Think Again by Adam Grant: Key Points and Meaning
Book: Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know
We need to spend as much time rethinking as we do thinking. Why do we refresh our wardrobes every year, and renovate our kitchens every decade, but never update our beliefs and our views? ... Google Books
- Originally published: February 2, 2021
- Author: Adam Grant
- Genre: A self-help book
About the Author: Adam Grant
ADAM GRANT is an organizational psychologist at Wharton, where he has been the top-rated professor for seven straight years. A #1 New York Times bestselling author and one of TED's most popular speakers, his books have sold millions of copies and have been translated into 35 languages, his talks have been viewed over 25 million times, and his podcast WorkLife has topped the charts.
His pioneering research has inspired people to rethink fundamental assumptions about motivation, generosity, and creativity.
He has been recognized as one of the world's 10 most influential management thinkers and Fortune's 40 under 40 He has received distinguished scientific achievement awards from the American Psychological Association and the National Science Foundation.
His work has been praised by JJ Abrams, Richard Branson, Bill and Melinda Gates, Malcolm Gladwell, Daniel Kahneman, John Legend, and Malala Yousafzai.
Adam received his BA from Harvard and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, and he is a former Junior Olympic springboard diver. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and their three children.
Short Reviews
This is very interesting. This is the second book called Think Again that I have read this year. The first one talks about how to argue, and the other talks about how to make sure that there is nothing wrong with the opinions you hold.
A philosopher said decades ago that a big problem in our society is that idiots firmly believe in themselves, but intellectuals are full of doubts.
This is still applicable today. When you ignore objective facts and use various means to defend your own opinions, you change yourself from a scientist to a missionary and politician.
Coincidentally, the previous book about arguing also has a point of view that if your opinion is changed during a debate, it is actually a gain because you have learned something new in this negotiation, while the other party may not have.
Book Summary
After reading Think Again, a popular science book on psychology that was just published this year, I felt it was necessary to write a book review to summarize my thoughts and practical application methods.
PS: Many principles are easy to understand, but the key lies in practice, isn't it? Therefore, the practical guide given by the author at the end is quite useful.
Preface
Many of us probably know the four stages of cognition: knowing what we know and what we don’t know and not knowing what we know and what we don’t know. Many times, if we don’t open up our curiosity and spirit of inquiry, we will either fall into chaos or overconfidence.
Therefore, how to continuously guide us to upgrade our thinking and rethink the interactive thinking of the organization is what the author of this book wants to explore.
Part 1: Rethinking Yourself
Those who can not change their mind can not change anything. Great thinkers maintain doubts because they know we are all partially blind, and they are committed to improving their insights.
Confidence humility is a corrective lens, enabling us to overcome weakness.
- Think like a scientist: When you have an idea, verify it through data and experimental methods.
- Define yourself by values, not opinions: Cultivate yourself into a person who is curious, inquisitive, and able to update his or her cognitive views, rather than someone who blindly defends his or her own opinions.
- Find counterexamples and figures to refute your own views and rethink your own views.
- Don’t be too confident in your knowledge and confuse confidence in yourself with affirmation in your abilities.
- Maintain a spirit of doubt and dialectics: Self-doubt is a good opportunity to improve your cognition.
- Enjoy the pleasure of being wrong: When you make a mistake, it also means that you have discovered something new. Reduce your obsession with proving yourself and instead improve yourself happily.
- Learn from the people around you: Everyone has something you don’t know.
- Don’t just create an environment where everyone supports and praises you; you also need a circle that constantly challenges you; sometimes, your opponents and enemies are the fastest way for you to improve.
- Don’t avoid conflicts and arguments: If you have different opinions with someone, you don’t have to ignore them. Instead, you should think further about why they think that way and have a constructive debate with them.
Part 2: Rethinking Your Interaction with Others
Getting hot without getting mad. Most people want to hear what they want to hear. Exhausting others in argument is not the same as convincing them, but helping them consider what they would believe if they were living in an alternative reality, and checking whether you have missed or misrepresented anything. A good debate is not a war but a dance.
- 10. Practice listening skills: The first step to get someone to open up and express their ideas is to listen carefully to what they say.
