Think Again – Part 1
This post may contain affiliate links. Please read the disclosure statement for more info.
Think Again by Adam Grant was a long, descriptive, and well-crafted self-help book. I felt like it had so many great tips and tricks sprinkled throughout. I wish the author consolidated them at the end of the chapters as summaries or reviews so that I could go back and reference them. There is a chapter at the end of the book (more like an appendix) that has actions that the reader can take, which is helpful that they are all in one place.
Instead, I earmarked each page that had a great quote and/or tips which made my book turn into something that had gone through a couple of used book sales. There were some chapters that I wanted to earmark almost every page.
Overall, the organization of the book starts with focusing on yourself, then how to interact with others, culminating in how we, as a community, can rethink our beliefs. The ending of the book wasn’t framed as an ending but as a jumping-off point.
It was also interesting as a reader that the book was published with “track changes” still on so that we could see what was Grant’s initial draft, what was added, and what was cut. As an aspiring writer, this was something I hadn’t come across before in a published book.
This is the first post in the review series of the book where I will focus on internal rethinking and how Grant sets up themes that he carries throughout the book.
A central theme for the book is about the mindsets of four different professionals: preachers, prosecutors, politicians, and scientists. Grant uses those mindsets to reinforce his other points so I think it crucial to spend some time understanding them. Here’s how Grant describes them:
We go into preacher mode when our sacred beliefs are in jeopardy: we deliver sermons to protect and promote our ideals.
We enter prosecutor mode when we recognize flaws in other people’s reasoning: we marshal arguments to prove them wrong and win our case.
We shift into politician mode when we’re seeking to win over an audience: we campaign and lobby for the approval of our constituents.
If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession.
According to Grant, rethinking or constant iteration and improvement are what make all different types of scientists successful. I agree and have learned about this process ever since grade school: the scientific method.
The Scientific Method and Rethinking
Making an observation, creating a hypothesis then testing that hypothesis to determine if it is true or not by analyzing the results, is how I learned to run experiments as a kid. It’s also how great companies and entrepreneurs have become successful. They constantly try new things, measure their impact, and determine if there is a net positive return.
Grant continues down the track of staying humble and not always being the smartest person in the room. There is a cycle of rethinking versus a cycle of overconfidence. One starts with humility and the other starts with pride.
Of course, there needs to be a sweet spot where you have the confidence in yourself to do the job. There can also be a space where rethinking the best method for completing the job is what I think Grant is trying to say. A balance between the armchair quarterback and the impostor syndrome.
Separating Identity from Beliefs
I think this is one of the most impactful points of the book that should be recognized by more people in our world. We can agree or disagree with someone’s ideas or thoughts but still be able to be good citizens or neighbors with them. How I plan to grow is to separate my ideas from myself.
When a core belief is questioned, though, we tend to shut down rather than open up… As physicist Richard Feynman quipped, “You must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
“Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. Values are your core principles in life… Basing your identity on these kinds of principles enables you to remain open-minded about the best ways to advance them.”
I couldn’t agree with Grant more and am striving to understand the differences between my values/principles and my beliefs. If I am a Michigan Wolverines fan, I was taught to dislike everything Ohio State, including the color red. What if I meet a great guy at happy hour and we talk about going golfing sometime? He then shows up for our golf outing with a bright red Ohio State golf bag.
At this point, do I immediately hate the guy because of his beliefs? Or do I question the ideas that were drilled into my brain about the rivalry itself? I thought he was a fun guy before I knew which team he roots for so why should that one idea that I disagree with come between our afternoon golf outing?
This kind of mental exercise can be key in becoming more open-minded and understanding. Whether my quest is to understand the other side of a sports rivalry or the others side of the political landscape, I have recognized that people can be worthwhile individuals even if I disagree with them.
And the opposite can be true too. I have met some jerks who hold the same ideas that I do. This book has helped me understand how I should rethink how I view other people versus other people’s ideas.
Do you know a great person who has ideas you disagree with? What about a bad person who agrees with your ideas?
