Adam Grant, Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know (affiliate link). (London: L.H. Allen, 2021). 307 pages.
Adam Grant is a thought-provoking author. We disagree on many issues, but he offers an interesting perspective on thinking. He wrote this book at a time when America is deeply polarized and unity seems impossible unless one side completely acquiesces to the opinions of the other side. Grant suggests, however, that people think more like scientists. He argues that scientists’ positions are flexible and open to new evidence. I would hasten to add that science is not always that way. In recent times, scientists have proven susceptible to cultural pressure, even when their studies should have led them to different conclusions. Nevertheless, what Grant suggests could be helpful, even if scientists don’t always follow his advice either.
I’ll list a few of Grant’s more memorable statements, though I cannot summarize them all.
Grant begins by asserting, “With all due respect to the lessons of experience, I prefer the rigor of evidence” (3). He introduces the “first-instinct fallacy,” which suggests our first instinct is often wrong. He also cautions against “cognitive laziness” (4). He notes that “. . . we’re mental misers: we often prefer the ease of hanging on to old views over the difficulty of grappling with new ones” (4). “We favor the comfort of conviction . . . We laugh at people who still use Windows 95, yet we cling to opinions that we formed in 1995. We listen to views that make us feel good, instead of ideas that make us think hard” (4). As a result of where society is today, he states, “I can’t think of a more vital time for rethinking” (9).
Usually, when someone argues that people need to re-evaluate their views, it eventually becomes obvious that they want people to embrace their views. Grant avoids this common pitfall for the most part, though I am confident his views are more liberal than mine.
Grant bemoans the fact that “Calcified ideologies are tearing American culture apart” (10). He cites some interesting examples. He references firefighter Wagner Dodge, who had to take a radically unorthodox approach in the midst of an out-of-control fire. Those who could not think differently perished (1). He also refers to Mike Lazavidis, who invented the Blackberry (16). It was considered revolutionary in its early days, yet Lazavidis resisted the movement to the smart phone, even when evidence suggested that technology was moving in that direction. Grant notes that “Rethinking is a skillset, but it’s also a mindset” (16). “We need to develop the habit of forming our own second opinion” (18).
Grant warns that “Mental horsepower doesn’t guarantee mental dexterity . . . The smarter you are, the more you might struggle to update your beliefs” (24). Grant notes that people suffer from both “Confirming bias” and “desirability bias” (25). Grant cites studies that show that the greatest US presidents were those who demonstrated an intellectual curiosity and openness (27).
Interestingly, Grant suggests that “Visions for change are more compelling when they include vision of continuity. Although our strategy might evolve, our identity will endure” (31). He adds, “The curse of knowledge is that it closes our minds to what we don’t know” (31).
Grant warns that people often lack self-awareness. He notes that “. . . women typically underestimated their leadership skills, while men overestimated their skills” (37). He cites the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which states that “It’s when we lack competence that we’re most likely to be brimming with overconfidence” (38). Further, “The less intelligent we are in a particular domain, the more we seem to overestimate our actual intelligence in that domain” (39). He concludes, “Lacking competence can leave us blind to our incompetence” (42). Grant notes that “It’s when we progress from novice to amateur that we become overconfident. A bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing” (44).
Interestingly, Grant states that “Humility is often misunderstood. It’s not a matter of having low self-confidence. One of the Latin roots of humility means ‘from the earth.’ It’s about being grounded—recognizing that we’re flawed and fallible” (46). Grant suggests that “What we want is to attain confident humility” (47). In studies of teams, it was found that “. . . the most productive and innovative teams aren’t run by leaders who are confident or humble. The most effective leaders score high in both confidence and humility” (48).
Grant quotes Krumrei Mancuso, who argued that “When ideas survive, it’s not because they’re true—it’s because they’re interesting” (59). Grant notes, “Learning requires the humility to realize one has something to learn” (52). Grant cites Daniel Kahneman, who stated that “My attachment to my ideas is provisional. There is no unconditional love for them” (61). Ray Dalio suggests, “If you don’t look back at yourself and think, ‘Wow, how stupid I was a year ago,’ then you must not have learned much in the last year” (63).
When examining the success rate of forecasters, it was found that “The single most important driver for forecasters’ success was how often they updated their beliefs” (67). Grant quotes Jeff Bezos, who said, “If you don’t change your mind frequently, you’re going to be wrong a lot” (72).
Grant claims that people who struggle to update their views often have their identity attached to them. He notes, “Their opinions were their identities. An assault on their worldviews was a threat to their very sense of self. Their inner dictator rushed in to protect them” (74). Grant argues that people have an “inner dictator” who guards their views and opinions from exterior threats.