- 11. Ask the other person how they formed such an idea rather than why they have such an idea: When asking the other person why, people will often defend their own ideas and may enter into the process of maintaining their obsession; but if it is how, the other person may rethink in the process of sorting out this point of view and recognize the limitations or loopholes of his or her own ideas.
- 12. Ask the other party, "What kind of evidence and data do you need to change your opinion?" We cannot force the other party to agree with our lonely point of view. We should ask the other party how to effectively change his or her opinion and persuade him or her of what he or she needs. (I have learned this communication skill. When I have a disagreement with others in the future, I can ask this question back - I am disappointed in the way this discussion had unfolded, are you frustrated with it? I was hoping you would see this proposal as fair. Honestly, I am a little confused by your reactions to my data. What evidence would make you change your mind? "
- 13. When faced with prejudice, ask the other person how they originally formed that idea or opinion: Sometimes people’s prejudices are based on culture and tradition without them even realizing it.
- 14. Finding common interests: This is the basic starting point in debate, negotiation, and consultation.
- 15. Remember that less is more: Instead of throwing out too many arguments to support your point in an argument, it is better to focus on a few core points and continue to strengthen them.
- 16. Make the other party feel that they have the right to choose freely: No matter how much you want to convince the other party, you don’t want them to feel that they are being forced to agree. Make them understand that the decision is theirs.
- 17. Let the argument return to the point of the argument: When both parties are emotional, return to the point of the argument like a diplomat.
Part 3: Rethinking Organizational Collaboration
Your future self does not exist right now. Your interests might change over time. You can do many things. Meaning is healthier than happiness.
People who look for purpose in their work are more successful in pursuing their passion. Rethinking liberates us to do more than update our opinions- it is a tool for leading a more fulfilled life.
- 18. Learn to look at a problem from different perspectives.
- 19. It is normal not to know certain knowledge; don’t belittle yourself.
- 20. Be a low-sensitivity person and expand the space for accepting your own emotions.
- 21. Establish an organization’s psychological safety zone for improving cognition.
- 22. Throw away your ten-year plan: keep an open and curious mind, constantly update your knowledge, and learn new things.
- 23. Conduct a small cognitive self-reflection every week and a big life self-reflection every year: Have you gained new knowledge? Re-examine your values and goals and what kind of cognitive upgrade you need to make next.
Book Review
Questioning and testing existing knowledge or ready-made concepts is called rethinking. Sometimes, rethinking is not difficult. It is easy to change clothes or buy a new phone. Sometimes, it is very difficult. When you question your existing ideas.
The author tells us in the book: "When it comes to our own knowledge and ideas, we tend to feel that we are right rather than the actual situation is right."
Because rethinking what we believe in will threaten our identity and make us feel that we have lost part of ourselves, and compared with the discomfort brought by doubt, we prefer information that brings comfort.
Intelligence is often seen as the most important ability in the process of thinking and learning, but in today's rapidly changing world, rethinking and unlearning may be the most important skills.
The rapid changes in global situations and politics have forced many people to re-evaluate their ideas and decisions.
However, we still like to stay in the comfort zone of certainty and refuse the discomfort brought by doubt. We prefer ideas that make us feel good to those that require hard thinking.
For many problems, intelligence is not a panacea, and it may even be a curse. The smarter we are, the easier it is to turn a blind eye to our own limitations.
So, the author says, "My personal favorite bias is 'I have no bias,' and people with this bias believe that they are more objective than others. Being good at thinking makes you worse at rethinking." So what should we do?
Rethinking at a personal level
Rethinking at a personal level requires constant updating of one's own perspectives.
1. Four thinking modes
The author first tells us that people have four thinking modes, which are more like the thinking modes of four practitioners, namely, missionaries, prosecutors, politicians, and scientists.
Mindset 1: Missionary
He has to defend a certain belief, and his job is to preach. He does not need to argue because belief itself is an intuitive judgment, which does not need to be proved by logical reasoning and factual evidence. It is right for you to believe in me.
For example, parents will tell their children, "You have to be obedient." Being obedient means that I don't need to explain to you; you just have to believe me.
