Think again Book Summary in 12 points
Introduction
“Think Again“ explores the realm of cognitive biases, cognitive errors prejudgments, cognitive blind spots. It examines the inability of us to alter our beliefs after we have established them. Whatever skills and knowledge that individuals have it are impossible to avoid logical mistakes in their thinking. They can be influenced by unsubstantiated opinions and assumptions, external influences as well as other subjective thoughts. Our tendency to rely on these cognitive resources causes inadequate decision-making skills, inflexibility, difficulty in hearing others, and be heard an attitude of stifling thought.
Based on Grant’s expertise in psychology and the deconstruction of numerous instances, he offers an innovative approach to improving your thinking. This is a method that relies on rethinking the assumptions we have about ourselves. In the same way, it encourages people to develop an interest in learning about new concepts and looking at other perspectives. Grant refers to this method as “rethinking the way we think”. This mindset can help you and your team to grow. This also gives you the possibility of changing the minds of others without having them divided into groupings of binary types. Find out the power of rethinking in this “Think Again” review.
1. Conventional and an Alternative Perspective on Intelligence
Grant begins his novel with a tale that took place in 1949. A group of smokejumpers was fighting a huge wildfire. The majority of team members used their equipment according to the directions despite the fact that it was slowing the process. One person did not follow the instructions. Due to his capacity to respond on the fly and think of a new solution. In the end, it was a way for him to survive.
Through this narrative, Grant contrasts a conventional method of assessing intelligence with a different view. We’re used to thinking of intelligence to be a way of thinking and learning about new concepts. The author suggests viewing it as a capacity to think about and forget the things you’ve learned previously. It’s the art of not relying on our own instincts, despite the fact that we often trust our instincts. Thinking about and rethinking our thinking can help us remain current in a society that is not stable.
Adam Grant rightly notes that even constitutions allow amendments So why would we want to deny the possibility of changes in how we think? If an idea or a thought idea is no longer serving us, the most effective solution is to release it. This is what rethinking is all about.
For a better chance of changing your mind, you need to focus on the flexibility of your choices rather than on consistency. Humans are inclined to be adamant about their beliefs and proud to hold to their beliefs. Grant believes that this is true in a world that’s steady and stable. However, we live in a dynamic world. To be successful in our field, we must focus on rethinking instead of thinking.
Grant adds that rethinking is an ability acquired, but it can also be described as a mental state. People are inclined to hold on to old beliefs instead of embracing new ones. We choose the comfort of belief over the anxiety of doubt. We are influenced by thoughts that feel good rather than those which make us think. Rethinking your mindset requires an acceptance of the fact that the facts may alter and what was once believed to be true is no longer the reality.
2. The Roles We Take on
Grant employs the system of mindset provided by Phil Tedlock to describe our tendencies when we interact with others or engage in an internal conversation. When we talk or think we can easily fall into the character of one of these characters: a pastor or prosecutor, or a politician.
Preachers only care about making their beliefs known. They will impose their views on others to keep them from being popularized or protected.
Prosecutors are determined to beat every argument. They are always ready to lash out at those whose views do not align with their personal beliefs.
Politicians, on the other hand, tend to be a crowd who are pleasing. They want approval but don’t see the value in determining objective truth.
If you choose to play one of the roles listed above, you ignore the importance of locating the truth by engaging with other people. What you really are looking for is to attack opposing viewpoints and defend your viewpoint by calming the situation or simply winning arguments.
Grant proposes a second function that could assist us in achieving our full potential as a person. Scientists are able to see the limitations of their knowledge and we can draw lessons from them to enhance our thinking. Being a scientist requires conducting experiments, testing hypotheses changing old beliefs, and accepting new ideas. Grant insists that the ability to change your mind isn’t a sign of weakness. In fact, it is a sign of your intellectual progress.
3. The Right and Wrong Types of Confidence
It is not possible to escape blind spots or cognitive biases within our own assumptions or beliefs although we can recognize these in other people. Blind spots can hinder our ability to think critically and cause us to be over-confidence in our judgment. But, it is also possible to build confidence that lets us recognize flaws in our thought process. This type of confidence helps us maintain our beliefs in a timely manner. Additionally, it aids us to recognize our weaknesses and adapting our mental outlook accordingly.
