to coexist and even collaborate across divides.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?
The central idea is that listening deeply to people you disagree with does not contaminate you or require you to compromise your own values. Many fear that opening themselves to another’s worldview signals agreement or approval, but Deep Listening is about understanding, not endorsement. The book details how, when we listen with curiosity and empathy, we do not risk losing our identity; instead, we gain insight into the human experience and foster dignity on both sides. As I show through research and personal stories, like when I witnessed President Mandela listen to disgruntled soldiers, diffusing what could have been a very troubling incident, Deep Listening allows us to see the person behind the position, which is essential for reducing polarization and building trust-even when agreement is impossible.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?
My motivation grew out of leading the BBC Crossing Divides project, where I saw firsthand the power and difficulty of bringing people together across lines of race, class, religion, and politics. I wanted to move beyond superficial stories of unity to understand what really enables people to have meaningful engagements across divides. This led me to research and develop an eight-step approach to Deep Listening, focusing on genuine, authentic encounters rather than performative gestures.

Writing the book was transformative. I interviewed and learned from a wide range of creative thinkers-from Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka to artists like Antony Gormley, First Nation Canadians, and Japanese Tea Ceremony practitioners. Each encounter illuminated new dimensions of listening, challenging my own assumptions and expanding my understanding of what it means to truly hear another person. The process deepened my appreciation for the complexity of listening and inspired me to practice these principles in my own life and work.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?
The provocative claim at the heart of Deep Listening is that listening is not a passive act. The book challenges the common belief that the listener is merely a neutral recipient of information. Instead, I argue, based upon extensive findings, that the listener is a co-creator of the speaker’s narrative, shaping the conversation through every response, question, and even through silence. This idea can be unsettling because it places responsibility on the listener to be present and engaged, rather than detached. It also upends traditional power dynamics, suggesting that the act of listening can be as influential as speaking, and that both parties are changed by the encounter.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

1. Be curious. Approach every conversation as an opportunity to learn something new, even (or especially) when you disagree. Curiosity helps you move beyond assumptions and opens the door to empathy and genuine understanding.

2. Become aware of your judgments. Notice when you are making judgments about the other person-whether about their ideas, character, or motives. Rather than trying to suppress these judgments, acknowledge them and set them aside temporarily so you can listen more openly.

3. Listen to understand, not to respond. Resist the urge to interrupt or formulate your rebuttal while the other person is speaking. Instead, focus on what they are actually saying-and what they might not be saying. Silence can be powerful; a warm, empathetic pause can encourage the speaker to go deeper and reflect more honestly.

I used to be a serial interrupter. What helped me interrupt less was discovering the power of silence-allowing the speaker space to think and express themselves fully. I realized that when I interrupt, I am assuming that what I have to say is more important than what the speaker is about to discover or articulate. By holding back and offering attentive silence, I enable others to explore new possibilities in their own thinking. But, as my family will attest, I am still a work in progress..

News and Updates

Jay had a recent paper, “A Consensus Statement on Potential Negative Impacts of Smartphone and Social Media Use on Adolescent Mental Health” that was covered in Cal Newport’s popular podcast. Here is a summary from his website:

To better understand how experts truly think about these issues, the study’s lead authors, Jay Van Bavel and Valerio Capraro, convened a group of 120 researchers from 11 disciplines and had them evaluate a total of 26 claims about children and phones. As Van Bavel explained in a recent appearance on Derek Thompson’s podcast, their goal was to move past the ‘non-representative shouting about these topics that happens online to try instead to arrive at some consensus views.’

The panel of experts was able to identify a series of statements that essentially all of them (more than 90%) agreed were more or less true. These included:

• Adolescent mental health has declined in several Western countries over the past 20 years (note: contrarians had been claiming that this trend was illusory and based on reporting effects).

• Smartphone and social media use correlate with attention problems and behavioral addiction.

• Among girls, social media use may be associated with body dissatisfaction, perfectionism, exposure to mental disorders, and risk of sexual harassment.

This coverage led to 300 downloads overnight of our new paper. We invite everyone else to check it our and read it for yourself.

Catch up on the last one…

Substance use is common at music festivals, perhaps for many reasons. Read on to learn about how psychedelic drugs may play a part in transformative experiences and greater social connectedness.

The Power of Us

Promoting social connectedness at music festivals

The use of psychedelic drugs has a long tradition at music festivals, perhaps for key psychological reasons, given their effects on the mind and body. One of the most iconic music festivals in the U.S. originated during the psychedelic sixties—Woodstock, where over 450,000 people came to see artists such as The Grateful Dead, Joan Baez and Jimi Hendrix. One of the bands, Santana is known to have been acid tripping during their live performance in 1969. Looking at the footage, it sure seems that there is some air of spiritual transcendence in their performance…

Read more

a year ago · 4 likes · 1 comment · Yvonne Phan

Rosalind Chow, Professor of Organizational Behavior and Theory at Carnegie Mellon University rethinks workplace networking, trust and influence in her new book, The Doors You Can Open. Her research, teaching, and writing focuses on how people participate in social systems in ways that can have implications for inequitable outcomes (e.g., nepotism).

In the interview below, she introduces the basic ideas of sponsorship—opening doors for others—and how to be a sponsor even when you may not be in a position of power and decision-making. She explains how helping people who need each other connect, sharing other people’s good news, or planning ahead of time how to highlight a colleague’s accomplishments at a networking event are all examples of sponsorship that anyone can execute.

“There’s more than one way to be valuable. Yes, we can be valuable by holding resources others want. But we can also be valuable by having problems others can solve, or by connecting people who need each other.”

—Rosalind Chow

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

So many things! But one of the most important is that too many of us are fixated on finding sponsors—people who can open doors for us—instead of being sponsors, people who open doors for others. When we focus on finding sponsors, we’re essentially fixated on what other people can do for us. That leads us to seek out those with power or resources—and to overlook people for inaccurate reasons, based on stereotypes about who has power.

If you’re someone who’s unfairly seen as lacking value, that doesn’t feel good. But networking also feels hard because when it’s all about accessing resources, it commodifies us. If we want people with power to see us as worthy, we feel pressure to prove that we have power too—so we talk about our credentials, our jobs, the fancy vacations. That’s why networking can feel inauthentic.

But there’s more than one way to be valuable. Yes, we can be valuable by holding resources others want. But we can also be valuable by having problems others can solve, or by connecting people who need each other. That’s what sponsors do: they identify people who can help solve others’ problems and bring them together. Sponsors are essential to group functioning—they’re the knowledge managers who keep track of who needs what and who can help. And in return, they gain respect, admiration, and status. Everyone benefits: the person being sponsored, the helper, the sponsor, and the group.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I wrote this book to help people see the influence they already have—especially over how other people are perceived and treated. We often talk about inclusion as a matter of treating people well, but I want readers to think bigger: how can we shape the relationships around us to be more inclusive, too? That’s a hopeful and empowering way to think about our roles in social systems.

Writing the book changed me. It made me more attuned to the good in others, because the more good I notice, the more I can sponsor. When someone does something kind or effective, I make a point of thanking them—and then I go a step further and make sure others hear about it. If a service worker helps me, I don’t just say thank you; I’ll stay on the line to speak with their manager. That’s sponsorship: making people’s contributions visible.

We should want good people to be seen. But right now, our social information is skewed. We hear more about norm violators than norm upholders. That makes the world feel worse than it might actually be—and it makes it harder to build a better one. One antidote is to actively elevate those who make things better. Sponsor them.

The beauty of sponsorship is that it changes stories—about others and about ourselves. When someone knows they’ve been sponsored, they’re more likely to keep living up to that reputation. Observers start treating them in ways that reinforce that positive image. And we, as sponsors, come to see ourselves as people who notice others and spread good news. That’s a virtuous cycle worth creating.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

I push back on the idea that only powerful people can be sponsors. Anyone can sponsor—it’s about shaping how others see someone. Quiet acts count: an analyst telling new hires which managers are supportive, a student introducing a classmate to friends, a manager giving a team member the chance to shine. These are real and meaningful forms of sponsorship.

But sponsorship isn’t always a good thing. It can be nepotism. It can look like favoritism or bias, especially when we think someone is “undeserving.” And we know that people from marginalized groups are less likely to be seen as deserving in the first place, which makes them less likely to receive sponsorship. When we’re not intentional, sponsorship can deepen inequality. But used well, it can also correct imbalances. That’s my hope for how people will use it.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

Tip #1: Start small.

An easy, no-cost way to sponsor someone is to share their good news. Self-promotion is tricky—people don’t like it, but if you don’t do it, no one knows what you’re good at. That’s the self-promotion paradox. But if you promote someone else, they get the benefit without the penalty—and you get credit for being generous and observant. Everyone wins.