Grant posits that “The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy” (80). He suggests there is nothing wrong with vigorous debate, but both sides should be open to truth.
Grant offers a number of insightful suggestions about how to change people’s views through dialogue. He claims that “A single line of argument feels like a conversation; multiple levels of argument can become an onslaught” (111). He adds, “We don’t have to convince them that we’re right—we just need to open their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong” (113). He suggests that “An informed audience is going to spot the holes in our own case anyway. We might as well get credit for having the humility to look for them, the foresight to spot them, and the integrity to acknowledge them” (119).
Interestingly, Grant suggests that when people personally interact with those with whom they disagree, their prejudice is reduced 94% of the time (139).
Grant argues that “Many communicators try to make themselves look smart. Great listeners are more interested in making their audiences feel smart” (158). He adds, “Listening is a way of offering others our scarcest, most precious gift: our attention” (159).
Grant suggests that “We now know that where complicated issues are concerned, seeing the opinions of the other side is not enough. Social media platforms have exposed us to them, but they haven’t changed our minds” (164-65). He adds, “Presenting two extremes isn’t the solution: it’s part of the polarization problem” (165). He argues that this ineffectiveness has to do with binary bias. Hearing opposing opinions simply causes us to hunker down with our own beliefs while conjuring rebuttals for the other side. Grant suggests that “To overcome binary bias, a good starting point is to become aware of the range of perspectives across a given spectrum” (169). For example, Republican voters hold a wide range of views on gun control, just as there is a wide range of views on climate change among Democrats. Rather than pushing the other side to its extreme, recognizing nuances can be helpful. Grant notes, “Charged conversations cry out for nuance” (183).
When it comes to education, Grant points out that lectures still dominate, even though interactive learning is more effective (191). He also observes that the students with the highest grades in school are not necessarily the ones who later engage in breakthrough thinking. He observes that his straight-A students “. . . were terrified of being wrong” (196). He concludes, “Ultimately, education is more than the information we accumulate in our heads. It’s the habits we develop as we keep revising our drafts and the skills we build to keep learning” (203).
Grant suggests that some people have a vested interest in not revising their viewpoints, even when there is compelling evidence to do so. He cites bankers who grant loans to weak clients. They tend to give additional money in an effort to prop up a bad investment, while someone else would call in the bad loan before it got any worse. In light of this phenomenon, Grant suggests that “Rethinking is more likely when we separate the initial decision makers from the later decision evaluators” (219).
Grant is a professor. He has observed many college students as they tried to determine what their career would be following graduation. He observes, “I’ve noticed that the students who are the most certain about their career plans at twenty are often the ones with the deepest regrets at thirty” (233). Some students change their major several times as they seek to determine their best course of action. Others stick with their major, even when evidence suggests they ought to make an adjustment. Grant notes, “For the record, I think it’s better to lose the past two years of progress than to waste the next twenty years” (233).
Interestingly, Grant observes that “Psychologists find that the more people value happiness, the less happy they often become in their lives” (237). He suggests, “. . . when we hunt for happiness, we overemphasize pleasure at the expense of purpose” (238). He adds, “While enjoyment waxes and wanes, meaning tends to last” (238). Many college students are encouraged to follow their passion, but Grant pushes back. He notes that for many people, “Their passions grow as they gain momentum and mastery. Interest doesn’t always lead to effort and skill. Sometimes it follows them” (240).
Grant cites some examples that are controversial. He applauds an approach Governor Cuomo of New York took (248). This illustration may be an example of where Grant could practice what he preaches and update his view, since the governor was ultimately forced to resign due to scandal. He also cites Franklin Roosevelt’s bold measures during the Great Depression (248). Again, many conservative economists believe his bold measures may actually have prolonged the Great Depression. Of course, citing current examples always runs the risk of needing to be updated.
Overall, I thought this book was interesting. Often when someone begins talking about thinking well, it becomes obvious they are merely promoting their own agenda. Grant doesn’t do that. Rather, he encourages people to have an open mind.
Grant doesn’t really address truths or positions that are bedrock to people’s beliefs. Certainly, views on global warming and gun control can support numerous viewpoints. However, the deity of Christ or the veracity of Scripture is not as flexible or pliable to differing viewpoints. It seems, however, that Grant’s concern is with the multitude of issues that could be far less contentious if we approached our discussions with an open mind.
I recommend this book. It will make you think. It might even change your mind!
Rating: 3