The disadvantage is that it makes the person you want to be obedient give up the ability to think independently, let alone rethink.
When a child encounters problems when he grows up, if no one guides him and no one tells him what to do, he will not know what to do.
Mindset 2: Prosecutor
Once the prosecutor finds a loophole in the other party, he will launch an attack. His task is to prove that the other party has logical errors and that what the other party said is wrong, to convict the other party.
Who would think like the prosecutor? The fans! After a game of football, who is the person who understands the players, the team, and the tactics the best? It's not the coach; it's the fans.
Fans have a lot to say, including pre-match analysis and predictions, attacks and insults during the game, and post-match comments and criticisms.
After a game, as long as the team they support does not win, or does not win to the level that the fan expects, or even if they win, the game is ugly, the fans will never be satisfied.
Therefore, fans are more like prosecutors. They look at a team and a game in the way prosecutors think.
Mindset 3: Politicians
Politicians give speeches, shake hands, give speeches, and win the support of voters. Their goal is to win audiences and gain support.
They will publicize things that are beneficial to them, and they will use various methods to escape and dodge attacks on them. Politicians are willing to empathize with you. Anyway, I can understand you, I care about you, and I care about you.
For example, a salesman knows you better than you do. He knows what you eat, what you wear, and what type, style, color, and cut are more suitable for you. He speaks very clearly and praises you like a flower. You are so happy that you buy the product.
The author reminds us that when we refuse to rethink, these three models (missionaries, prosecutors, and politicians) may all be in effect.
That is, we will fall into the models of missionaries, prosecutors, and politicians without knowing it, so we forget to rethink or resist rethinking in our hearts.
Mindset 4: Scientist
Scientists don’t look at intuition; they look at evidence. They not only suspect that the other party is wrong but also that they may be wrong. They are not swayed or follow the crowd.
Their goal is to pursue the truth. In scientist mode, we will change our views in the face of clearer logic and more powerful data.
"The purpose of learning is not to repeatedly verify our known concepts, but to continuously improve our concepts. If knowledge is power, then knowing the unknown is wisdom.
2. Be open-minded
“We don’t have to be open-minded in all situations,” the authors tell us. “The missionary, prosecutor, and politician modes are useful in some situations. But in most situations, most people do benefit from being more open-minded because, in scientist mode, our minds are more agile.”
"I know I need to keep an open mind, be modest and cautious, and guard against arrogance and impetuosity. I know that arrogance is not a good thing. Will excessive modesty cause me to lose confidence? Lack of self-confidence?"
He explained it this way:
"Many people imagine confidence as a seesaw: too much confidence and we slide into arrogance; too little confidence and we become inferior.
This is our fear of humility: we might underestimate ourselves. We want to keep the seesaw balanced, so we go into 'just right' mode, searching for the optimal level of confidence.
But recently, I realized that this is the wrong approach. Humility is an often misunderstood concept, and it does not mean low levels of confidence.
It is a reflection of how much you believe in yourself. Evidence shows that confidence is different from how much you believe in your approach.
You can believe that you can achieve a goal in the future while maintaining a humble attitude to question whether your current approach is appropriate. This is the 'balance point' of confidence."
The author tells us that having confidence does not mean that you question whether you can achieve that goal, but that you question whether the method you are taking now is the best. This is the balance point.
3. Keep updating your thinking
So how should we constantly update our thoughts? The author says there are two particularly effective methods: one is to separate your present from your past, and the other is to separate your views from your identity.
Method 1: Disconnect your present self from your past self
What are you rethinking about? The simple, comfortable, and long-held beliefs you have always believed in.
For example, the book mentions that Dalio said to himself, "Today I look back at how I was last year. If I don't conclude that I was really stupid last year, it means that I didn't learn much this year, and I didn't make much progress."
This is to separate your present from your past. You are not the same person as you were in the past. If you tell yourself this, you will not be bound by the ideas you held in the past.
The author also tells us that there is nothing to be frustrated about when you make a mistake. You can say to yourself, "Look what I found."
