Re:Thinking with Adam GrantHow Daryl Davis inspired 200+ neo-Nazis to leave the KKK | ReThinking with Adam Grant
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:02
Hate is acquired—and what’s learned can be unlearned
Daryl Davis challenges the idea that people can’t change by distinguishing immutable traits from adopted ideologies. He frames racism and extremism as learned behavior that can be reversed through the right conditions and conversations.
- •Ideologies like Nazism/KKK are not innate; they’re adopted
- •What is learned can be unlearned
- •Sets the premise that change is possible even for committed extremists
- 1:02 – 2:32
A childhood shaped by diplomacy and multicultural immersion
Davis explains growing up as a Foreign Service “embassy kid,” attending schools across different countries with classmates from around the world. This early normalization of diversity becomes the foundation for his later curiosity and willingness to engage across divides.
- •Frequent relocations and international schooling
- •Diverse peer groups as the norm
- •Contrast between life abroad and racial realities back in the U.S.
- 2:32 – 6:07
The 1968 Cub Scouts attack—and learning what racism is
Davis recounts being assaulted during a parade at age 10 and realizing he was targeted for being Black. His parents explain racism for the first time, a moment that plants a lifelong question about the roots of hatred.
- •Violence during parade reveals racial targeting
- •Parents explain racism; he initially can’t comprehend it
- •MLK’s assassination and nationwide unrest reinforce racism’s reality
- •The core question forms: “How can you hate me if you don’t know me?”
- 6:07 – 7:05
Seeking the “why”: from books to asking extremists directly
After years of reading widely about supremacy and antisemitism, Davis finds that descriptions rarely answer his deeper question: why people hate strangers. He decides the only way to understand is to ask those who join hate groups—despite the risks.
- •Extensive reading still doesn’t explain hatred’s origin
- •Rejects “some people are just like that” as non-answers
- •Decides to question members/leaders of hate organizations directly
- 7:05 – 9:20
Curiosity over courage: why Davis engages people who despise him
Adam Grant presses Davis on what motivates him to approach white supremacists. Davis traces his approach to a diplomatic upbringing—less about fearlessness and more about curiosity and learned conflict navigation.
- •Influence of a diplomat father and exposure to diplomacy
- •Curiosity as the driver rather than confrontation
- •Parents didn’t pre-warn him, which preserved openness and inquiry
- •Interest in why some people become racist while others don’t
- 9:20 – 10:27
Meeting Jeff Schoep: from ‘enemy’ to collaborator
Davis describes knowing of Jeff Schoep long before meeting him and later forming a close bond. Their relationship evolves into joint work across the country after Schoep exits organized neo-Nazism.
- •Davis knew of Schoep years before meeting
- •Their post-exit partnership and public work together
- •Personal relationship: “Today he is my brother”
- 10:27 – 11:45
Jeff’s path into neo-Nazism: identity, revisionism, and leadership
Jeff Schoep explains how a family war history intersected with his own search for meaning and led him to join at 18. He describes adopting Holocaust revisionism and reframing reality to fit a chosen narrative, eventually becoming a major movement leader.
- •Family WWII background as context (but not direct recruitment)
- •Joined the movement at 18 by seeking it out
- •Belief that “victors write history” and Holocaust revisionism
- •Rose to lead the National Socialist Movement
- 11:45 – 13:27
The first conversation: fist on the table, and Davis refuses to escalate
Schoep recounts being set up for a filmed meeting without realizing Davis would be there. When he tries to reassert extremist posture on camera, Davis stays calm—creating a jarring contrast that draws Schoep into genuine dialogue.
- •Schoep sees media as propaganda opportunity
- •Realizes mid-conversation he’s talking to Davis and tries to posture
- •Davis doesn’t mirror escalation; he continues calmly
- •Non-reactivity becomes a turning point in Schoep’s attention and openness
- 13:27 – 14:51
The question that cracked the ideology: humanization and cognitive collapse
Schoep describes how Davis’s personal story and question—“How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?”—pierced his defenses. He explains how human connection undermined years of dehumanization and started a long, incremental exit process.
- •Personal narrative creates humanistic connection
- •Dehumanizing others erodes one’s own humanity
- •Cognitive dissonance: ideology can’t feel ‘noble’ if it harms innocents
- •Change begins internally but takes time (a process, not a snap)
- 14:51 – 15:58
After Charlottesville: leaving the movement and rebuilding trust
Davis and Schoep trace the continued relationship after their filmed meeting, including Schoep’s participation at Charlottesville and later departure from the movement. Davis reaches out, they reconnect, and Schoep’s exit influences others to question their own involvement.
- •Schoep’s involvement at Charlottesville then going “under the radar”
- •Davis initiates reconnection after hearing he left
- •Schoep’s credibility with followers creates a ripple effect
- •Requests from neo-Nazis to confirm and explore leaving
- 15:58 – 26:10
Motivational interviewing in practice: planting seeds, not ‘converting’
Adam Grant labels Davis’s approach as motivational interviewing—curiosity, questions, and reflection instead of argument. Davis and Schoep agree: real change must feel self-generated, so their role is to offer perspectives that people internalize over time.
- •Attacking beliefs triggers defensiveness and pushback
- •Offer “better perceptions” to create introspection
- •Seed-planting metaphor: individuals water and grow the change
- •Beyond Barriers model: show people how they’re wrong, don’t tell them
- •Authentic change must come from the person, not external pressure
- 26:10 – 29:47
Analogies that disarm: the ‘latent gene’ story and flipping the logic
Davis shares a detailed example of using analogical reasoning with a Klan leader who claimed Black people have a violence gene. By applying the same logic to white serial killers, Davis triggers dissonance without direct attack—leading the man to leave the Klan months later.
- •Meet people where their ‘reality’ is, without endorsing it
- •Use their authority source (“they say…”) to mirror the claim
- •Flip the argument to reveal its absurdity and unfairness
- •Cognitive dissonance can drive later behavior change
- •Result: the leader quits the Klan and gives Davis his first robe/hood
- 29:47 – 35:22
Core values, boundaries, and keeping conversations alive
Davis outlines five universal core values—love, respect, fairness/truth, being heard, and family well-being—as tools for navigating conflict on any topic. They discuss limits (some people may never change), managing triggers, and preserving a relationship “door” for those drawn into isolating extremist groups.
- •Five core values as a framework for adversarial conversations
- •Some people remain hateful; prioritize but don’t fully abandon hope
- •Respect the right to speak even when rejecting the content
- •Managing triggers: don’t enter situations you can’t handle; don’t give away power through anger
- •For families: don’t slam the door—leave a window open to reduce isolation
- 35:22 – 40:05
Practical closing guidance: ‘find your line’ and ‘find your question’
In closing, Schoep advises families to maintain compassionate boundaries, while Davis urges listeners to find their comfortable level of engagement—front line, side line, online—and participate. Adam Grant adds that everyone can develop a go-to question that opens dialogue, because the end of conversation is when violence becomes more likely.
- •“Find your line” of engagement and contribute where you can
- •Families splitting over politics: keep talking to prevent escalation
- •Missed conversations are missed opportunities for reconciliation
- •Be against the ideology, not the person who learned it
- •Identify a personal ‘opening question’ that invites reflection
