Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know

A medical syndrome “in which a person is oblivious to a physical disability but otherwise doing fairly well cognitively” (34). The syndrome is named after Gabriel Anton, a 19th-century Austrian doctor who treated a woman who had lost her eyesight but continued to insist that she was merely in a dark room. Grant uses this to frame the second chapter as a metaphor for the ways in which we are unable to see our own cognitive blind spots.

Binary bias is the desire to simplify complex problems into two opposing categories. This desire is meant to help us find clarity about difficult problems; however, this impulse can obscure more than it helps. Grant argues that complexifying a problem can help disrupt our overconfidence cycles and push us to rethink our ideas, instead.

A challenge network is “a group of people we trust to point out our blind spots and help us overcome our weaknesses” (83). This kind of network is meant to activate our rethinking cycles by challenging our ways of thinking, as opposed to groups of overly agreeable people who avoid conflict and merely reinforce what we already believe. Grant argues that such networks are key to success, as they give us important critical feedback even if we would rather not hear it.

Grant believes that we tend to misunderstand humility, seeing confidence and humility as two opposite ends of a spectrum. Instead, he argues that we should aim for a blend of confidence and humility—confidence in ourselves, but humility in our ideas, assumptions, and methods—which he calls “confident humility” (46).

Confirmation bias is when we see what we expect to see; desirability bias is seeing what we want to see (24). Grant identifies these two types of biases to help explain why otherwise intelligent people are more likely to interpret data in ways that favor their own, prior beliefs rather than opening themselves up to rethinking cycles.

Counterfactual thinking “involves imagining how the circumstances of our lives could have unfolded differently” (136). This kind of thinking is useful in helping people better understand their stereotypes and prejudices, and ultimately to help them overcome those inground beliefs.

Similar to imposter syndrome and armchair quarterback syndrome, the Dunning-Kruger effect (named for David Dunning and Justin Kruger, who co-authored the original paper on the effect) proposes that “it’s when we lack competence that we’re most likely to be brimming with overconfidence” (38). In other words, people who are not particularly skilled in an area tend to overestimate their skills. For example, in the original study, those who scored lowest on a series of tests believed that had outperformed most of their peers on the same test.

An open system is a system that is constantly in flux. Examples of open systems are careers, relationships, and communities. Such systems are characterized as being equifinal, meaning that there are multiple paths to the same end, and multifinal, meaning that the same starting point can be a path to many different ends. Grant argues that because much of our lives are in open systems, we should avoid getting too attached to a single path (241).

Escalation of commitment is when we persist with our original plans even when they aren’t going as we’d hoped—instead of pivoting to something new, we continue to sink more time and resources into the original, failing goal. Grant claims that although the sunk cost fallacy plays into this, the main causes are psychological, as we want to rationalize rather than rethink our plans (229).

Identity foreclosure happens when we limit ourselves to a single life plan by making it an inherent part of our identity. For example, Grant’s cousin Ryan decided from an early age that he wanted to become a doctor; as a result, long after he realized it was no longer his passion, he maintained the course. Grant believes that identity foreclosure prevents us from evolving as people or pivoting when things are no longer going according to plan (232).

“Imposter syndrome” and “armchair quarterback syndrome” are two sides of the same coin. Imposter syndrome is when people with strong qualifications and expertise believe they are incompetent pretenders who are imposters in their positions. Armchair quarterbacks, on the other hand, believe that they know better than the experts despite having no (or limited) experience and expertise in the area.

While motivational interviewing is helpful when parties have a common goal, influential listening is a method of persuasion used between parties who may not see eye-to-eye. Although influential listening is not as clearly outlined in the text, it’s loosely described as an approach in which simply listen to others’ concerns in order to show them respect in the process of creating a dialogue.

A logic bully is someone who overwhelms their audience with seemingly rational arguments, making it difficult for them to effectively respond. Grant initially views the label as positive, but he now believes that logic bullies rely too heavily on force to win debates; as a result, they don’t change their audience’s mind but rather just make them resist opposing arguments more strongly.

Metacognition is the ability to think about our own thinking. Grant’s book is an exercise in metacognition. In arguing for us to spend more time rethinking our beliefs, Grant is arguing that we must spend more time thinking about why we think the way we do and how we can improve our thinking.

Motivational interviewing, developed by Bill Miller and Stephen Rollnick, is an approach to therapy that emphasizes asking clients questions and listening to their answers and concerns rather than prosecuting or preaching to them. Its core premise is that we can’t make people change, but we can help them find their own motivation to change (146).

Grant describes a performance culture as one that values “excellence of execution” above all else; such organizational cultures fall victim to overconfidence cycles because they don’t leave room for failure. He contrasts this with learning cultures, where “the norm is for people to know what they don’t know, doubt their existing practices, and stay curious about new routines to try out” (208). Grant argues that learning cultures tend to be more innovative and successful because members are able to rethink.

According to Grant’s colleague Phil Tetlock, when people think and talk, they slip into three distinct mindsets: preacher, prosecutor, and politician. We act like preachers when we try to protect and promote our ideas, like prosecutors when we attack others’ ideas; and like politicians when we try to garner others’ approval. These three modes aren’t mutually exclusive—we often shift between them in the course of a single conversation. Moreover, Grant suggests that all of these modes can be useful. However, he argues that when we shift into these modes, we close ourselves off from rethinking our own ideas and assumptions, which can be detrimental in the long run.

Australian organizational psychologist Karen Jehn identifies two different kinds of group conflict: relationship conflict, which is the kind of animated, emotional conflict that we typically associate with conflict; and task conflict, or conflict about ideas and opinions. In Grant’s own research, he has found that successful groups can experience task conflict as long as they maintain low relationship conflict throughout a project.

Grant proposes a fourth mode in opposition to preacher, prosecutor, and politician modes—that of the scientist. For scientists, Grant writes, rethinking is fundamental to your profession; however, by adopting scientific modes of thinking, we can introduce rethinking into our everyday lives and thus make better decisions.

A straw man argument, usually considered to be a logical fallacy, is when someone creates a weak hypothetical version of their opposition’s argument in order to make it easy to argue against. A steel man argument instead considers the strongest version of the opposition’s case in order to build the best version of their own position. Grant argues that in order to effectively persuade people, we must focus on the steel man, not the straw man.