The lack or overconfidence of a person is not good. of confidence is a good thing. Overconfidence is a characteristic of those suffering from armchair quarterback Syndrome. They think they have more knowledge than they actually are. This is in contrast to the Imposter Syndrome, which is a common occurrence among those who, despite possessing the ability and capability to be successful but doubt themselves. They believe they’re in the position of someone else and that hinders their achievement.
Grant also provides the example of a questionnaire that asked the respondents to rank their knowledge compared to others. They were also asked by a questionnaire that measured their actual levels of knowledge. The study revealed that those who thought their knowledge was better than those of their peers substantially overestimated their own knowledge. What they get from their confidence is that they are unable to grasp new information and change their opinions. The end result results in arrogance and ignorance.
The author argues that confidence can make us blind to our weaknesses. He suggests that we educate us to remain modest, however, with confidence. Confident modesty does not only enable us to see the flaws in us, but it also helps us work towards getting over these.
4. A Benefits of Being wrong
People hate being wrong. If someone points out a mistake in our assumptions or our ways of thinking, a lot of us react in outrage. We can readily recognize the moment when someone else is not right However, we’re not willing to admit that we’re not always correct. We will fight for our beliefs. The psychology of our refusal to alter our beliefs is “totalitarian self-esteem.”
In addition to this rebirth over time, we must keep our identity separate from our convictions. In the event of an important change in our beliefs, our identity is bound to be destroyed simply because we discover that we were incorrect. Grant suggests that we create the concept of a value system instead. This will enable us to alter our opinions while adhering to our beliefs. In this scenario, it’s not a matter of having a wrong belief that causes an identity crisis.
5. The Art of Conflicting
Because we cannot avoid conflicts, we must be able to manage these conflicts. Adam Grants explains two types of conflicts:
- Conflicts in a task. They arise when the members of a particular team decide on who is best to solve a particular issue and what needs to be done and how. Conflict of this kind is positive because it encourages the pursuit of innovative solutions.
- Conflicts between relationships. They can occur between individuals. The majority of these conflicts are negative since they impact relationships in a negative way. If the participants in a dispute show respect for each other in the end, they will be able to achieve a greater amount of empathy and cooperation.
Our society is inclined to view flexibility, or the tendency to avoid conflict as a virtue. The author does not agree with this notion. He believes that those who do not hesitate to voice their opinions in the opposite of what we think to encourage us to move ahead. They assist us in assessing our strengths and discovering ways to improve.
6. Collaboration Methods for Interpersonal Rethinking
Grant begins this article by presenting the case of an international champion of debate, Harish Natarajan. In an argument, he advocated against the opinion that government shouldn’t subsidize preschools. At first, nearly all the people were already of the fact that schools should be subsidized. However, Natarajan managed to convince that the audience with these easy methods:
- Common understanding
- Non-judgmental questions
- Flexible thinking
Grant describes this successful method as the Collaboration method. It employs curiosity and humility to make the audience think like scientists. Yet, people tend to opt for the Adversarial method of debate which relies on preacher and prosecutor styles of communication.
In order to help others reconsider their assumptions, Grant recommends avoiding overwhelming rational arguments that the kind that a Logic Bully would use. Even if you’re right but the other side is likely to be angry. The most effective method is to find common ground and show interest by asking them questions. This lets the other person make their own decisions which are more effective than squeezing the other person with logic and logic.
StoryShot No. 7: Rivals and Allies
Rivalries are a vital aspect of our daily lives. They occur in the business world, sports interpersonal relationships, and more. The main issue with rivalries is that we separate ourselves from those who whom we are competing against. It is the emotions that fuel the rivalries. If we add these emotions to the equation, we’ll discern that they prevent us from establishing a mutual understanding with the opposing group.
It is normal to want to be associated with a particular team or take part in rivalries. Once we are part of the team we are vulnerable to the possibility of polarization. This means that we make connections only with the other members of this group, not with people outside the group. When we form bonds with our colleagues, our views become more ingrained. When adversaries attempt to question our opinions We respond with anger.
Consider Again gives three tasks to help us reconsider our competition:
- Find a commonality of character with your rivals.
- Empathize with the whole group, after applying it to just one member.
- Be aware that stereotypes are not based on reality.