Tip #2: Use a wingperson.

Don’t just show up to networking events with a friend and stick to each other. Go with a plan. Decide ahead of time what you’ll highlight about each other, then make those points in conversation. It feels more natural, especially for introverts. You both avoid the self-promotion penalty, and the information still gets out.

To learn more about The Doors You Can Open and purchase the book, visit Rosalind’s website or order the book here.

Catch up on the last one…

If you are an educator who is teaching a social identity or group psychology course in the next semester, check out our free teaching materials! We have put together a free teaching kit with slides, exam questions, activities, videos and more below:

Will is an award-winning author and journalist known for his human rights reporting in The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The New York Times, and The New Yorker. His investigations into sexual violence against men earned him the Amnesty International Award and the One World Press Award. He also received the AIB Award for Best Investigative Documentary for his BBC radio series.

Known for his investigations into the human condition, Will builds on his previous bestsellers Selfie and The Status Game (he was one of the very first authors we interviewed on this newsletter here) to argue that if we want to persuade, inspire, or lead, we must tell stories that make “deals” with identity—stories that promise connection and status. In his interview, Will reflects on why A Story is a Deal matters now more than ever—in the workplace, education, politics and beyond.

You can learn more about A Story is a Deal and order the book here. We are also giving away 10 copies of A Story is a Deal to our subscribers! To enter the giveaway,

1. Make sure you are subscribed to “The Power of Us” and Will’s newsletter “You are a Story”.

2. Restack/share this post on Substack Notes or hit share on posts that we posted about this giveaway on our Twitter/X, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

3. Must be a resident of the UK, Mainland Europe, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, United States or Canada. (Due to shipping and customs restrictions)

4. Enter before April 29th, 11:59 pm PST. Winners will be selected at random on April 30th!

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

A Story is a Deal is an exploration of how we can tell stories about identity to lead, influence and persuade. I argue that humans, uniquely, live in an imagined story-world. Assuming we are psychologically healthy, we are the active protagonists at the centre of the story of our lives, surrounded by a cast of characters (heroes, teachers, allies, villains), and pursuing meaningful goals, which are the plots of our lives. Our 'identity' is the character we play in the story-world.

We are obsessively interested in the condition of our identity in the story-world. But how do we assess how we're doing? Like characters in fiction, we seek both connection (with groups and loved ones) and status. Understanding that we live in a story-world, and all need the social resources of connection and status is a deeply important insight for leaders and persuaders. If we can tell stories that offer these resources, we can motivate and influence other people, often profoundly. I argue that the most effective way to persuade is to tell stories that make 'deals' with our identity.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

One of the biggest insights concerns our need for individual status. I argue that, ironically, both the Communists and the Capitalists made the same fundamental mistake about status. They believed that 'group status' would be enough to give people motivation and a sense of meaning.

For the Communists, a person should be happy working only for the revolution, and not be interested in personal status. But Capitalists have also fallen into this trap. From the early days of the Industrial Revolution to modern companies such as the famously 'cult-like' WeWork, there's been a widespread belief that a good employee should just vanish into the group, and that their identity as a loyal member of the team should be enough to motivate them. (Capitalists did also believe that people were strongly motivated by money, but this only turns out to be true in the short term).

In reality, happy and motivated team members do identify with their groups, and take their groups' status wins and personal wins – but they also need a sense of individual status within the group. We need to have our personal skills and contributions recognised, and feel 'seen'.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

My previous book, The Status Game, focussed solely on status, and was a deep investigation into the many ways our need for this social resource influences life, society, history, economy, and so on.

In this book, I wanted to add the other essential ingredient, which is connection. A breakthrough for me came with the understanding that, actually, connection is really about cooperation. We seek to connect to 'people like us' - characters who our brains detect are potentially useful collaborators in the trials of life.

It changed me by opening my eyes to the huge importance of identity to humans - how people will often choose identity over their actual lives. I write about experiences of 'identity stress', in which our connection and/or status feels somehow threatened. This has been a powerful concept, for me, and had helped me understand myself better.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Perhaps readers will find controversy in my argument that we are all somewhat helplessly seeking 'people like us' with whom to cooperate. This has a dark side, of course, in its manifestation as xenophobia. But I think we need to accept that it's a part of human nature to feel drawn to people who are 'like us' in some important way.

The good news is that 'like us' doesn't necessarily mean people with the same skin colour, sexual identity, and so on. There's plenty of research that suggests these kind of identity markers are actually very shallow, and what's more important to us is that a person shares our values, for example, or is a cooperative and useful member of our group.

Do you have any examples of practical applications of your ideas?

People are motivated by connection and status, much more than they are by money.

We want to feel like heroes in the story-world. It's impossible to overstate how important our identity is to us, so stories that appeal to identity - that tell us how to become more heroic - are incredibly effective. People still don't understand this.

During the last US election, Donald Trump told a story that promised status, and that was highly effective. Over here in the UK, the first months of the Labour government have been disastrous, and part of this is because they are doing the opposite of Trump: they are telling a story about Britain that removes status, and makes us feel diminished and hopeless. Their storytelling is dreadful, and they are suffering as a result. In contrast, the last-but-one Labour Prime Minister was a brilliant storyteller, and told stories that offered national connection and status that lead to a historic victory in 1997.

News and Updates

Jay is speaking at an in-person conference at New York University, hosted by the NYU Langone Department of Population Health. This conference focuses on translating research into action to improve urban population health and advance health equity.

We hope to see you on Monday May 5, 2025 from 9:00–2:30 ET in New York City. We will also livestream the event.

You can register for free here.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, we featured a book club visit with the National Institute of Social and Affective Neuroscience lab in Brazil! If you would like us to visit your class or book club, read on to learn how:

Adam Galinsky, a professor at Columbia Business School and an expert in leadership, negotiations, and group dynamics, has spent his career uncovering the psychological forces that drive influence. His research has found that leadership is not an innate quality but a cultivated skill, shaped by behaviors that either inspire or infuriate. He has also shared his research and ideas in a popular TedTalk, How to Speak Up For Yourself and an excellent prior book “Friend & Foe: When to Cooperate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at Both”. Adam was also instrumental in helping us get a start with our own book by introducing us to his book agent.

In our interview, Adam shares his biggest research-backed tips for becoming a leader who inspires, instead of infuriates. He explains the Leader Amplification Effect and shares an assessment link where anyone can assess their score on the inspiring-infuriating continuum. A leader’s highest categorical scores can reveal clues for how they can be more visionary, a better exemplar, and an exceptional mentor.

You can learn more about Inspire and order the book here.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Leaders powerfully shape group dynamics through their expressions, their actions, and their interactions. When we are in a position of leadership, we have power and status, i.e., people look up to us. That means that those around us will be paying close attention to our every move, keenly listening to our every word, interpreting our every expression, and analyzing our every interaction. Our words and behaviors generally send signals of meaning and intention. When we are leaders, those signals not only get amplified, but the reactions we produce in others get intensified as well. I have coined the Leader Amplification Effect to capture the concept that all expressions—verbal and nonverbal, positive and negative, small and big—get amplified when we are leaders.

The Leader Amplification Effect also leads to the Leader Silencing Effect, where people feel uncomfortable sharing their honest perspective to those in authority. Power, by its very nature, makes it risky for the less powerful to speak up. Even when imparting one’s insights could save lives, including one’s own, the mere presence of more powerful others often silences our voices. The good news is we can leverage the Leader Amplification Effect to positively change group dynamics and to encourage other group members to speak up. By empowering, elevating, and empathizing with others, we can gain access to a diverse set of perspectives that will help us make more wise decisions.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

There are two key foundational ideas in INSPIRE.

The first big idea is that, whether we like it or not, our actions as leaders have a big impact. The Leader Amplification Effect teaches us that neutral reactions are not an option. Nothing is ever offhand as a leader. We will either inspire or infuriate.

To understand this impact, I have asked tens of thousands of people around the world to tell me about a leader that inspired them and a leader that infuriated them. I have discovered that leaders move along a continuum from inspiring to infuriating, and where we land at any given time depends on how well we play three key roles: visionary, exemplar, and mentor. Regardless of country or culture, people want to see leaders embody that trifecta.

As I explain in INSPIRE, these are the three universal factors for inspiring others because each fulfills a fundamental human need: vision gives us meaning and purpose; exemplars provide us with passion and protection; and mentors brings us belonging and status.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

INSPIRE represents my heart and soul. It distills a quarter century of my research and teaching. It also allowed me to share real-world and personal stories that illustrate the core themes of the book in ways that I find captivating.

Writing INSPIRE changed me in numerous ways. It made me a better writer and it made me a better thinker on the topic of leadership. More importantly, my hope is that it will also lead me to be more inspiring to others.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Some people find the Leader Amplification Effect and the idea that leaders are made and not born provocative. But in many ways INSPIRE is intuitive in that it provides a clear but digestible roadmap for becoming more a inspiring person, from leader to spouse to parent to friend.