Also, if making mistakes over and over again can help us find the right answer, then making mistakes itself can become very enjoyable.
If our goal is to find the correct answer, then making a mistake means that we have eliminated a wrong answer, so we can accept the mistake itself with pleasure.
Method 2: Disengagement from perspective and identity
"In fact, most of us are used to defining ourselves by beliefs, opinions, and ideologies," the author said. "Who you are should be a question of what you value most, not what you believe in."
What do I value most? I value the truth, finding new methods, and establishing new concepts. If this is the case, I will be calm and tolerant when facing mistakes.
However, if "who am I" is about what I believe, when others question what we believe, we will actually feel that "he is questioning who I am", which threatens my self-identity, and we will fight back.
Rethinking the interpersonal dimension
We often see that in the workplace, when we want to discuss or solve a problem, different departments are often calm at the beginning and propose their own solutions.
When there is a conflict in the solution and it is irreconcilable, it will become an interpersonal conflict.
1. Dance with others and inspire their minds
The author said: If we ourselves are not willing to change, how can we expect to change others? What does it mean to rethink? Rethinking is to question and examine our existing ideas. We cannot just let others question their existing ideas without questioning and examining our own.
This is unfair in the first place. If we want to rethink, then both sides have to rethink. I can question existing ideas, whether they are yours or mine.
Second, the person most likely to convince yourself is yourself.
The author says that you can say to yourself, "Can we debate?" This sentence shows that you are willing to discuss with the other party and hope that the other party will do the same.
If the other party is willing, then you can start the discussion, and each of you can give examples objectively and calmly.
What if the other party says at this time, "No evidence can change my opinion"? What should we do?
The author says, "Then stop discussing. If we continue discussing, it will become an interpersonal conflict, and it will turn into personal attacks and mutual abuse.
2. How to make both parties rethink
For example, the author once gave a public speech on the topic of creativity. He said, "There is evidence that the success rates of Beethoven and Mozart were not much higher than those of their peers, even though they were both great composers and created a large number of works."
But at this time, an audience member suddenly interrupted him and said, "Nonsense, you are blaspheming the music masters, you don't understand anything, you don't know what you are talking about."
Why didn’t the author respond right away? He waited a few minutes until the break, and then he approached the person.
He said, “I welcome your disagreement with the data, but I think it’s disrespectful to express your opinion in this way. This is not the way I accept intellectual debate. What do you think?” Then the person said, “No, I just think you’re wrong.” Then, the author said, “This is not my opinion.
This is the conclusion of an independent study by two social scientists that I cited. What kind of evidence would change your mind?”
Then the person said, “I don’t believe you can quantify the greatness of a musician, but I want to see the results of that study.”
Then, a few days later, the author really sent the study report to the other party. The other party apologized to him.
Rethinking at the group level
Then, I not only hold my own opinions but also listen to the opinions that oppose me. Can this help us establish a more complete pattern and perspective so that we can rethink things? The author said, no.
1. Complexity versus polarization
The author said, "On complex issues, it is not enough to just see the other side's point of view. The more developed and the more open our minds are, the easier it is to understand the multiple sides of complex things.
The author tells us that we tend to divide things into two extremes (black and white, right and wrong) because it is efficient. Saving energy is an instinct of ours.
We like to use whatever method is simple. Therefore, because it is simple and energy-saving, we are more willing to accept the simple classification method of polarization because it is easy to understand.
The author said that it is easy to distort the truth and move us further away from science. So what should we do? That is to complicate the topic and fully present the views from all angles on a certain topic, and these views have a scientific basis.
Scientific research shows that "when people read articles that only present opposing views, they will only defend their own views more and will not be interested in the opposite views.
But if they read complicated articles, then the number of comments on consensus views will be twice that of their own views."
2. Rethinking applications
The author gives us many examples in the book. With the ability to rethink, we can avoid major mistakes, achieve unexpected success, have successful interpersonal relationships, change others, make the world more and more rational, and bring the truth closer to us.
For example, if we separate our career from our identity, will we rethink the meaning and value of our career? Do I have to be in this position to be a person of importance? If I leave this position, will I still be a person of this importance? We often torture ourselves and question ourselves in this way.
