This post may contain affiliate links. Please read the disclosure statement for more info.

Think Again by Adam Grant

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 second post in the review series of this book where I will focus on interpersonal rethinking and how Grant walks through engaging with other people who have different thoughts, opinions, and/or ideas than you.

I’d suggest reading the first book review post in this series before jumping into this one as some of the central themes that Grant has throughout his book, I described in the first post.

---

Discussions, Arguments, and Debates

Grant begins this next section talking about the best debate champions in the world. This is a noteworthy way to approach the rethinking process between two people. Do you want to win over people with your ideas? Then learn from the best in the world that can do that.

A good debate is not a war. It’s not even a tug-of-war, where you can drag your opponent to your side if you pull hard enough on the rope. It’s more like a dance that hasn’t been choreographed, negotiated with a partner who has a different set of steps in mind. If you try too hard to lead, your partner will resist. If you can adapt your moves to hers, and get her to do the same, you’re more likely to end up in rhythm.

I like how Grand categorizes a debate in this sense, like a dance. I come from the perspective that a discussion is one in which all people involved share the same opinions. This is more like an echo chamber, reinforcing beliefs and learning more deeply about ones you already have.

An argument is more combative. One in which both sides try to get the upper hand. If we can frame our conversations with people who have opposing viewpoints as debates in the way Grant describes, I believe we can make some real changes.

Grant then references Paul Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, something that I think all of us can learn from and be reminded of when we are engaged in a back-and-forth conversation that seems to be spiraling downhill. Graham further explains each level in his essay.

Learning how to engage with people who are responding in the lower forms of disagreement is a key principle that separates expert negotiators from average ones, says Grant. Some examples Grant gives are:

I’m disappointed in the way this discussion has unfolded – are you frustrated with it?

I was hoping you’d see this proposal as fair – do I understand correctly that you don’t see any merit in this approach at all?

This last one is particularly interesting to me. First, we share our feelings about the proposal and why we presented it in the first place. Then, we ask a question clarifying our understanding of the other person’s viewpoints. Not assuming what they are and then attacking it, but trying to recognize it before continuing.

Lastly, we try to have the other person comment on anything positive in our proposal. This has been mentioned as a great conflict resolution skill to try to build upon positives that both sides agree to. Grant does give us a catch-all question that we can use in any heated argument:

What evidence would change your mind?

If the answer is “nothing”, then there’s no point in continuing the debate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.

Stereotypes

Grant goes into how stereotypes are formed as well. If you are having a debate with someone who is using stereotypes in their arguments, it is good to explore the origins of those stereotypes to help people reconsider their stances toward other groups.

I am going to stay away from all political-related stereotypes as best I can, but Grant does ask some thought-provoking questions here like:

How would your stereotypes be different if you’d been born [White,] Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American? What opinions would you hold if you’d been raised on a farm versus in a city, or in a culture on the other side of the world? What beliefs would you cling to if you lived in the 1700s?

These questions are all part of the same trick that I’ve mentioned before, “put yourself in other people’s shoes.” Grant goes one step further to say, “when you’re in their shoes, what would they think?” It’s important to go to that next step to relate to others and their beliefs.

I could write so much more on this but I think I’ll save the rest for the next post in the series. For now, I challenge you, think about your own stereotypes that you hold in your head.

How were they developed? Can you think of any stereotypes others may have of you and how those were developed?