One profound implication of my research is that we are not born inspiring or infuriating. No one is inherently inspiring or infuriating. Instead, our current behavior determines where we fall on the continuum. Because there is a universal and systematic set of inspiring attributes, those skills can be taught, they can be nurtured, and they can be developed.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

The first practical tip is to find out where you fall on the inspiring-infuriating continuum. Are you able to stay calm in stressful situations? Do you micromanage others? Can you see the big picture? To help people assess where people land on the continuum, I created the Am I Inspiring? assessment.

This short survey both assesses your inspiring/infuriating tendencies and gives you a preview of the foundational tools you need to be more visionary, a better exemplar, and an exceptional mentor. You can also ask others to gauge your inspiring tendencies by sending them the Am I Inspiring assessment; this will allow you to compare your index to how others view you on the inspiring continuum.

The second step is to engage in a series of reflections. Reflections are a simple yet effective tool for becoming a more inspiring person. Each of the three universal factors can be activated by a particular reflection.

• To get into a more visionary state of mind, you can reflect on your values. My colleagues and I have shown that reflecting on your values—why they matter to you and how you demonstrate them in your life—helps people see the big picture while infusing them with optimism.

• To get into a more exemplar state of mind, reflect on times when you felt powerful and in control. Hundreds of studies around the globe show that this reflection makes people calmer and more courageous, authentic and more creative.

• To get into a more mentor state of mind, reflect on the perspectives of others. This helps people empower, elevate, and empathize with those around them.

More generally, we need to reflect monthly on when we were inspiring and infuriating.

Ask yourself: When didn’t I see the big picture or offer a sense of meaning? When was I cowardly or inauthentic? When did I fail to empower or empathize with others?

We can turn these reflections into a small commitment that we practice the next month. If we turn our reflections into commitments that become habits, we will spread the seeds of inspiration.

News and Updates

We have created a new meeting series for Spring! These meetings are a chance for paid subscribers to meet one-on-one or in small groups with Jay and Dom to talk about anything you want (e.g., our book, the topics we cover in this newsletter, our latest research, a problem you’re struggling with, or whatever else you want).

If you’re a paid subscriber, look out for a sign-up form in your inbox this week! Upgrade your subscription using the button at the bottom of this newsletter to join these meetings and recieve more benefits.

• April 3rd 3:30-4:00pm EST with Jay

• May 1st 3:30-4:00pm EST with Dom

• June 12th 3:30-4:00pm EST with Jay

Last week, Jay virtually visited the Social and Affective Neuroscience Institute book club to discuss the Power of Us! Thank you to SANI for hosting and for the engaging discussion and questions.

If you’d like either one of us to visit your book club or class, please complete this form.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, Jay shared some reflections on disagreement and how to actually talk in a productive way with people who think, feel, and act differently than you.

In April 2016, Evan was a humble Zimbabwean pastor with a small congregation. After witnessing the mass suffering under Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship he began voicing his political frustrations on Facebook. While draped in the national flag, he condemned the corruption. His message sparked the viral #ThisFlag movement and ignited a wave of peaceful resistance in Zimbabwe. Public protest was illegal in Zimbabwe, so more than eight million Zimbabweans participated in a nationwide strike. His single example example of brave dissent made it easier for others to speak out.

The movement would become one of the most successful in the nation’s history, inspiring further protests that ultimately contributed to Mugabe’s downfall in 2017. But Evan’s critiques made him a target of the regime, leading to multiple imprisonments and the victim of torture. He was accused of treason and faced the rest of his life in prison. Eventually he fled to the United States with his family where he remains in exile.

In our interview with Evan, he reflects on the importance of courage in social movements and argues that bravery is not reserved for the extraordinary but can be cultivated by anyone. As we have written about several times in our newsletter, it is often critical for the first person to dissent for others to feel comfortable bucking conformity and standing up against corrupt authority figures. If you are interested in reading more, we encourage you to buy his book here.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Courage is more contagious than fear. A key lesson from Crazy Epic Courage on group dynamics is how people are drawn to emulate someone who displays courage. I define courage as “the decision to act for the things we care about the most”. When I first challenged the entrenched dictators in Zimbabwe, we had watched decades of brutality. Thousands were murdered in political violence and many more died due to our collapsed socioeconomic systems. The fear of dictatorship in Zimbabwe had stopped most of us from even trying to figure out the solutions needed for change.

When I accidentally sparked off the #ThisFlag Citizen's Movement, I discovered that it was possible to model courage and inspire others to find their own for collective action. People in societies that need change are often looking for a way to start, an example of how to speak up. If they can just find someone or something to get behind and grow their own courage, they'll do it and with surprising outcomes.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

Courage is not reserved for a few special individuals. Everyone has it. What's often missing is knowing what our cause is. When I started the movement that led to massive non-violent protests in Zimbabwe, I was just a regular person who most people didn't know. I led a small church of roughly forty people and had no other influence apart from our small church. When I spoke up, my cause was to ensure the well being of my family. That cause became the bedrock of my actions and my courage grew to take on the bigger challenge of confronting the dictatorship’s injustices.

I learned that the clarity of your cause leads to the discovery of your courage. At the end of the book, I briefly introduce the C.A.U.S.E. framework for discovering courage. It asks five questions to help you to start discovering what could likely spark your own courage.

1. What are you most CONCERNED about?

2. What are you most ANXIOUS about?

3. What are you most UNWAVERING about?

4. What are you most SCARED for?

5. What are you most EXCITED about?

The answers to these questions provide clues to what could be something meaningful to you and those around you that you might be willing to step up and promote, defend, represent, or advocate for.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

My journey led me through hard experiences. I was arrested and jailed over eight times during a course of almost four years. I was held in maximum security prisons where I was tortured and many times thought I would be killed. I wrote this book to not only tell that story but to encourage other people that although the journey of change-making is not easy and has no guaranteed results, it is a necessary and vital component of our lives that MUST be embarked on. The fight for change is itself life-changing. There are things we will never know about ourselves until we find the courage to confront a status quo that does not reflect what we care about the most.

Living the story and writing the story are two different things. In retrospect, I have learned to be gentler with myself. Change-makers are often hard on themselves as they push long and hard to achieve a goal. I have become more patient with the process of change-making and more satisfied with my work, knowing that while it is not perfect, it is still a step forward.

While writing the book, I realized that my work and my journey are part of a larger picture of change that I may never live to see the fullness of. I'm in a relay with others who I received the baton from and those who I must hand it to. My success may not have transformed Zimbabwe into socio-economically strong nation, but it certainly shifted power and allowed marginalized people to carve out their own space.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

3 tips to starting the journey of change-making:

1- START where you are with what you have. You'll be surprised how adequate you are right now even if you're by yourself. It's often the powerless and inadequate who have the solutions.

2- FOCUS on 'the now step' not the next step. Most people don't start the change-making process because they're trying to have the full plan first. Sometimes all you need to know is what to do now and what's next will follow naturally.

3- SERVE people - My dad taught me this "you will never know how to change the world if you don't know how to serve people".

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

The tension between a desire to bring change and the impossible request to do it safely is an evident theme in this book. I get it - people want both change and comfort at the same time, but that is just not possible as I discovered. My take is that you either choose change which comes with danger, safety which means no change, or very slow and compromised change.

In the book, I opened up about the kind of danger I put my family and myself into. I talk about the battle between protecting those I love by advancing a fight that puts us in danger yet the outcome of the fight could greatly benefit them if we win. One of those moments of danger was after my family and I dramatically escaped from Zimbabwe and were safely in the United States.

After six months in exile I decided to leave my family in America and go back to continue the work. I was immediately arrested and sent to the maximum security prison. Over the years since this story, I've had varying degrees of conversation about facing danger or death for a cause. My biggest lesson is that we don't have to face grave danger or die for a cause for our courage to be genuine. In fact, we must try by all means to stay alive so we can do more. However, we must not become seekers of comfort and safety more than seekers of the change we desire.

There's a difference between going out to look for danger and danger finding you as you embark on your journey. Courage is not measured by the size and intensity of danger we face but by the actions we are willing to take for the things we care about the most.

If you want to hear more from Evan, you can watch our short documentary on threats to democracy below. One of Evan’s most poignant quotes from the film is “The loss of Democracy is not an event, it’s a process”. It’s up to each and every one of us to preserve and protect it.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, we featured a guest post from ’s Annie Duke which revisits the trolly problem in a new modern, cultural context.

