Not Born Yesterday

The central thesis of this thought-provoking book about the science of who we trust and what we believe is that people are not as gullible as generally thought – the narrative of widespread gullibility is not just misleading but actually wrong according to findings in political science, history and anthropology. In fact, we have a sophisticated cognitive system - what the author calls open vigilance – as a resistance mechanism to propaganda and advertising. Moreover, from an evolutionary point of view and especially in relation to communication, gullibility is not adaptive, although it may give the appearance of being so in the short-term. Interestingly, this phrase 'open vigilance' corresponds closely our aspiration within the Network to balance openness and rigour. The author asks a series of questions in terms of what to believe, who knows best, who to trust and what to feel. This always involves plausibility checks, reasoning and assessment of arguments as well as of trusted experts.

The two chapters on demagogues, prophets, preachers, propagandists, campaigners and advertisers argue that these people are in fact much less successful than we generally think and that successful campaigns play on existing opinions; moreover, we are in fact much more resistant than generally acknowledged, as evidence from the history of the mediaeval Catholic Church demonstrates. Authoritarian regimes rely more on force and coercion than on persuasion in maintaining orthodoxy: 'mass persuasion fails when it encounters resistance.' At this point, the author could have mentioned surveillance and tracking systems as a further form of coercion, especially in China. The next series of chapters consider a number of issues where what the author regards as false beliefs have nevertheless prevailed in terms of rumours, circular reporting, fake news, shallow gurus and skilful conmen.

The author shows his colours in the final chapter, though, in using the sceptical phrase 'quack doctors' in the same line as flat-earthers who 'ignore all the scientific evidence thrown at them.' In discussing 'anti-vaxxers' (the term itself is pejorative and rhetorical) the author accuses them of failing to put their trust in the right place in terms of the scientific consensus and conviction by sound arguments. However, this ignores the explosive political context that has been all too apparent over last few months; in addition, evidence suggests that and those who are sceptical are in fact more informed and educated (see www.childrenshealthdefense.org run by Bobby Kennedy Jr). The same applies to his discussion of 'conspiracy theories' and the use in this context of the word of debunking – these issues have been covered in one of our recent monthly newsletters. However, these are small criticisms within the overall context of this eye-opening study full of fascinating case histories.