That is why some people are so greedy for power, and some people use social status, career, and rank to label themselves and portray their social image. If the goal we pursue is truth, true knowledge, and progress, will we still think in this way?
Moreover, when we get along with others, we have two systems fighting for control over us. I am willing to reason with others and will not start arguing with them or turn the conversation into personal attacks. So, we need to develop the ability to rethink.
Book Excerpt
In a world of constant change, there is another set of cognitive tools that is even more important: the ability to rethink and unlearn what you have previously learned.
Part of the reason is cognitive inertia. Psychologists have pointed out that we are all mentally conservative: we are usually more willing to cling to old ideas than to wrestle with new ones.
However, there is a deeper reason for our resistance to rethinking: questioning ourselves makes the world more unpredictable.
Questioning forces us to admit that some facts have changed and that what was yesterday is not today.
Rethinking things we deeply believe in can threaten our identity and make us feel like we have lost a part of ourselves.
The sign of wisdom is knowing when to let go of your most treasured tools and the most cherished parts of your identity.
You cannot improve without change; those who cannot change their thoughts cannot change anything. -George Bernard Shaw. When sacred beliefs are at stake, we go into missionary mode: defending and promoting our ideas through preaching.
When we find flaws in someone else's reasoning, we go into prosecutor mode: marshaling arguments to prove that the other person is wrong and win the case.
When trying to win an audience, we switch into politician mode: campaigning and lobbying for voter approval.
The risk is that we become so obsessed with promoting the correctness of our ideas, denouncing the errors of others, and engaging in political activities to gain their support that we no longer bother to rethink our views.
When we search for the truth, we enter scientist mode: testing hypotheses and discovering knowledge through experiments.
There is evidence that when bidding, the best strategy for corporate executives is to move slowly and with uncertainty.
Ignorance is more likely to make one confident than knowledge. --Charles Darwin
Humility is a permeable filter that absorbs life experience and transforms it into knowledge and wisdom, while arrogance is a rubber shield that life experience simply bounces back into.
To gain knowledge, it is best to seek advice from experts, but innovation and wisdom can come from anywhere.
I'd like to quote Isaac Asimov here: Great discoveries usually don't start with "Eureka!" but with "That's so interesting..."
Neuroscientists have discovered that when our core beliefs are challenged, the amygdala, or primitive “lizard brain,” is triggered, blowing away the cool breeze of rationality that just passed and ushering in a scorching “fight or flight” response mode.
Knowing my mistakes is the only way for me to be sure that I have learned something.
On Seinfeld, George Costanza famously said,
“If you believe it, it’s not a lie.” I would add, “Just because you believe it doesn’t make it the truth.”
Jeff Bezos said:
“The people who are always right are always listening and always changing their minds. If you don’t change your mind often, you’re always wrong.”
Actor Will Smith once said,
“It doesn’t matter whose fault it is when something goes wrong, if your responsibility is to fix it, taking responsibility is taking your power back.”
Negotiators rarely engage in offensive or defensive tactics, instead choosing to express curiosity by asking questions such as, “Don’t you see any merit in this proposal?”
Teams with psychological safety self-reported more issues, but they made fewer mistakes.
By owning up to their mistakes, they were able to understand what caused them, eliminate them, and improve.
On teams lacking psychological safety, people covered up their mistakes to get away with it, which made it difficult for anyone to diagnose the root cause of the problem and prevent future recurrences.
They made the same mistakes over and over again.
- What led you to this assumption? Why do you think this is correct? What would happen if it were wrong?
- What uncertainties are there in your analysis?
- I understand the strengths of your suggestion, but what are the weaknesses?
When people think about career choices and transitions, it helps to think like a scientist.
- The first step is to find people you like: identify a few people you admire, both inside and outside your field, and watch them perform at work every day.
- The second step is to form a hypothesis about how a new career aligns with your interests, skills, and values.
- The third step is to test different professional identities through experiments: experience new jobs through informational interviews, field observations, and project examples.
The goal is not to settle on a specific plan but to broaden the full range of possibilities for yourself, which will make you willing to rethink.