Drawing on personal experiences, real-world case studies, and psychological research, Dr. Sah’s book reveals how “defiance” can be a quiet, intentional act rather than a loud rebellion. By redefining defiance as integrity in action, she shows us how small choices—like speaking up in a meeting or refusing to endorse an ethically questionable practice—can reshape group dynamics for the better.

We were excited to interview Sunita because her work on defiance aligns with our own research on dissent in groups, which finds that people are very often motivated to diverge from others not because they want to be difficult but because they see something wrong with the group and want to change it for the better. As Sunita says, it’s important to “shift your mindset about defiance. Appreciate that it’s not about being difficult or oppositional—it’s about living with integrity.” For people who care deeply about a group, that integrity may, on occasion, mean standing up and saying, “No.”

Read on to discover how harnessing the under-appreciated power of defiance just might change your life—and the world around you. You can buy a copy of her book here.

Thanks for the chance to talk, Sunita. What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Defy explores the under-appreciated power of defiance—not as rebellion or chaos, but as a force for alignment with our core values, even when societal or group pressures push us to comply. Group dynamics often amplify the conflict between individual values and collective expectations, especially when authority figures or the majority consensus push against personal integrity.

The book unpacks how our innate need for belonging and connection can predispose us to comply. From early childhood, we’re taught that obedience is good, and disobedience is bad. This conditioning manifests in behaviors like staying silent when a colleague makes an offensive comment or going along with workplace norms that feel ethically questionable.

We often comply because we want to maintain harmony within our group or avoid signaling distrust toward a leader or peer. This psychological phenomenon, which I call “insinuation anxiety,” is a distinct type of anxiety that arises when people worry that their noncompliance with another person’s wishes or advice may be interpreted as a signal of distrust, insinuating that person is not who they appear to be or should be. None of us want to imply that our friends, family, coworkers, or bosses could be biased, unethical, or incompetent. This dynamic is particularly strong in hierarchical or high-stakes group settings, where the pressure to comply can be overwhelming.

Defy teaches us that defiance doesn’t have to be loud or confrontational—it can be quiet and intentional, grounded in aligning our actions with our values. It’s about saying “no” to misalignment and “yes” to integrity, which can ultimately reshape the group dynamics around us for the better.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

The key idea in Defy is that defiance isn’t inherently oppositional—it’s about alignment with your core values. To defy doesn’t mean to disrupt for the sake of disruption; it means acting in accordance with your own true values when external pressures push you in another direction.

This redefinition of defiance challenges long-held assumptions that defiance is disruptive or reserved for extraordinary individuals. Instead, I argue that defiance is a skill, not a personality trait—a practice anyone can develop and refine.

Understanding defiance as alignment shifts the focus from rebellion to thoughtful action. It allows us to recognize and resist forces—like groupthink and social pressure—that lead us to comply. When practiced, defiance can become a powerful tool for fostering justice, harmony, and meaningful social change.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

The idea for Defy stemmed from personal experience and professional research and insights. As a physician-turned-organizational psychologist, I’ve spent years studying how advice, authority, and influence shape our decisions. Time and again, I noticed how deeply people regret moments of silence or compliance when they should have spoken up or taken a stand. I wanted to understand the forces behind these decisions—and offer tools to help people navigate them differently.

As a child, I learned to equate obedience with being “good” and saw firsthand how authority could be misused. In school, I watched teachers cross ethical lines under the guise of discipline or order. Later, as a college student, I read Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience, where participants followed orders to administer what they believed were life-threatening shocks to another person. These experiences made me question whether compliance is always virtuous and defiance inherently problematic.

Writing Defy forced me to confront my own compliance tendencies. It also gave me a framework to understand the tension I—and so many others—feel in moments when defiance is necessary but daunting. Defy became the book I wished I’d had many years ago: a handbook for defiance, a step-by-step strategy for learning how to defy when it matters most.

Ultimately, the process deepened my belief in the power of small, deliberate acts of defiance. They may seem insignificant in the moment, but collectively, they shape the culture of our workplaces, communities, and societies.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Readers might find the redefinition of defiance itself provocative. We’re conditioned to think of defiance as disruptive, rebellious, or even dangerous. But Defy argues that true defiance is none of those things—it’s a force for clarity and alignment.

Another potentially controversial idea is the critique of compliance, which many people equate with being agreeable or cooperative. The book challenges readers to reconsider whether “being a team player” or “being a good employee” always serves the greater good or whether it sometimes perpetuates harm.

Finally, the concept of “false defiance” might spark debate. This occurs when people believe they’re acting independently, but their behavior is actually a form of conformity. Voting along party lines because of familial or community tradition, for instance, may feel like an act of individuality but often reflects deep-rooted social pressures. Defy invites readers to interrogate these choices and consider whether they are truly values-based or just another form of conditioned compliance.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

1. Tap Into Your Tension

Pay attention to the discomfort you feel in situations where compliance doesn’t sit well with you. This tension is often your internal compass signaling a misalignment between your values and your actions. Instead of ignoring it, treat it as a cue to pause and reflect.

2. Pause and Reflect

Pausing creates space for intentional decision-making, helping you act in alignment with your principles rather than succumbing to social pressure. When faced with pressure to comply, take a moment before reacting and ask yourself:

• Does this align with my values?

• What are the risks of saying yes?

• What might I gain by saying no?

3. Reframe Defiance as Alignment

Shift your mindset about defiance. Appreciate that it’s not about being difficult or oppositional—it’s about living with integrity. Start small: say no to a request that feels misaligned with your priorities, or speak up when you witness something that conflicts with your values. Each act of values-based defiance strengthens your ability to make courageous decisions when it matters most.

By practicing these three steps, you can develop the skill of defiance—not as an act of rebellion, but as a deliberate, values-driven way to navigate the complexities of group dynamics and social influence.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, we unveiled the secret to team success, while celebrating the Ohio State Buckeyes as a prime example.

Michael explains that tribal instincts are adaptive systems that help us navigate the complexities of modern life, from the workplace to the political arena. He adds that current narrative of “toxic tribalism” that is blamed for division and conflict in society oversimplifies the nature of group dynamics. As a result of rapidly changing society, our instincts do become mismatched sometimes. For example, modern humans’ taste for sweet foods evolved so that our evolutionary ancestors would eat fruit—but this instinct now drives overindulgence when sugar is so easily accessible. His book explains how these tendencies can be managed and redirected to build healthier, more harmonious societies.

In his interview, Michael explains the key ideas of Tribal which previews an understanding of the psychology of tribes in everyday life. From political polarization to workplace discrimination, he argues that many of today’s most pressing conflicts arise from tribal instincts going unchecked, and provides practical advice for de-escalating tensions and fostering greater cooperation. Follow Michael on Twitter/X here and visit his website to learn more about Tribal and purchase the book.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

Tribes are the form of social organization characteristic of humans: large communities glued together by shared culture.  We can live this way only because of tribal instincts—psychological systems to acquire and enact cultural patterns—that evolved during the Stone Age.  Scientists used to debate nature versus nurture, but we have concluded that human nature is nurture.  Humans became wired by evolution to internalize the patterns of the communities that nurture us. This evolutionary wiring—the tribal instincts—made us who we are and still shape us today.

In each new social situation that we enter, different cultural frames get triggered and come to the fore to filter our experience and influence our actions.  Over the long term, a group's cultural codes evolve with changes in its experiences. Hence, cultures are manageable and malleable. Leaders can manage which cultures are triggered in a situation.  They can influence the direction that a culture evolves.

There were three basic waves of tribal adaptations, and we can recognize these impulses in our social behavior today.

1. The Peer Instinct to imitate those around us. The peer instinct remains in our sideways glances at classmates, coworkers, and neighbors–and our urge to match what they do.

2. The Hero Instinct to emulate those with status. The hero instinct persists in our reflexive attention to VIPs, MVPs, and CEOs, etc—and our aspirations to attain similar glory and tribute.

3. The Ancestor Instinct to perpetuate the ways of past generations. The ancestor instinct continues in our backwards-gazing curiosity about founders, predecessors, and traditional practices--and the obligation we feel to maintain traditions.

The three instincts create distinctive kinds of shared knowledge in groups: peer codes, hero codes, and ancestor codes. Much of the knowledge shared in any culture consists of these three kinds of codes. Most of the book describes the levers for leading people through culture that come with an understanding of peer, hero, and ancestor codes.  In the short term, each of these layers of culture can be activated by distinctive situational triggers. In the longer term, each can be altered by different social signals.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I have conducted cultural psychology research for decades. At the same time, I’ve taught practically-minded students at top business schools. I wrote this book to share the toolkit that I've developed for leading groups through their cultures. By "lead" I mean influence from any position. It's a playbook not just for the boss of an organization, but also for its middle managers, employees, customers, and fans.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

In the last decade, tribalism has been called the culprit for many of the world's pressing problems. The pundits posit that a drive to hate outsiders, an innate animosity, has re-awoken to ruin our pluralistic institutions.

