Changing Our Minds

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: This TED Radio Hour episode explores why changing your mind can be a strength rather than a weakness. Through Bob Inglis, Adam Grant, and Loretta Ross, it argues that curiosity, humility, and “calling in” others can bridge divides, improve relationships, and help people and societies adapt to new evidence and realities.

Main Topics: Bob Inglis and climate conversion (Priority: 5/5): Former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis describes how his son, science evidence, and faith-based stewardship shifted him from dismissing climate change to championing carbon policy. The pain and politics of changing beliefs (Priority: 5/5): The episode examines why public reversals are labeled “flip-flopping,” especially in politics, and why admitting error is often punished even when facts demand it. Adam Grant on rethinking (Priority: 5/5): Organizational psychologist Adam Grant argues that people should think like scientists: separate identity from ideas, seek truth over ego, and treat rethinking as a path to growth. Intellectual humility and disagreement (Priority: 4/5): Grant discusses how curiosity, humility, and the willingness to be wrong can make disagreement productive rather than defensive or performative. Calling in versus calling out (Priority: 5/5): Loretta Ross contrasts punitive, shaming call-outs with 'calling in,' a practice of accountability grounded in love, respect, and radical empathy. Humanizing conflict and accountability (Priority: 4/5): Ross argues that effective change comes from treating even opponents as human beings, asking about values, and challenging harmful beliefs without dehumanization.

Key Arguments: Changing one’s mind is not weakness; it can indicate growth, adaptation, and responsiveness to evidence. Political culture often treats consistency as virtue even when the underlying position is wrong, discouraging honest self-correction. Bob Inglis’s shift on climate was enabled by trusted relationships, exposure to science, and a conservative framing of solutions. Thinking like a scientist means testing and even trying to disprove your own beliefs rather than defending them as identity. People are more open to change when they feel respected, curious questions are asked, and the conversation is about ideas rather than moral worth. Calling out may create conflict and defensiveness, while calling in aims to preserve dignity and increase the odds of accountability and change. Not every conversation must be continued; people can choose distance or a cooled-off conversation when engagement is not productive.

Data Points: Bob Inglis congressional tenure: 12 years - He represented Greenville, Spartanburg, South Carolina for 12 years before losing his primary. Republican vote margin in 2010 primary: 29% to 71% - Inglis lost his re-election primary after proposing climate legislation. Inglis conservative ratings: 93% ACU; 100% Christian Coalition; 100% National Right to Life; A with NRA - Used to illustrate how firmly conservative he was before changing his position on climate. Inglis AFL-CIO rating: 23 - Mentioned as an example of low support from labor interests. Harvard disputation study participants: 22 sophomores - Adam Grant described Henry Murray’s experiment involving Harvard students debating worldviews. Law student attack duration: 18 minutes - The planted debater was trained to demolish each student’s worldview for 18 minutes. Time period of experiment: Late 1950s - The Harvard stressful interpersonal disputation study was described as occurring in the late 1950s.

Pivotal Quotes: "You know, some sons are trying to grow up to be like their father. I'm trying to grow up to be like my son, you know." — Bob Inglis: Explaining how his son and daughters helped prompt his change in thinking about climate change. "What I believe is not who I am." — Adam Grant: Grant describing the core separation between identity and ideas in scientific thinking. "Calling in is really a call-out done with love." — Loretta Ross: Defining her approach to accountability as respectful, empathetic, and non-shaming.

Implications: Listeners are encouraged to treat beliefs as revisable, conversations as opportunities to learn, and accountability as something that can be more effective when grounded in empathy rather than shame.