The Benedict Arnold Theory: A Framework for Understanding How Beliefs Change
Growing up on Long Island you often had to make important decisions that you couldn’t go back on. Like what is your go-to barber shop? As silly as that sounds it’s often joked about that you are never supposed to cheat on your barber, especially on Long Island. It is so extreme that my aunt who now lives in Missouri still flies back to Long Island purely to see her hairdresser. Loyalty is a necessity here. But what if you don’t like the haircut? What if they start messing up your hair constantly? What if they start charging more? Would you not at the very least be tempted to switch to someone else?
But here’s the catch, you can’t simply leave your barber. You first need to find a new one, someone you can feel loyal to. This phenomenon is what I like to call the Benedict Arnold Theory: the idea that we don’t change our minds by abandoning old beliefs, we change our beliefs by defecting to a new side. For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Benedict Arnold was a prominent military officer during the American Revolutionary War. He had been a part of many notable battles that led to the success of the American side, yet was not given proper credit for his achievements by his contemporaries. Failing to receive appropriate recognition or reward, Arnold made the tough decision to abandon ship and join the British side (Wallace, 2025). Arnold’s story is often associated with disloyalty and cowardice. But what if Arnold’s decision also reflects a tendency that we ourselves possess in our own lives? And what if the choices we make follow the same pattern as those of Benedict Arnold?
In his book How Minds Change, David McRaney discusses two concepts that are relevant here: tribal bias, which refers to people’s tendency to lean towards what the group they belong to believes, and social death, which refers to the loss of support from one’s social circle. According to McRaney, we often choose remaining in the good graces of our community over acting according to our true beliefs when social persecution is at stake (McRaney, 2022, 165). The Benedict Arnold Theory proposes that in order for tribal replacement, or leaving one’s tribal affiliation for a new one, to occur, several steps must first take place. Much like the example with the barber, you cannot just leave; you need a new tribe. We see an example of this in McRaney’s writing where he described techniques such as deep canvassing, which is when the canvasser tries to empathize with someone while asking open ended questions on a topic they feel strongly about. This technique allows for tribal replacement to begin because what the canvasser is effectively doing is allowing the person in question to make ties with someone outside their initial tribe of beliefs, the first step in the process of joining a new tribe. Deep canvassing allows for the individual to not only reflect on and see gaps in their ideas, but create new ties to another tribe. Understanding the process of deep canvassing helps shed light on how the Benedict Arnold Theory works, as it illuminates the cognitive patterns that shape our decisions when it comes to tribal affiliation. However, we’re not always going to always have access to deep canvassing tools, so it is important to note that the cognitive patterns underlying tribal replacement remain the same even in contexts outside of deep canvassing.
Much like how Benedict Arnold couldn’t just abandon the American army without another place to turn to, we struggle to fully abandon the beliefs of our community without having access to a new community to accept us. Every time someone changes their mind, they are just making a new strategic defection. These defections can seem minuscule, as in the case of brand loyalty, or more extreme, as in cases of religion and political ideology. They all, however, are characterized by the same underlying mechanisms. In order to fully understand how the Benedict Arnold Theory works, this article will first examine its components. It will then analyze various levels of tribal conflict within the Benedict Arnold Theory framework, demonstrating its utility in contexts ranging from brand loyalty to religion and politics.
Before we can properly examine how the Benedict Arnold Theory applies in different contexts, we first need to lay out its underlying components. This theory proposes four key stages of tribal defection. Phase one: disillusionment. You first need to exhibit a crack within your loyalty. Without it, you can’t go any further. In the case of Benedict Arnold, before defecting he was first disillusioned by the community. This started because he was not getting the recognition he felt he deserved. Which leads him to phase two: investigation. We rarely have a clean break from one community to another. Once Arnold was disillusioned, he then began secretly communicating with the British in order to see if they would be willing to accept him, and in doing so, investigating a new terrain before settling into it. Phase three: desertion. This is the transitional period and it doesn’t necessarily happen overnight. It occurs over a period of time, with your eventual destination being the new tribe. By the time the American army caught wind of what Benedict was doing, he already defected and got picked up by British soldiers. Finally: integration. This last step can look like a hundred different things, but the main idea is that you are fully absorbed into this new group. In the case of Arnold, he became a general in the British ranks and fought in many key battles against the Americans. These four stages are universal, though each situation can occur at different speeds. Switching barbers can take days; switching religions can take years. It should be noted that even people who claim to have “no preferences” still exist within this dynamic. The Benedict Arnold Theory suggests that they are ultimately just joining the side of those who pride themselves on their neutrality. There is no position outside of a certain “tribe.” It is only the question of what “tribe” you belong to.