It's not a picture of tribal instincts that an evolutionist would recognize. Our species has distinctive adaptations for culture and group living, but these are instincts for solidarity not for hostility. Like any instincts they can go awry sometimes, especially if they get caught up in feedback loops.  For instance, our taste for sweet foods evolved so that our forebears would eat fruit. For people today who live surrounded by donut shops, it can lead to problematic indulgence. That doesn’t mean its a gluttony instinct and we are doomed to obesity. If we want to help people eat better, its important to understand the instinct involved. 

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas?

While our tribal loyalties can contribute to conflicts that come to involve hostilities, it's a mistake to assume that these conflicts start from hostility. The diagnosis of innate animosity doesn't help us de-escalate. Instead we should try to diagnose escalating conflicts in terms of our actual tribal psychology—the peer, hero and ancestor instincts. Each one of these adaptive instincts can cycle out of range under some conditions and become dysfunctional. Recognizing these dynamics of adaptive tribal instincts gone awry helps point to ameliorative solutions.

For instance, I review evidence that the conflict between the red and blue parties arises not from hate but from "epistemic tribalism," unchecked peer instinct conformity. Hence, people who want to reduce their partisan blindness are well served by removing themselves from the environments that chronically trigger their red-tribe or blue-tribe peer codes, such as politically homogenous neighborhoods.  Another example I discuss is the ongoing ethnic discrimination in the workplace.  I review evidence that this arises not from hate but from "ethical tribalism," unchecked hero-instinct generosity toward ingroups. Hence, a key to reducing it in a workplace is changing policies like hiring for cultural fit or referral systems that facilitate unconscious in-group favoritism.

News and Updates

Dom gave an interview to Science for the Church, discussing drivers of conflict and animosity between groups. Read Part 1 here…

This month, Jay is hosting another paid subscriber meeting on Zoom!

These meetings are a chance for paid subscribers to meet one-on-one or in small groups with Jay and Dom to talk about anything you want (e.g., our book, the topics we cover in this newsletter, our latest research, a problem you’re struggling with, or whatever else you want).

If you’re a paid subscriber, look out for a sign-up form in your inbox this week! Upgrade your subscription using the button at the bottom of this newsletter to join these meetings and access our entire post archive plus other benefits.

• Jay: 11/21 3:30pm EDT

• Dom: 12/13 2:30pm EDT

Catch Up On The Last One…

Last week’s newsletter was a special column for paid subscribers only, the fourth of our debunking series. Dom tells the story of how he purchased and reviewed an original copy of Milgram’s research reports and realized that textbooks and educators have misrepresented Milgram’s obediance experiments.

Keith draws on research to make sense of what’s happening. But it’s also personal for him. Having grown up in a blue-collar, conservative Christian family in rural Kentucky, he has long and close relationships with people whose beliefs often differ dramatically from the beliefs of the academics and researchers with whom he works.

A core insight at the heart of his book is that human beings tend to have an incredibly strong bias to see ourselves as rational, reasonable, good people. We spend a lot of mental and social energy convincing ourselves of this fact. As a result, when we encounter people whose beliefs, behaviors, and values differ from our own, we often rapidly jump to the conclusion that they must be irrational, unreasonable, and quite possibly bad people. This idea has animated our newsletter for the past three years, so we were eager to invite him to discuss his book. He notes:

Drawing on the psychological dynamics that produce conflict and polarization, Keith offers strategies that ordinary people, leaders, and organizations—including social media companies—can take to reduce polarization and start to mend many of the relationships that have frayed over the past few years.

We encourage you to read our interview with Keith below and check out his new book here.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

‘Good Reasonable People’ is about how social identity is the root of the political polarization that is paralyzing the US and driving wedges between friends and families. The title comes from the way that people constantly use flexible thinking to reassure themselves that they are good, reasonable people and the groups that define their social identity are, too. When we encounter new information, arguments, or ideas, we rationalize until we come to the conclusion that we were right all along. This is why it's nearly impossible to convince the other side they are wrong (and why they think the same thing about us). Like ‘The Power of Us’, my book argues that social group identities are both the cause of social divisions and a key to healing them. My book shows how looking at the world through the lens of social identity makes sense of other people's political beliefs that otherwise seem puzzling, and points out ways to use shared social identities to bridge divides.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

We think that we are divided over political ideologies, but we're not. In fact, most people have no political ideology, understood as a coherent set of interconnected political beliefs. An enormous body of research over more than 50 years shows that people's opinions about one issue (like tax cuts) is very weakly correlated with opinions on other issues (like government benefits) that are logically related. And when you survey the same respondents over time, their answers to the same questions are incredibly inconsistent.

Political scientists estimate that 85 percent of Americans have no ideology. The 15 percent that do are typically academics, journalists, and other people who eat, sleep, and breathe politics. What the typical American has is not a political ideology, but a social identity. That's why we can predict with incredible accuracy which party you prefer if we know just a few things about you, such as your race, your education level, and whether you were born in a county that had a lot of slaves in 1860. If we want to have better conversations, we have to learn to stop bludgeoning each other with facts and start understanding how political views function to maintain our sense that we (and our groups) are good people.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I have conducted cultural psychology research for decades. At the same time I’ve taught practically-minded students at top business schools. I wrote this book to share the toolkit that I've developed for leading groups through their cultures. By "lead" I mean influence from any position. It's a playbook not just for the boss of an organization, but also for its middle managers, employees, customers, and fans.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

I wrote this book, in part, because I couldn't stop getting into fights with family members over politics. Like many people, I had the maddening experience of knowing, on the one hand, that my family members were sane and decent people. Yet on the other hand, when it came to politics their views often seemed insane or sinister. As a psychologist, I knew more than most about the ways that social identity and motivated reasoning can lead people to twist logic and defend their groups with rationalizations. But to apply what I knew, I had to remove myself from the heat of the immediate social interaction and think through the science. I wrote the book to help others do the same. Writing the book changed the way I engage with people about politics.

To begin with, I don't get into arguments on social media any more - that's a sucker's game. But more than that, I came to realize that when people make an argument about an issue, there's usually no use getting into a debate about the facts and merits of the issue. That's because issue stands are usually tools people are using to defend their sense that they are a good reasonable person. If I disprove something they've said with facts and evidence, it won't matter to them. They can always find another fact, change the subject, shift the goal post, and so on. Instead, I learned to ask: How is this idea protecting their self-esteem? And how is my own view protecting mine?

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas?

Here are three tips from the book for having better conversations and staying connected with people you care about across political divides:

1. First, when you are tempted to get into an argument, ask yourself what your real motive is first. Often we are trying to change the other person, to embarrass them, or to dominate them. If those are your goals, you have already lost. People sometimes change their views, but those changes come from long-term experiences like education, travel, or a close relationship. You can't wrestle a mind into submission with facts, or anything else.

2. Second, research finds that partisans greatly overestimate how far apart they and their opponents are on most issues. Even more important, we overestimate how much the other side dislikes us. So don't make assumptions about what the other person believes or feels. Ask them.

3. Third, thinking of a person as a token member of their group (e.g., another Republican / another Democrat) leads us to think of them as less human. Thinking of them as an individual (who happens to belong to a group) helps humanize them. Always try to see a person as a person first.

You can learn more about Good Reasonable people here and follow Keith on Twitter/X here.

News and Updates

This week, Professsor Phil Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist behind the controversial ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ died at age 91. We discussed his famous study—and the modern reinterpretation—in our book and in a recent newsletter this month (see below). On Monday, Jay was invited on San Francisco local radio (KCBS All News Radio) to discuss the Stanford Prison Experiment and it’s legacy. You can listen to the short 5 minute interview here.

Catch up on the last one…

Our last newsletter continued our series busting popular myths about classic research in psychology — explaining why what many people believe they know about groupthink is incorrect. You can also read previous columns that reinterpret the Bystander Effect and the Stanford Prison Experiment. We will debunk several other myths in the coming weeks.

These are the sorts of fascinating questions that political scientist and director of the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins university set out to answer question in her new book, Undivided: The Quest for Racial Solidarity in an American Church. We met Hahrie when we hosted a conference on polarization at the Agora Institute—she was also featured in a documentary we created on Protecting Democracy.

Hahrie’s book, Undivided, took her into the white-dominated evangelical megachurch Crossroads. The Pastor, Chuck Mingo, had delivered a sermon the prior year that set in motion a chain of surprising events. Raised in the Black church, Mingo felt called by God to combat racial injustice, and to do it through the church. The result was Undivided, a faith-based program designed to foster antiracism. The creators of Undivided believed that any effort to combat racial injustice must move beyond overcoming individual prejudices and get to the roots of the problem.