8. Motivating Speaking
Grant offers a specific instance of how just asking questions can be extremely successful. In his case Grant, a Quebecian woman gave birth to a preterm baby. The mother is opposed to vaccination, however, her child would gain tremendously from measles vaccination. In order to change her mind, it was suggested that a “vaccine whisperer” be brought in. The person employed motivational interviewing to reassure the mother and assist her to reconsider her position.
The three main pillars of motivational interviews are
1. Questions that are open-ended
2. Reflective listening 2. reflective listening
3. Encouragement to make changes.
An interviewer isn’t trying to convince or give advice. Instead, they function as a guide who can guide the interviewee to the best decision or conclusion. The primary characteristic of interviewers who are motivational is that they don’t give an impression of a complete stranger. They instead, cause the people they interview to believe that they are intelligent.
9. Binary Issues
The last part of Think Againfocuses on helping groups to embrace the concept of rethinking. Grant begins this section by presenting another illustration that comes from Columbia’s difficult Communication Lab. They observed that when speaking with a group, the representation of things in terms of binary (black and white) (i.e. binary) resulted in polarization. When an issue was deconstructed in its entirety and complexities, it triggered a variety of perspectives. In the end, members were able to engage in a productive debate and to find greater collaboration.
Grant elaborates on this notion and says that praising passionately about a subject is not a successful method to convince other people. Understanding the importance of an issue can make you much more credible. For instance, when you’re talking to conservatives, don’t be advocating for limits on car emissions in order to combat climate change. Instead, frame the discussion around the benefits to the economics of green-tech innovations. This method better takes into account this complex problem. It also allows you to connect with your audience.
10. Always-Changing Knowledge
It’s not as if knowledge has been frozen. Things that we believed to be right 20 years ago could be outdated. As we gain experience that we are able to trust, we learn or maintain a skeptical attitude. Skeptics concentrate on things that have been left out rather than things that are focused on. This keeps their minds open and encourages thinking differently.
Many people are prone to think of skeptics as kind of and deniers. But there’s an important distinction between them. Skeptics do not trust the latest information they acquire. They are patient to prove the validity of these newly learned “facts” before they are sure to believe them. Deniers, on the contrary side, deny everything they learn from external sources. They believe that only their own opinions are correct. They typically assume the roles of a preacher, prosecutor, or politician. the skeptic is an excellent example of being a scientist.
Think Again also takes a more in-depth look at the role of teachers in the process of learning. A great teacher provides us with ideas to think about. A good teacher assists us to develop new ways of thinking. The tools we can employ to improve our thinking are fact-checking, rejecting popularity as a measure of credibility, and the distinction between the informant and its recipient.
11. The Collective Rethinking of Corporate Culture
Rethinking collectively also involves changing the culture of an organization. A group-thinking culture encourages mental security, for example, the capacity of employees to take risks without fear of being punished. In such teams, employees are more inclined to share their concerns. The group can alter its collective mind depending on the knowledge gained through its errors.
An organization that values collective rethinking ticks the following boxes:
- It is not a good idea to use the term “best practice” since it presumes that the team has reached the best solution. This kind of mindset can hinder an effective process of reframing.
- There’s no need to be obsessed with the outcomes. An obsession with results may be helpful in the short-term, but can negatively impact the long-term performance. It is important to remember that great results do not always come as a result of good choices.
- Everyone on the team is eager to ask them and their team members, “How do you know?”
Companies that accept learning culture and experimentation. In their case, rethinking is an integral aspect of their daily activities. In the end, it is routine.
12. Try to keep an Eye On the Ball
It’s human nature to form plans. We have ideas of where we’d like to reside or where we’d like to be married to or the size we would like our family to grow to. With this all to think about, we often tend to establish boundaries. In the ideal scenario, they will help us accomplish our objectives. But, often they cause us to have tunnel vision and block us from seeing more possibilities.
Even more troubling, if your plan doesn’t work out according to our expectations then we tend to invest more time and effort in order to repair the problem. Alternately, we can think about a simple query: “Was this a good strategy?” To question your plan rather than executing it without delay is the primary reason to reconsider. The determination to succeed is great however it can have negative results when it causes mental rigidity.
If you found my post helpful, then do share it with your friends and colleagues. If you have any feedback/questions, you may leave a comment below.