Let’s briefly return to the topic of brand loyalty, which describes our preferred fast food establishments, gaming consoles, shoe brands, etc. While at face value these preferences may seem like nothing more than organic expressions of taste, upon close look they can be understood as tribal affiliations that create traits in our personality. Take smart phones; sure, you may like one more than another because the user experience feels smoother, the storage is greater, the price is a little more understandable. But Benedict Arnold Theory posits it can be a bit more complex. You don’t prefer an iPhone because you really think it’s better; you prefer the iPhone because most people prefer it. You use justifications to disguise what is ultimately a social choice. There’s no real evaluation of the technology; you are just proclaiming your membership in the group. Here’s a rhetorical question: How often do you join a group chat, notice the messages are green and immediately roll your eyes? As embarrassing as it is to admit, many of us have been there. It is an expression of our own “status” within the Apple “tribe.” The reason many of us fail to consider this is simply because we have been trained to dismiss certain tribal affiliations, like brand loyalties, as less serious. But if you tell someone that the person they’re voting for is corrupt and then that Androids have better features, the same primal impulses will follow. They become defensive, rationalize their beliefs, and take personal offense. Sure we understand the differences in impact, but at the end of the day, our brains instinctively display the same patterns regardless of importance
Leveling up the stakes a bit, what happens when the tribe we’re defecting from isn’t defined by a company, but a whole religion, or political view? The reason that we hold brand loyalty to less of an importance as other tribal affiliations is because the higher the stakes, the more intense the Benedict Arnold Theory phases become. The investigation phase becomes dangerous because you’re beginning to question heavy subjects that your family or community hold sacred, rather than just seeking a new store. And the full integration will initially come with loneliness because you risk excommunication from your former friends and family. That is a risk that many people will understandably refuse to take.
McRaney offers real-world examples of high-stakes tribal defections in his book, shedding light on key moments in defectors’ journeys. Notably, he interviews Megan Phelps-Roper and her brother Zach Phelps, former members of the extremist religious community the Westboro Baptist Church. This group gained national infamy for its radical beliefs and antics, including demonstrations against gay marriage, harassing soldiers’ families at their funerals, and even protesting outside of high schools that started LGBTQ clubs. In extreme cases like these, defection isn’t as simple as just “switching sides.” Phelps-Roper and Phelps risked and ended up losing not only their community, but family (McRaney, 2022, 125). We can see in McRaney’s interview how Benedict Arnold Theory holds up in this scenario. Before defecting, Phelps-Roper would defend the church tooth and nail on social media. Her first step towards leaving came when people online acted out of curiosity toward her views instead of hostility. This allowed her to engage in real conversations rather than full blown arguments, leading her to make connections outside the tribe. This is what ended up, albeit slowly, leading to Phelps-Roper’s disillusionment with the Westboro community. These conversations would cast doubt within her. Then began her investigation. In secret she would often explore other views, either through books her family didn’t approve of or private messages with others. This was likely to be the most excruciating phase for her, as she was starting to be around two contradicting tribes while not fully belonging to either one. In her interview Phelps-Roper exhibited a reluctance to jeopardize her life long support system and develop a new understanding that they were wrong. But the most important thing for her and the Benedict Arnold Theory was that she didn’t just jump into a fleeting void of nothing. She defected into a community that already showed her support and welcome, allowing her to ease into integration and build new views and relationships. Phelps-Roper’s story also speaks to the effectiveness of McRaney’s deep canvassing methods, affirming that trying to change someone’s mind shouldn’t be about attacking their present tribe, but introducing them to potential new ones.
To a certain extent the Benedict Arnold Theory may make people uncomfortable. It acknowledges that we aren’t acting solely on our own independent thoughts. We like to believe that our way of thinking is almost entirely based on evidence and logic. What the Benedict Arnold Theory describes is something far more primal. This theory suggests that we change our minds only when there is a new tribe worth defecting to, otherwise we remain in the same tribe. Megan Phelps-Rober didn’t just choose to leave the church because someone had better points, she was introduced to alien ideas that made her become alienated in her own community, allowing her to make her exit from one tribe to the next.
Let’s talk about the P word that no one likes, politics. In modern America, changing political beliefs can come with higher stakes, like religion. When someone changes political beliefs, no one ever says it’s because “I like how Trump talks” or “Biden made a lot of good points.” The story consistently includes the element of social alienation from their initial tribe and the ability to find acceptance in a new one. A very common quote you hear from people switching parties is “the party left me.” They typically criticize extremists from their tribes and say that they’ve gone too far. That’s where disillusionment kicks in. People also find it easier to defect when during investigation they have personal experiences that humanize the “enemy tribe.” This is why Charlie Kirk’s or Dean Withers’s approach of “owning the other side” rarely works, because they are expecting the people they debate to commit social suicide for practically no reason, as they don’t offer a new tribe to turn to. Expecting someone to defect without offering a new community would be the same as asking Benedict Arnold to commit treason without the guarantee of refuge offered by the British. The Benedict Arnold Theory recognizes that calling someone’s beliefs stupid only reinforces their loyalty to their tribe, as it signals hostility from outside groups and fails to introduce and welcome them into a new one. McRaney suggests that establishing a “rapport” and “pre-defection welcome” helps change a person’s mind, as it demonstrates that members of another tribe are willing to accept them. (McRaney, 2022, 41)
It is important to point out that the Benedict Arnold Theory is in no way excusing harmful beliefs, but instead explaining why they may be so persistent despite abundances of disconfirming evidence. The Benedict Arnold Theory says that we are social creatures before anything else, and what is most important to our beliefs isn’t actually evidence, but the belonging to something bigger than ourselves. Benedict Arnold, despite popular beliefs, was in no way a coward. He was an opportunist who left the community that neglected him for a new community that wouldn’t. Despite the context of leaving for a new tribe, the mechanism always stays intact: disillusionment, investigation, transition, integration. The Benedict Arnold Theory allows one to better understand how people’s minds change.
References
McRaney, D. (2022). How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion. Penguin Publishing Group.
Wallace, W. M. (2025, November 14). Benedict Arnold | Biography, War Hero, & Traitor. Britannica. Retrieved December 10, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benedict-Arnold.