In Undivided, Hahrie chronicles the story of two men, one Black and one White, and two women, one Black and one White, whose lives were fundamentally altered by the program. As each of their journeys unfolded, they came to better understand one another and believe in the possibilities for racial solidarity in a moment of deep divisiveness in America. Her book shows what an undivided society might look like—and how we can help achieve it. As she notes:

Social transformation is not about finding extraordinary people and giving them extraordinary opportunities…Instead, it's about creating the social and structural conditions ordinary people need to take risks and connect their work to something larger than themselves.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

I have spent my career trying to understand the science of collective action. My research lab is called the P3 Lab because we are trying to understand how to make the participation of ordinary people possible, probable, and powerful--people have to be able to participate, they have to want to participate, and it has to matter. What are the practices we can use to pull people of all kinds off the sidelines and equip them to work with each other to realize the future they want?

Even with that background, working on this book taught me urgent lessons about the science of organizing, movements, and social change I didn’t know I needed to learn. In particular, it taught me what it takes to equip people to navigate some of the most intractable divides we have in America—race and faith—to keep them engaged in the work even when they faced backlash from their friends, families, workplaces, and churches, and how to connect their individual actions to a larger program of structural injustice.

And all this happened in the context of an evangelical megachurch—did you know that the top 9% of churches in American contain 50% of the churchgoing population? And that the average megachurch has been steadily growing, even as smaller churches die away? These churches are the growth edge of American Christianity and there is way more variability in them than most people understand.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

Social transformation—even in an evangelical megachurch—is not about finding extraordinary people and giving them extraordinary opportunities (e.g., find like-minded people and turn them into DEI warriors!) Instead, it's about creating the social and structural conditions ordinary people need to take risks and connect their work to something larger than themselves.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

Working on this book stretched my mind and my heart in ways I couldn’t have imagined. It introduced me to a world of people fighting for racial justice in one of the largest, white-dominant evangelical megachurches in America. When I first heard about this work in 2016, the campaign manager—who himself a veteran of many bitter political fights—told me it was “unlike anything” he had ever seen. He was right. The story surprised me at every turn—because of the way it demonstrated what becomes possible when we manifest the courage to fight for everyone’s dignity, the way it defied stereotypes about evangelicalism, and what it taught me about how communities like Cincinnati can overcome some of the most intractable divides we face in America.

The book traces the journey of four congregants at the Crossroads church—two men, one Black and one white, and two women, one Black and one white—who were all part of a racial justice program called Undivided in 2016. Each character became animated to take on the work of anti-racism, but then had to grapple with the inevitable backlash that came with the work during the Trump era, and what that meant for how they understood themselves, their faith, and their communities. None of the characters, nor the church, followed a linear path from complicity to justice. And the work remains fragile. But none of them came away unchanged—neither did I.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Oh goodness, so much! In an effort to tell an authentic story, the book takes on topics that can sometimes be perceived as the third rail of both the political left (such as the DEI industry) and the political right (such as the racism that is built into aspects of white evangelicalism). Our one-dimensional political discourse often flattens the nuance needed to have real conversations about the ways in which the institutions we all inhabit—whether they are politically left or right, secular or religious, steeped in the language of DEI or not, faith-resistant or faith-filled—are flawed. Humans are imperfect, and so are the institutions we build. But sometimes we can't have authentic, complex conversations about the ways in which they are. This book does not shy away from that.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

I'm generally resistant to "listicles" or "tips" because I think they create the illusion that we can find shortcuts to the hard work of investing in each other's dignity. I think the truth is that if we take seriously the idea that every single person around us has equal dignity, then we each have a lot of complexity that we have to navigate about what that means about the choices we make. In many cases, that means we're making choices under conditions of uncertainty, or balancing ethical dilemmas to which there are no clear answers. So what can we do?

Most of my research focuses on social movements and community organizing. Organizers distinguish between "getting people to do a thing" (mobilizing) from "getting people to become the kind of people who do what needs to be done" (organizing). We live in a world in which the socio-political and economic systems we have are really good at "getting people to do a thing" but not as good at "getting people to become the kind of people who do what needs to be done."

The book tells the story of people who were part of a program, Undivided, that equipped them to become the kind of people who did what needs to be done when it comes to the work of racial justice. It wasn't easy and the answers weren't always clear. But if you wanted to apply the lessons of the book, the first thing would be to figure out what you need around yourself to become that kind of person--or, conversely, to either join or build a program that enables others to become those kind of people.

News and Updates

Podcast: Belonging can bring us together & pull us apart. Jay was on “The Connection” on WHYY radio last week to discuss how shared identities can lead to cooperation, sacrifice and generosity and also result in destructive, and hateful behavior. You can list to the hour-long discussion with Marty Moss-Coane here.

Event: Next month, Jay will be giving a keynote talk at the Montessori School of Denver’s campus about how educational leaders can use the power of shared identity to drive positive change success. You can register for the free event here! If you would like to collaborate with either Jay or Dominic on a speaking event or workshop, check out our website for more information.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week’s newsletter was one of our most popular columns ever! It was the second in a debunking popular psychology myths series, which will continue over the next few weeks.

But almost always behind every great presidential speech is a great speechwriter. Terry Szuplat, one of Barack Obama’s longest-serving speechwriters, helped shape some of Obama’s most memorable speeches. But he was once terrified of public speaking. Public speaking is often considered one of the most nerve-wracking experiences and is a common phobia even for people who have spent years behind the scenes crafting speeches for world leaders.

In his new book, Say It Well: Find Your Voice, Speak Your Mind, Inspire Any Audience, Terry combines his experience as a White House speechwriter with evidence from psychology and neuroscience to offer a roadmap for anyone looking to become a more confident and impactful communicator. In fact, Terry interviewed Jay about his research on the language of polarization. His book focuses on how we can use communication to bridge divides, appeal to shared identities, and inspire change. Through powerful anecdotes and practical tips, Szuplat explains how to tailor your message to resonate with any audience—whether you're giving a presentation at work, advocating for a cause, or simply raising a toast.

Say It Well is out September 17th which also marks the start of Terry’s live book tour. The book is now available for preorder here and on Amazon.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Well, I want to start by pointing out the obvious—I’m not a psychologist or a neuroscientist. I’m a speechwriter. For nearly 30 years, I’ve helped leaders, including a president, connect with their audiences, and as a trainer I help people in my workshops find their own voice and communicate better.

For most of my career, I felt that communicating effectively was purely an art. After leaving the White House, however, I stumbled upon research that upended my thinking. I reached out to scholars to learn more, and I learned from books like “The Power of Us.” I now realize that connecting effectively with an audience is both an art and a science. In “Say It Well,” I try to bring it all together – the art of communication that I learned as a White House speechwriter for President Obama along with the psychology and neuroscience that shows why these techniques work so well—so that anyone, anywhere can become a better speaker, communicator, and leader.

One of the lessons I share—and that I now realize President Obama was doing in so many of his speeches, both in the United States and around the world—is that we can connect with our audiences by appealing, explicitly and implicitly, to their social identity and to group dynamics. As his speechwriters, we were doing it too, without realizing the science behind it, and in “Say It Well,” I share how anyone can do too.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

I think one of the biggest mistakes that many of us make as speakers is that we mostly think about what we want to say. As a result, many of us—a bit like a politician —develop something of a “stump speech.” We tend to give the same few presentations, especially in a professional setting, regardless of the audience.

I get it. It’s easier to have a ready-to-made presentation that we can pull out at a moment’s notice. It takes more time and work to tailor our presentations to each audience. But that’s exactly what effective speakers do.

With that in mind, one of the most important ideas that I hope readers take away from “Say It Well” is that if we want to connect with, motivate, and inspire our audiences, we have to think deeply about our audience—who they are and what they want and need from us as a speaker. To help readers do this, I offer “10 Questions to Ask Before Any Speech,” including:

• What’s the background of my audience? Young? Old? Liberal, conservative, moderate? Urban, suburban, rural? What’s their racial, religious, or ethnic makeup?

• What are their lived experiences? What events have shaped their lives? Are there achievements that they’re proud of that I can celebrate? Do they carry any pain, trauma, or sense of injustice that I can acknowledge and address?

• What is their worldview—their beliefs and values? And what are yours? Where they overlap—the core values you have in common—is where you have the best opportunity to connect with your audience and where your best presentation lives.

• What is their mood? Are they optimistic or worried? Energized or dispirited?

• What do they expect of you? Are they supportive or skeptical of your views? What do they want—or need—to hear from you?

Ask and answer questions like these before you prepare your presentation and you’ll increase your chances of connecting with your audience and getting them to listen to what you have to say.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I wrote “Say It Well” because, like so many people, I often struggled with public speaking too. Even though I’ve been a professional speechwriter for nearly my entire adult life, for most of that time I’d been uncomfortable behind the podium myself. I was a speechwriter who couldn’t seem to hack it as a speech giver!

