How to inspect a book better before you read it (or Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover)
I was ready to be inspired when I started reading the book How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide. After the first couple of chapters, it seemed like the book might be more about “how to have any conversations” than only the impossible ones because the principles and practices I started noticing in the book did not seem limited to hard conversations but could be applied to any verbal exchanges.
Practices like seeing conversations as partnerships.
And building rapport with the person you are talking to.
And even how to end a conversation well (a skill that, after 35 years of ministry, I still haven’t mastered and generally execute awkwardly).
All excellent, practical advice. And I have a lot of hard, soft, and medium conversations that I’m not always sure how to navigate. So, I flew through the first pages of this compellingly written book on the hunt for answers.
One of the reasons it was compelling was that the book’s authors, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, approached the topic with a surprising and attractive level of humility: They admitted where they had gotten it wrong in conversations and pointed out what was necessary to correct what they’d done.
But as I continued to read, something felt “off.” I started realizing something I hadn’t noticed at first. This was essentially a book that provided tools for people who wanted to change someone else’s opinion, ideology, or beliefs. The book shared ideas about how to change the minds of ideologues, true believers, and fundamentalists (all of whom, according to their definitions, I could be identified as).
How did I miss that for so long? I realized that I’d done a poor job of inspecting the book beforehand. I could have picked up on clues if I stopped and looked through the table of contents thoughtfully.
And had I engaged in a more thorough reading of the first chapter, I would have seen where the authors shared the book’s purpose when they said: “Ultimately, How to Have Impossible Conversations is about talking to people who hold different beliefs. What people believe matters…Beliefs can also change, and there are good and bad ways to change them. Conversation is a good way.” (4-5)
And had I researched the co-authors before I started reading the book. I would have seen that each had written a book explicitly supporting their evangelical Atheism. Boghossian wrote A Manual for Creating Atheists, and Lindsay wrote Everybody Is Wrong About God.
And, finally, I probably would have gotten a hint of what was coming from scanning the endorsements on the back cover and front pages: Richard Dawkins; Michael Shermer; Dave Rubin. All famously avowed and “evangelistic” Atheists.
I’m not suggesting the book wasn’t well worth reading. There was a much solid, practical instruction here. In fact, if you kept the content but switched the context to be written by a believer who was explaining how to talk to skeptics in a way that might help them consider the case for Jesus, I would probably have considered almost all of what was written great advice.
To be clear, this is a book I look forward to reading more carefully and adding practical conversational tools that will help me talk to people who may disagree with me.
However, I must admit that it was strange to read a book written as a kind of guide for winning apologetics conversations, but from the “other side.” I appreciate that they were at least open to the possibility (and encouraged their readers to be open) that while trying to change someone else’s beliefs, your beliefs might change instead. That said, I didn’t get the sense in reading this book that either of the author’s own beliefs would be very open to being changed in conversation with someone else, especially if they came from a faith perspective.
In the end, what I was really hoping for after reading the cover and the first chapters was a book not about winning arguments from either side but about truly having honest, relational, heartfelt conversations. I was interested in the idea of true conversational partnerships that didn’t have any transactional motivation at all.
Because at some point, while you may feel the need to change someone’s mind on several issues, more often, we need to navigate conversations with those we disagree with in a gracious, kind, and patient way without thinking we can win the conversation.
About the Author
Tim Clark
I'm on a lifelong journey of discovering the person God has created me to be and aligning that with the purpose God has created me for. I've been pressing hard after Jesus for 40 years, and I currently serve Him as the lead pastor of vision and voice at The Church On The Way in Los Angeles. I live with my wife and 3 kids in Burbank California.5 responses to “How to inspect a book better before you read it (or Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post, Tim. I agree with your observations, and that the book does need to be considered as a book that is about how to persuade / change someone’s mind as much or more as it is about how to simply have “gracious, kind, and patient” (as you have said) conversations, even with those we disagree with. I do think one of the better takeaways from the book is something you highlighted — it is practical. Extremely practical, in fact. I hope to go back to chapter two from time to time, for example, with their “Seven Fundamentals of Good Conversations.”
Hi Tim (NOT JOHN),
A while back I noticed the sign in my bosses office, “Words whisper, Action THUNDERS.”
In short, less talk more action. I guess that speaks to listening, but it also lets our actions speaker louder than our words.
When it comes to immigration, I can hardly stand to be in conversations with Texans who once again view the influx of immigrants as the “Yellow Peril.”
I am reminded of the only legislation against race, “the Chinese exclusion act” and in the face of racism and prejudice, my words are wasted.
In World War II, men acted and spoke little.
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team (RCT) was a segregated unit of Japanese American soldiers in World War II:
Composition
The 442nd was made up of American-born Japanese soldiers, known as “Nisei”.
Motto
The unit’s motto was “go for broke”, a gambling term that meant risking everything to win.
Combat record
The 442nd is considered the most decorated unit in the U.S. military for its size and length of service. The unit’s honors include 21 Medals of Honor, 9,486 Purple Hearts, and eight Presidential Unit Citations.
Actions thunder….
Shalom
Hi Tim,
I must confess I did not do a background check on the authors, but I had the same sense that the book was focused on persuading. The tips were great and I apply them to conversation and building relationships rather than trying to change someone’s mind. It’s an interesting window into seeing how others go about challenging the beliefs and values of others. I loved this line of you post, “honest, relational, heartfelt conversations” that really is the goal. We need more of hose conversations…even when they aren’t on a hot or controversial topic. What helps you notice when that type of conversation is happening? What helps you engage in honest, relational, heart-felt conversations?
Agreed.
#8
Good night friend. Jet lag is real.
🙂
Appreciate the post Tim, I found some absolute gold in this book, but noticed some of the same things. Yes, it certainly has the feel of “apologetics” from the other side, which fascinates me. What I love about this book are the tools and strategies to uncover epistemology in a fairly charitable way. However, I couldn’t help but think about Petrusek’s book, which also encouraged epistemology and the Socratic method as means to lead people to “the truth.” They both seem to have an end in mind that logic will ultimately take us. The problem is that the logical endgame for Petrusek is faith, and the logical endgame for Peter is atheism.
I would argue that as open-minded as he is, it shows that we all seem to have some non-negotiables in our worldviews. I watched one of Peter’s interviews, and he prioritizes reason over just about anything, which I think is a non-negotiable for him that faith is incompatible with. Nice catch!