Look more at the subtitle than the title - this book is a casual investigation of what we should be doing, which is having more conversations with our neighbors, regardless of politics.

I've described books as road trips before, and for certain types of books that's a fine thing. A light book that touches on topics, it feels like the author is journaling their investigation while you are reading it. Often it seems the author doesn't have a goal in mind - the journey is the destination. It feels like the wrong approach in this book.

The beginning of the book details a visit to a flat earth convention. The author tells us these folks are serious to hold these beliefs in the face of such overwhelming evidence and outright ridicule. In making this point, he leads us to the best way to reach these folks - how to talk to them.

Having achieved the title goal in the first chapter, the author explores other things - the history behind organized anti-science (tobacco companies) and political polarization. I found this part the most interesting. Tell a story with a chart of numbers and the best predictor of who will get it is the level of math understanding. Use the same numbers but select a polarizing issue (say, gun control vs crime) and the best predictor of who will NOT get it is the strength of belief in a political party. This is confirmation bias - interpreting the information in a way that supports political beliefs. The author states here that data is NOT the way to convince a science denier.

After that, the travelogue wanders into climate change, GMO, masks and vaccines. Here the author loses focus. At times he tries to tie this back to the original point, but other times he just points where he wanted to do more with face-to-face meetings - a near impossibility during lockdown. I also felt the points he did make were weak. Out of a small sample, he found nobody that denied climate change; out of an even smaller sample set, nobody wanted to make laws against GMO, etc. Finally the book was released too soon to really measure anti-vaccine statements; we have much better numbers, opinions and results today. Beyond the first chapter, he didn't document any conversations with "others who defy reason" on these topics.

In summary, the first chapter and a half are excellent, and the bibliography shows promise. The subtitle is accurate - these are conversations, and this is more of a travelogue than a scientific study.