Over time, I found myself avoiding situations where I might be called upon to speak. Then, a few years after leaving the White House, I was invited to give a keynote address—to an audience of three hundred people. At first, I wanted to say no. I was too afraid. I didn’t want to embarrass myself. But then I thought, am I going to hide from public speaking all my life?

I decided to face my fears. I had months to prepare and I used all that time to try to remember the lessons I’d learned as a speechwriter, including for President Obama, and use them to develop and deliver a speech for myself. And it worked. For the first time in my life, I was able to stand up in front of an audience (of 300 people!) and deliver a major speech—and the audience loved it. “Say It Well” is the story of the lessons I learned and how anyone can apply them in their own lives.

Writing the book changed me as well. I had to think deeply about why I was so nervous about public speaking in the first place. I reached out to experts, including Dr. Ellen Hendriksen, a clinical psychologist at Boston University’s Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders. “We’re all social animals,” she told me. “We all need to feel safety, love, and belonging.” Fears of being rejected by our group, she explained, may be rooted in our ancient survival instincts. “Rejection used to be fatal. If you were kicked out of your family or your tribe, you’d be cast to the wolves. You could literally die.” Today, “social rejection can feel like a fast track to death.”

Listening to Dr. Hendriksen, I started to understand my own anxieties around public speaking and why so many people feel the same way. Its’ why the first Chapter of “Say It Well,” is called “Love Your Sacred Story.” It’s about how the safety, love and belonging that we all need in life starts in our own hearts—the story we tell ourselves about ourselves. That our voice matters. That our story is worthy. That we deserve to be at that podium as much as anyone else.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Some readers might take issue with how I suggest addressing people with whom we disagree or whose views we find abhorrent.

By all means, we should condemn bigotry like racism, sexism, and homophobia as the scourges they are. At the time, if we’re trying to persuade someone—a neighbor, a coworker, an employer, an elected official, or our crazy uncle at Thanksgiving—I wouldn’t recommend calling them a bigot to their face.

“Telling people they’re racist, sexist, and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere,” explains Alana Conner, of Stanford University’s Center for Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions. “It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”

I realize this is not what many people may want to hear. It’s hard to resist calling people out when we feel their views are an affront to the fundamental values of equality and justice that are at the foundation of our diverse democracy. But we have to ask ourselves: are we trying to condemn them or persuade them? If we’re trying to persuade someone, the first step is not condemning them.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

In the book, I share many ways that, as speakers and communicators, we can connect more deeply with our audiences, whether we’re speaking to five people or five hundred. Here are three:

1. The Power of You – How we identify ourselves to our audience can have a profound effect on how they perceive us, whether they see us as part of their group and therefore whether they’re open to what we’re saying. When you speak, think about which of your many identities might allow you to best connect with your audience. “I’m speaking to you today as…” “a mother,” “a father,” “a person of faith,” “a veteran.”

2. The Power of ‘We’” – “The single most powerful word in our democracy is ‘We,’” President Obama said once. “’We the People.’ ‘We Shall Overcome…’ That word is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone.” It’s the central lesson of “The Power of Us”— appealing to the identities and groups that people cherish, without demonizing others outside the group, can be one of the most powerful ways to motivate an audience to do good.

3. The Power of What We Do – As Jonah Berger, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, points out, we can also motivate our audiences by appealing to how they see themselves (with fewer verbs and more nouns). He points to a study where encouraging people to think of themselves as “a voter” made them more likely to vote than people we simply said they planned “to vote.” We can do it too. Are you trying to motivate your coworkers? Appeal to their pride as “problem solvers,” “creators,” and “innovators.”

All of which is to say, combining the art and science of communication not only helps us know what to say in our presentations and speeches, it helps us know how to say it well.

News and Updates

We have created a new meeting series for Fall! These meetings are a chance for paid subscribers to meet one-on-one or in small groups with Jay and Dom to talk about anything you want (e.g., our book, the topics we cover in this newsletter, our latest research, a problem you’re struggling with, or whatever else you want).

If you’re a paid subscriber, look out for a sign-up form in your inbox this week! Upgrade your subscription using the button at the bottom of this newsletter to join these meetings and more.

• Jay: 9/26 3:30pm EDT

• Dom: 10/24 3:30pm EDT

• Jay: 11/21 3:30pm EDT

• Dom: 12/13 2:30pm EDT

Catch up on the last one…

Last week’s newsletter was one of our most popular columns ever! It is the first in a debunking popular psychology myths series, which will continue next week.

Her book speaks directly to an America in which civic knowledge is alarmingly sparse and many people dread politics. It's a tool for parents, educators, and anyone eager to fill this gap. This was inspired by her own experiences raising kids and teaching college students who lacked a basic understanding of being an engaged citizen.

The book challenges the common assumption that schools alone should shoulder the burden of civics education. Because they prioritize other subjects required for college preparedness, it has resulted in generations of young adults ill-prepared to engage in the political system that governs their lives. Lindsey argues that parents must step in to fill this void. Read our interview with Lindsey below and learn more about How to Raise a Citizen here.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

How to Raise a Citizen (And Why It's Up to You to Do It) explores how individual identities and collective dynamics shape our interactions with the political sphere. Younger individuals tend to go through school systems not aimed at teaching civics in a robust or fundamental way meaning that our collective understanding of politics and government suffers.

The book argues that families and adults responsible for contributing to raising children have to change the common narrative on politics (i.e. that it’s all negative and self-serving) as well as be willing to change the communication dynamics of talking about politics by making sure kids get to practice these things before the leave the home. One of the key points I address is the role of parents in helping children recognize and try to understand different perspectives within their communities.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

The most important idea that readers will learn is the role that parents must play in filling the civics education gap left by modern schooling systems. Our politics won’t feel or function better if we don’t change something in how we teach our children about politics and government in our homes. No one else is coming to save us, and the states all have very different systems for how and when to introduce civics, we’ve got to start seeing this as a parenting responsibility.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

"How to Raise a Citizen (And Why It's Up to You to Do It)" was inspired by my personal experiences as both a parent and an educator. Over the years, I consulted numerous parenting "how-to" books on everything from establishing sleep routines to handling tantrums and teaching reading skills. However, I noticed a gap in our guidance for parents: there was little on preparing children to be active, engaged participants in democracy. This gap became even more apparent in my role as a professor teaching introductory U.S. politics to college students. Whether fresh out of high school or preparing to graduate, many of my students lacked basic civic knowledge. They were unfamiliar with voting processes, the Constitution, and the structure of government that impacts their daily lives. This isn't a failure on any individual's part but a collective oversight in our educational and societal norms.

The turning point came when elementary schools began asking me to develop civics lessons. Engaging with younger students highlighted the need for a resource that could help parents bridge this educational gap. My book aims to equip parents with the tools to discuss government and politics in ways that are both enjoyable and enlightening, encouraging a deep, familial approach to civic engagement. Through writing this book, I've realized yet another responsibility that parents have to shoulder, but I came to the conclusion that it will be up to families to right the way our politics feels right now.

For two years, I collected and analyzed data on civic instruction and youth knowledge and participation. My team of 5 research assistants and I also interviewed a lot of teachers from across the US. The situation is more dire that I thought, schools are teaching less and less on the subject, and trust in our institutions is decreasing. But in many ways, I’m hopeful – we have so much room to grow, and I truly think our politics will be able to function better as more and more people see it as a benefit to be informed of how things work and to do that work with their children. This process has not only enriched my perspective as an educator but has also deepened my commitment to doing all that I can to promote civic-know how for the coming generations.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Early readers have been shocked about how little civics instruction school kids get today. They have been surprised that there are no national standards and that of all the AP courses administered in high schools, AP US Government is the 4 lowest scoring exam on average. In fact, most of the students who sit for the exam earn the equivalent of a failing grade. I think parents are frustrated by this information because many think schools will prepare students to be active citizens, in reality that’s just not the case. Young voters are the least likely to be registered, the least likely to vote, and that means they don’t get a fair say in our politics.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

Yes, totally. For those with young kids under 10 there are three important things parents can do.

1. Take your kids to vote with you so they can see the process.

2. Second, let them see you talking about politics with other people.

3. Third, do not just focus on the negative aspects of politics and government. We shape the way kids dream, and if we continue the narrative of “all politicians are bad” we will continue to alienate kids from this space. For those with 10-14 year olds, start practice having political conversations with your kids. Make sure that kids have opportunities to learn some of the vocabulary around politics and government. I also recommend introducing kids to local and state politicians to humanize what we mean by “the government”. For those with 15-18 year olds all of the above apply, especially on practicing how to have hard conversations.

