Think Again
Adam Grant’s "Think Again" offers a refreshing alternative: the power of intellectual humility. While we often define intelligence as the ability to think and learn, Grant argues that in a rapidly changing world, a different cognitive skill matters just as much—the ability to rethink and unlearn.
Grant challenges us to abandon the mindsets of preachers, prosecutors, and politicians in favor of thinking like a "scientist." The core of the first section is the concept of confident humility—having faith in your capability while appreciating how much you have yet to learn. We must detach our opinions from our identity. By basing who we are on our values (e.g., generosity, freedom) rather than our specific beliefs, we can remain open to changing our minds without losing our sense of self.
How do we open other people's minds? Grant suggests that logic and data often fail because they trigger defensiveness. Instead, we should adopt techniques like motivational interviewing, which acts as a mirror to help people find their own motivation to change. Effective disagreement isn't about crushing the opponent; it's about signaling that we are reasonable and open to evolving our own views.
The final section tackles how we can foster a culture of rethinking in our communities. Grant warns against binary bias—the tendency to simplify complex issues into two opposing sides. Complexity and nuance are actually signals of credibility. When we showcase the "shades of gray" and admit uncertainty, we become more persuasive, not less.
This book is a transformative reminder that true wisdom lies not in the certainty of our convictions, but in the confident humility to constantly question what we don't know. And it is worth being picked up occasionally for self-reflection to ensure we remain open to the joy of being wrong.
Here are my favorite quotes from this book:
Individual Rethinking
Recognizing our shortcomings opens the door to doubt. As we question our current understanding, we become curious about what information we are missing. That search leads us to new discoveries, which in turn maintain our humility by reinforcing how much we still have to learn. If knowledge is power, knowing what we don't know is wisdom.
Great thinkers don't harbor doubts because they are impostors. They maintain doubts because they know we're all partially blind and they are committed to improving their sight. They don't boast about how much they know; they marvel at how little they understand. They are aware that each answer raises new questions, and the quest for knowledge is never finished. A mark of lifelong learners is recognizing that they can learn something from everyone they meet.
Arrogance leaves us blind to our weaknesses. Humility is a reflective lens: it helps us see them clearly. Confident humility is a corrective lens: it enables us to overcome those weaknesses.
Attachment. That's what keeps us from recognizing when our opinions are off the mark and rethinking them. To unlock the joy of being wrong, we need to detach. I've learned that two kinds of detachment are especially useful: detaching your present from your past and detaching your opinions from your identity.
Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. Values are our core principles in life - they might be excellence and generosity, freedom and fairness, or security and integrity. Basing your identity on these kinds of principles enables you to remain open-minded about the best ways to advance them.
The clearest sign of intellectual chemistry isn't agreeing with someone. It's enjoying your disagreements with them. Harmony is the pleasing arrangement of different tones, voices, or instruments, not the combination of identical sounds. Creative tension makes beautiful music.
Interpersonal Rethinking
Convincing other people to think again isn't just about making a good argument - it's about establishing that we have the right motives in doing so. When we concede that someone else has made a good point, we signal that we are scientists trying to get to the truth. "Arguments are often far more combative and adversarial than they need to be", Harish told me, "You should be willing to listen to what someone else is saying and give them a lot of credit for it. It makes you sound like a reasonable person who is taking everything into account."
Being reasonable literally means that we can be reasoned with, that we're open to evolving our views in light of logic and data.
When we gave them different kinds of reasons to donate, we triggered their awareness that someone was trying to persuade them - and they shielded themselves against it. A single line of argument feels like a conversation; multiple lines of argument can become an onslaught.
Taken together, these techniques increase the odds that during a disagreement, other people will abandon an overconfidence cycle and engage in a rethinking cycle. When we point out that there are areas where we agree and acknowledge that they have some valid points, we model confident humility and encourage them to follow suit. When we support our argument with a small number of cohesive, compelling reasons, we encourage them to start doubting their own opinion. And when we ask genuine questions, we leave them intrigued to learn more. 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. Their natural curiosity might do the rest.
Outside the lab, dismantling stereotypes and decreasing prejudice rarely happen overnight; a key step is getting them to do some counterfactual thinking: helping them consider what they would believe if they were living in an alternative reality.
In psychology, counterfactual thinking involves imagining how the circumstances of our lives could have unfolded differently. When we realize how easily we could have held different stereotypes, we might be more willing to update our views.
Psychologists find that many of our beliefs are cultural truisms: widely shared, but rarely questioned. If we take a closer look at them, we often discover that they rest on shaky foundations. Stereotypes don't have the structural integrity of a carefully built ship. They're more like a tower in the game of Jenga - teetering on a small number of blocks, with some key supports missing. To knock it over, sometimes all we need to do is give it a poke. The hope is that people will rise to the occasion and build new beliefs on a stronger foundation.
They developed the core principles of a practice called motivational interviewing. The central premise is that we can rarely motivate someone else to change. We're better off helping them find their own motivation to change.
Motivational interviewing starts with an attitude of humility and curiosity. We don't know what might motivate someone else to change, but we're genuinely eager to find out. The goal isn't to tell people what to do; it's to help them break out of overconfidence cycles and see new possibilities. Our role is to hold up a mirror so they can see themselves more clearly, and then empower them to examine their beliefs and behaviors. That can activate a rethinking cycle, in which people approach their own views more scientifically. They develop more humility about their knowledge, doubt in their convictions, and curiosity about alternative points of view.
Listening well is more than a matter of talking less. It's a set of skills in asking and responding. It starts with showing more interest in other people's interests rather than trying to judge their status or prove our own. We can all get better at asking "truly curious questions that don't have the hidden agenda of fixing, saving, advising, convincing or correcting", and helping to "facilitate the clear expression of another person's thoughts."
Collective Rethinking
Binary bias is a basic human tendency to seek clarity and closure by simplifying a complex continuum into two categories. To paraphrase the humorist Robert Benchley, there are two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.
An antidote to this proclivity is complexifying: showcasing the range of perspectives on a given topic. We might believe we're making progress by discussing hot-button issues as two sides of a coin, but people are actually more inclined to think again if we present these topics through the many lenses of a prism. To borrow a phrase from Walt Whitman, it takes a multitude of views to help people realize that they too contain multitudes.
A dose of complexity can disrupt overconfidence cycles and spur rethinking cycles. It gives us more humility about our knowledge and more doubts about our opinions, and it can make us curious enough to discover information we were lacking.
This thorny issue is a natural place to explore how we can bring more complexity into our conversations. Fundamentally, that involves drawing attention to the nuances that often get overlooked. It starts with seeking and spotlighting shades of gray.
When we are reading, listening, or watching, we can learn to recognize complexity as a signal of credibility.
Multiple experiments have shown that when experts express doubt, they become more persuasive. When someone knowledgeable admits uncertainty, it surprises people, and they end up paying more attention to the substance of the argument.
In a series of experiments, psychologists demonstrated that when news reports about science included caveats, they succeeded in capturing readers' interest and keeping their minds open.
New research reveals that people are more likely to promote diversity and inclusion when the message is more nuanced (and more accurate). Acknowledging complexity doesn't make speakers and writers less convincing; it makes them more credible. It doesn't lose viewers and readers; it maintains their engagement while stoking their curiosity.
What stands in the way of rethinking isn't the expression of emotion; it's a restricted range of emotion.