I also think kids MUST know these 4 things to enter adulthood with the power to participate in meaningful ways:

1. Understand the Importance of Voting: Every citizen needs to know how to register to vote and keep their registration current. Since the rules can vary widely from state to state, it’s necessary to stay informed about local voting requirements – and that’s something parents need to let kids know about

2. Recognize the Difference between Primaries and General Elections Primary elections, in many places and for many offices, can be more pivotal than the general election – yet primary turn out is always lower than general elections. Knowing this and the rules on participating in primary elections is necessary

3. Constitutional Knowledge: A basic understanding of the government's structure, the separation of powers, and constitutional rights is essential. Once kids grasp these concepts, much of what is debated in the media begins to make more sense—and becomes less infuriating. I suggest everyone should read the constitution through at least once in their lives.

4. Federalism: Recognizing that politics extends beyond the oftentimes divisive national stage into state and local issues can make things more concrete and far less daunting. State and local governments play a big role in our daily lives. Understanding federalism—how power is divided between national and state governments—empowers kids to effectively address issues in their community because they can have a better understanding of who is responsible for what.

   Thanks for reading The Power of Us! This post is public so feel free to share it.

   Share

News and Updates

We surpassed 5,000 total subscribers on our newsletter this month! Thank you for your continued interest and support for our work—we have lots of exciting new content planned for this fall. So stay tuned as we debunk some of the biggest myths in social psychology, including the Milgram Obedience studies, Stanford Prison Experiment, and Asch Conformity studies!

Jay discussed The Psychology of Identity and Fostering Social Harmony with Scott Barry Kauffman on The Psychology Podcast this week. They discuss how to escape your echo chambers and overcome your biases, the role social media plays in creating a funhouse mirror, and how to make connections with fellow humans even if they're in your out-group.

Jay was also at APA for a panel discussion on the psychology of misinformation and discuss with Charles Duhigg about how to write engaging popular psychology books.

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, Todd Kashdan of shared a guide with seven rules to effective dissent. Use these tips in the workplace, team setting, or in the classroom.

Tessa’s book is designed to help readers identify their unique psychological stressors to determine the next step in their career. Through her interviews and surveys with thousands of people who have recently switched jobs or undergone career changes, she found there are five common sources of career frustration:

• Identity crisis – When your sense of self no longer matches your job.

• Drifting-apart – When you no longer recognize the job you once loved.

• Torn between places – When you taking on too many roles at work, switching tasks too often, or feel stuck between two paths.

• Runner up – When you keep coming in second place.

• Under-appreciated star – When you crush it at work, but the people around you don’t recognize or reward your performance.

We interviewed Tessa for her previous book Jerks at Work. If you enjoy her interview below, you can subscribe to her newsletter where she offers “help with your trickiest workplace dilemmas.” More importantly, you can buy her new book, Job Therapy, here.

We are offering a special free book giveaway to the people who can use Job Therapy for the greater good. If you run a college career center, facilitate workshops in businesses, can spread the lessons on a popular newsletter, or something else that will help others, enter our giveaway for a free copy of the book. Tessa will select the 15 most impactful proposals for a free book. Fill out this form.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Identity plays a huge role in people’s relationships with their careers. Sometimes, we feel highly identified with our career–it’s a core piece of who we are as a person–yet we feel uncertain of whether we want to continue down this path. We wake up in the middle of the night in existential terror, thinking to ourselves, “is this it?” The opening chapter of this book is called the “Identity Crisis,” and it’s about this person. Many have spent years perfecting their career identity, and have a lot of guilt and uncertainty about leaving it behind. 

In this chapter, I not only talk about identity centrality–how much your identity defines you–but also, identity satisfaction–the identity you hold makes you happy. There are a lot of people who are identified with careers that make them miserable. We see this a lot in health care, and other professions with high rates of burnout. It’s a psychologically dangerous place to be.  

One goal of this book is to help people process these complicated pieces of identity. This journey starts with understanding whether you want to stay on your career path or try something new, which involves “dating” new identities to develop clarity around what new careers are like. 

And it’s important to note that there are plenty of people who don’t feel highly identified with their career; they have other identities. To them, a job is just a job. These people are often unhappy because they work in an industry or in a company that wants more identity investment than they’re willing to give. They hear things like, “everyone else here has gone all in with this job, so why don’t you? For these people, there’s an identity-mismatch. The problem comes down to fit. 

I interviewed Jay Van Bavel in this opening chapter, and he talks a lot about how we don’t know how identified we are with a career until we’re about ready to give it up–the psychology of nearing an identity break-up. He gives great advice on how to process that identity loss before you move on to developing a new one. 

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

That we have a relationship with our careers--they aren't just something that we do. And that relationship can come with emotional ups and downs. You need to process your feelings with your career–truly understand the psychological roots of unhappiness–before you should be applying for jobs. 

Finding a career that fits takes time; it won’t happen overnight. But small moves, like meeting a few new people a week, will help you get there. This journey isn’t about applying for a ton of things and hoping something will land. It’s about making smart moves, and fewer of them, in a particular order. To this end, each chapter of my book is organized around 4 stages of the job discovery and application process. 

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I was teaching a close relationships class at NYU and I realized that the ways people were talking about their careers were similar to how people talk about their relationships with their romantic partners. Jealousy and embarrassment, shame and pride, concerns about rejection and fears around honest communication–themes we usually see in the romantic relationships space, kept coming up in the world of work. I remember talking to a journalist who asked me, “what trends should we expect to see around job interviews–will people stop showing up?” and I said something like, “well, people are now no-showing on first dates and ghosting each other, so expect that next.” And I was right! 

This book did change the way I think about my career. One concept that really resonates with me is this idea that we often “slide” into relationships instead of “deciding” into them (in fact, most couples who live together never had a conversation about cohabitating; they just slowly moved their stuff into one person’s house, effectively “sliding” into it). It’s easy to slide into roles at work. One day, you’re helping your boss or a team member out with an extra task; the next, you have some new role you never signed up for. Writing this book made me much more deliberative about the jobs I take on. If I feel myself sliding into something, I try to slow down, have honest conversations with the person asking me to do these jobs, and make a choice about whether I want to take it on. 

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

I think the idea that when it comes to landing a job, “less is more” shouldn’t be provocative–most of us know deep down that we need to make careful, methodical moves–but these days it is. You see a lot of social media posts about the person who applied for 600 jobs and got nothing, which is framed as evidence that the market sucks. But in all of my interviews with hiring managers and leaders, there was one theme that kept coming up: People are submitting generic materials, not tailored to jobs. They aren’t describing how their different roles talk to each other; they aren’t framing up their experiences or creating a narrative around what they learned. They are just listing stuff. And part of that comes from not really understanding, at a deep psychological level, what you want. It’s a bit like putting a dating profile out there, listing all you have to offer, without processing what type of partner you’re trying to signal these things to. That perspective taking comes with digging down deep. 

I also think that the work you really need to do can’t be done by passively reading stuff from your couch. You will need to get out and talk to people. A 15-minute conversation in which a new acquaintance tells you all about the hidden curriculum of a career–what it really takes to get ahead, not the stuff found on company websites, and not the reviews on Glassdoor–is worth its weight in gold. Have as many of those as you possibly can.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

Yes, each chapter of my book gives you concrete guidance on how to network (down to who, exactly, you should be reaching out to); what to ask of network connections, how to write cold emails. I also give concrete advice on resume writing and interviewing, down to the questions you should be asking to have an honest interview. 

Here’s a few tips you can keep in mind as you go through the stages of the book: 

1. I encourage a lot of radical honesty, and that includes asking tough questions during interviews like, “what does it look like to fail at this job?” Don’t worry about offending interviewers with questions like these; they prefer them. These questions show that you’re thinking deeply about fit and longevity in a job. Hiring managers don’t want to see people-pleasing during interviews–nodding your head and saying yes to everything and not pushing back. They want to see tough questions. 

2. Don’t be afraid to reach out to a stranger. I had to do a lot of networking with strangers for this book, and I was nervous about it. But guess what: People love talking about themselves! Think of networking as learning new things about people’s experiences; it’s not about impressing people. With that mindset shift, you’ll feel less cringey about networking. 

3. Don’t feel pressure to move quickly on a job change or a career transition. The steps I encourage you to take in this book can all be done while you’re still employed. You don’t need closure on one thing to explore another. 

Do you need Job Therapy? Tessa created this quiz to see what type of career challenge each person is struggling with.

According to the quiz Jay is "Stretched too thin!" Sadly, very true.

News and Updates

Jay and Tessa are both speakers at The Lavin Agency where they share research on the science of collaboration—practical strategies for building thriving teams.

Catch up on the last column…

Last week, we shared our latest research on the psychology of polarization and climate change. Check it out: