SUMMARY OF

THINK AGAIN
The Power of Knowing What You Don’t
Know

by Adam Grant

Chapter Zoom
Note to readers:

This is an unofficial summary & analysis of Adam Grant’s “Think Again: The
Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know” designed to enrich your reading
experience. Buy the original book here.
Disclaimer: All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or retransmitted,
electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher; with the exception of
brief quotes used in connection in reviews written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper.
This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be re-sold or given
away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an
additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not
purchased for your use only, then please purchase your own copy.

Product names, logos, brands, and other trademarks featured or referred to within this publication
are the property of their respective trademark holders. These trademark holders are not affiliated
with us and they do not sponsor or endorse our publications. This book is unofficial and
unauthorized. It is not authorized, approved, licensed, or endorsed by the aforementioned interests
or any of their licensees.

The information in this book has been provided for educational and entertainment purposes only.

The information contained in this book has been compiled from sources deemed reliable and it is
accurate to the best of the Author's knowledge; however, the Author cannot guarantee its accuracy
and validity and cannot be held liable for any errors or omissions. Upon using the information
contained in this book, you agree to hold harmless the author from and against any damages, costs,
and expenses, including any legal fees, potentially resulting from the application of any of the
information provided by this guide. The disclaimer applies to any damages or injury caused by the
use and application, whether directly or indirectly, of any advice or information presented, whether
for breach of contract, tort, neglect, personal injury, criminal intent, or under any other cause of
action. You agree to accept all risks of using the information presented inside this book.

The fact that an individual or organization is referred to in this document as a citation or source of
information does not imply that the author or publisher endorses the information that the individual
or organization provided. This is an unofficial summary & analytical review and has not been
approved by the original author of the book.

© Chapter Zoom
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOOK SUMMARY OVERVIEW ..........................................................5

PROLOGUE ......................................................................................8

CHAPTER BY CHAPTER SUMMARIES .............................................. 11

SUMMARY OF PART ONE: INDIVIDUAL RETHINKING: UPDATING

OUR OWN BELIEFS ...................................................................... 12
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 1: A PREACHER, A PROSECUTOR, A
POLITICIAN, AND A SCIENTIST WALK INTO YOUR MIND ............. 13
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2: THE ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK AND
THE IMPOSTOR: FINDING THE SWEET SPOT OF CONFIDENCE .... 17
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3: THE JOY OF BEING WRONG: THE
THRILL OF NOT BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU THINK .................. 20
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4: THE GOOD FIGHT CLUB: THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT ............................... 22

SUMMARY OF PART II: INTERPERSONAL RETHINKING: OPENING

OTHER PEOPLE’S MIND ............................................................... 25
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5: DANCES WITH FOES: HOW TO WIN
DEBATES AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE .............................................. 26
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 6: BAD BLOOD ON THE DIAMOND:
DIMINISHING PREJUDICE BY DESTABILIZING STEREOTYPES ........ 30
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 7: VACCINE WHISPERERS AND MILD-
MANNERED INTERROGATORS: HOW THE RIGHT KIND OF
LISTENING MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO CHANGE .............................. 34

SUMMARY OF PART III: COLLECTIVE RETHINKING: CREATING

COMMUNITIES OF LIFELONG LEARNERS .....................................38
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 8: CHARGED CONVERSATIONS:
DEPOLARIZING OUR DIVIDED DISCUSSIONS ................................ 39
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 9: REWRITING THE TEXTBOOK:
TEACHING STUDENTS TO QUESTION KNOWLEDGE..................... 42
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 10: THAT’S NOT THE WAY WE’VE
ALWAYS DONE IT: BUILDING CULTURES OF LEARNING AT WORK
...................................................................................................... 45

SUMMARY OF PART IV: CONCLUSION ........................................ 48

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 11: ESCAPING TUNNEL VISION:
RECONSIDERING OUR BEST-LAID CAREER AND LIFE PLANS ........ 49

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THINK AGAIN..................... 52

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT ADAM GRANT ................... 54

TRIVIA QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 55

TRIVIA QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 58

 BOOK SUMMARY OVERVIEW
The book is a mixture of emotional highs and lows. Grant does an

excellent job in trying to explain how rethinking is a must-have life

skill. The book has undergone stringent checks, reviews, and a ton of

research before being published. Each chapter has a natural flow as

Grant builds up momentum to a crescendo.

The book is divided into four different parts. In the first part, Grant

focuses on the individual self. How do you as an individual find

perfect bliss in rethinking your opinions even when you’re wrong?

He explains why that’s hard and why humans are so tied to their

beliefs and practices.

With a firm understanding of the first part, it becomes easier to

implement the rest of the book. Section two deals with convincing

someone with a closed mind. Grant gives us another perspective on

the art of persuasion. It's not a war or a tag-of-war where you have
to pull people to your side. Instead, it's an artistic dance that has to

have a rhythm for it to make sense. Nonetheless, if you’ve managed

to change your instincts of holding on to false beliefs, it gets easier to

work the same magic on others.

The third part affirms how to develop the artful skill of rethinking in

the long run and building such communities that upraise rethinking.

After all, it's no good starting on a high notch and then failing to

maintain the momentum. Grant finalizes with the conclusion in the

fourth section of the book.

The book is beautifully laid out with examples, pictures, bars, and

graphs (don't we just love charts!) He uses these visuals to illustrate

and cement his main points. In the book, you will find meaningful

examples like the fireman who saved his life through rethinking while

12 others perished; the genius who won a competition against AI,

the woman who convinced a warlord to sit down for peace talks; and

even the qualified medic who is convincing communities of anti-

vaxxers to vaccinate their children. There are more examples, but in

general, it's an epic read.

 PROLOGUE
Grant begins by giving the story of the head fireman – Wagner Dodge

– who saved his life in the 1949 Mann Gulch fires. But how, you may

ask?

Rethinking!

Caught up with the inability to put out the fires, the whole crew

starts fleeing for their lives. It soon dawns on them that running

away from the fire is probably not the best strategy. Only then does

it enter Wagner's mind that they have been running with their

equipment on them all along – old-fireman-habits hard to die.

Wagner directs the team to put down their equipment – we still see

one holding on to his. This simple act for a fireman is an admission of

failure, and that's hard for most, even during a critical event.
Dodge then does something entirely off the books that leaves the

rest in utter astonishment. Call it instincts. He takes out matches and

starts lighting the grass around him. He further encourages the team

to join him without explaining why. But they believe he has lost it – I,

too, would have.

Eventually, 12 men end up losing their lives while trying to outrun

the fire. Only two make it to the crest of the ridge, perhaps due to

luck plus physical fitness. Dodge, however, dodges the fire as a result

of his mental fitness and agility.

That's the life-saving power of rethinking and re-evaluating

commonly held beliefs and patterns. The phenomenon applies across

all areas of life, from school to work, food and diet to training and

sports, relationships, religion, and even politics. It's about time to

release the tools we’ve clung to that have prevented us from

meaningful progress. These tools are assumptions, habits, and

sometimes, instincts.
Time to rethink!
CHAPTER BY CHAPTER
SUMMARIES
 SUMMARY OF
PART ONE:

INDIVIDUAL RETHINKING:
UPDATING OUR OWN BELIEFS
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 1:

A PREACHER, A PROSECUTOR, A POLITICIAN, AND A

SCIENTIST WALK INTO YOUR MIND

How many times have you favored the comfort of feeling right over

being right? Think about it, what if someone walks boldly to you and

confirms that Pluto is not a planet? How about if another researcher

comes out with intriguing data showing that Earth is flat? How quick

would you be to re-evaluate that image of the globe deeply diffused

in your brains?

We usually are quicker at recognizing when other people are wrong

or need to think again, but often, we fail to apply that same

judgment to ourselves. That should not be.

Grant brings out another perspective of what usually happens to

most people as we think and talk. We slip into three different

professions: the preacher, the prosecutor, and the politician.

 The preacher delivers sermons to protect his sacred beliefs.

The prosecutor marshals’ arguments to prove other people’s

reasoning to be wrong.

The politician campaigns and lobbies to win people over their

side of an argument.

As a result, we get carried away with the professions that we don't

even bother to rethink our views. Grant suggests a better approach –

the scientist mode.

In a typical setting, scientists are paid to rethink and beware of the

limits of their understanding. Put on the scientific googles and seek

the hard data and evidence. Put your theories in the back seat as you

test them. That said, some scientists still slip into the three

professions.

Following this pattern of holding on to beliefs is supported by two

biases in psychology:
 1 Confirmation bias – Seeing what we expect to see.

2 Desirability bias – Seeing what we want to see.

Such biases hinder us from applying our intelligence and contort that

beautiful genius (that is, your brain) into a weapon against the truth.

At times, the smarter you are, the easier it is for you to be fooled

because the biases are deeply rooted.

Turning into the scientist mode will prevent ideas from becoming

ideologies. Questions and puzzles lead the argument rather than

answers and solutions. It means being actively open-minded.

The beginning point of rethinking is intellectual humility: knowing

and being eager to know what we don't know. Shifting out of the

scientific mode leads us to the overconfidence cycle, where we

encounter biases. These then lead us to validate our ideologies. If the

beginning of rethinking is intellectual humility, then the

overconfidence cycle's starting point is pride.

 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2:

THE ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK AND THE IMPOSTOR:

FINDING THE SWEET SPOT OF CONFIDENCE

Have you heard of Anton’s syndrome?

It's a deficit of self-awareness in which a person is oblivious to a

physical disability but otherwise doing fairly well cognitively. We,

too, tend to have certain blind spots in our knowledge and opinions.

The sad thing is, most times when this happens, we are blind to our

blindness, leaving us in false confidence in our judgment and curtails

us from rethinking.

Another version of Anton's syndrome that most people can relate to

is the armchair quarterback syndrome. This is where confidence

exceeds competence. You see it every time in football fans who are

apparently convinced that they know better than the coach.

The opposite of this is the impostor syndrome – this is where

competence exceeds confidence. Both may be limiting in formulating

forward plans – but there is a sweet spot of confidence that aligns

perfectly with competence levels.

Grant then proceeds to explain the Dunning-Kruger effect. The

theory holds that we normally brim most with overconfidence when

we lack competence. The nasty rule and number one symptom you

will experience in the Dunning-Kruger effect is that you won’t know

you’re a member of this club.

Research shows that people enter this phase once they've moved

from novice level to amateurs. The little knowledge gained prompts

one to believe they have reached their knowledge base's pinnacle –

hence the pride and overconfidence. People who get stuck on Mount

Stupid are puffed up and rarely evaluate their beliefs.

While some consider the Goldilocks mode a balance between

meekness and arrogance, Grant suggests a sweeter spot of

confidence that believes in oneself but is always humble enough to

question methodologies used. He names it confident humility. This is

the comfort level where one is ready to learn and be taught.

If anything, recent research shows that impostor syndrome yields

better results in terms of performance. It motivates one to work

harder and drives the individual always to improve. This is the

ultimate trick behind great thinkers – they harbor a level of doubt

since they know we’re all partially blind. They work towards getting a

clearer vision.
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3:

THE JOY OF BEING WRONG: THE THRILL OF NOT

BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU THINK

As humans, the most common strategy to take when our beliefs and

convictions are on the line is to become defensive. We want to shield

what we hold dear, like a hen protecting her chicks. But there is a

group of people who can teach us a lot – the variety that delights

and takes pride in being wrong. We’re wrong in more circumstances

than we are right, but the more we deny it, the deeper the hole we

dig for ourselves. We shut down as though a miniature dictator is

living in our heads which controls the facts' flow. In psychology, this

concept is referred to as totalitarian ego.

However, when the facts don’t challenge our deeply rooted opinions,

it catches us by surprise and evokes a willingness to learn and know

more. Neuroscientists now believe that the totalitarian ego comes

when the amygdala feels threatened. The threats result in the

preacher-prosecutor response. Our beliefs are then sealed into echo

chambers where they are soothed and protected by people who

intensify and validate them.

The joy in knowing that we’re wrong about something is that we

would be less wrong about the particular subject from thence. That's

a sure way to know you have learned something. It calls us to detach

from present attachments. Detach your present from your past and

separate your opinions from your identity.

If being wrong repeatedly leads us to the right answers, the

experience of being wrong can become sore joyful. Simply consider

your opinions tentative and change them when the facts change.

Stop attaching your views to your identity and pursue the truth like a

real scientist.
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4:

THE GOOD FIGHT CLUB: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF

CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT

Now let’s talk conflict!

There's a kind of conflict that leads to outright vile arguments and

has the sole intent of being as cruel as possible. It's referred to as

relationship conflict. However, there’s a positive kind of conflict –

task conflict – which forces us into a clash between ideas, opinions,

and facts.

When talking about task conflict, think of making everyday decisions

such as which restaurant to go to for dinner, debating who to hire, or

the kind of car that'll best suit the family's needs. Both these kinds of

conflicts have different consequences.

A meta-analysis of a ton of research shows relationship conflict

generally leads to bad performance, while some task conflict can be

beneficial. The latter is linked to smarter choices and creativity, while

the former are destructive and curtail the rethinking process.

Task conflicts promote learning, which keeps us humble and

produces constructive projects. With the diversification of thoughts

in progress, the overconfidence cycle is kept at bay. Individuals are

then curious to find out the missing fragments, which is a step closer

to the truth. Task conflict is an essential life skill, though many do not

develop this sort of productive disagreements.

Grant suggests getting involved more with disagreeable people who

will question us and keep us humble, rather than agreeable people

who cheer lead us onward. Nevertheless, this should be applied

cautiously since it doesn't apply in all areas of life. Take care to avoid

extremes. All in all, these disagreeable people give us the vital

feedback we may not want to hear but need to hear nevertheless.

Strong leaders engage their critics and make themselves stronger,

whereas weak leaders silence their critics and make them weaker!

Simple math equation.

A spirited debate ensures the tension remains intellectual rather

than emotional and personal. The tone may become vigorous and

feisty rather than combative and aggressive, but the purpose is

intact. The voices may be loud or quiet, but the parties still pursue

truth and excellence. But how do we prevent task conflict from

turning into relationship conflict?

Start by framing the dispute as a debate rather than as a

disagreement. This triggers the other person to share more

information with you. Avoid arguing about the ‘why’ as it might

quickly get personal. Instead, direct the argument about the ‘how.'

Answering the question 'how' enlightens one on how much they

don't know, and suddenly the scientist mode kicks in.

 SUMMARY OF
PART II:

INTERPERSONAL RETHINKING:
OPENING OTHER PEOPLE’S MIND
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5:

DANCES WITH FOES: HOW TO WIN DEBATES AND

INFLUENCE PEOPLE

Grant opens up this section with a meditative quote from Tim

Kreider:

“Exhausting someone in an argument is not the same as convincing

them.”

Once you’ve begun the process of revolutionizing your mindset and

thought patterns into that of a scientist, the next step is articulately

bringing that skill into the open to convince other people to rethink.

You may think that you’re winning in an argument by presenting

solid and indisputable facts, but you may end up losing your

audience more and alienating yourself further if their minds don't

change. That is not a win.

A good debate isn't a war, neither is it a tug-of-war. It's more of an

artistic dance that hasn't been choreographed yet, negotiated with a

partner with different sets of steps. Adaptability is critical if you are

to remain in sync and keep the rhythm to the dance.

First and foremost, a good debater will take time to find common

ground before disputing anything. Expert debaters present fewer

reasons, rather than more, to support their case. This strategy

prevents the guru from watering down their main points. A weak

argument amid strong ones dilutes the candid pointers.

Thirdly, instead of going into an offensive-defensive debacle, a good

debater will simply ask questions that will pull the other person back

into the rhythm. Consider what a question like, “So you don’t see any

merits in this proposal?” will have on your opponent dance partner.

Before we think of ‘changing' other people's minds, you have to be

open to the possibility of having yours changed. Be cautious against

coming out as too strong by piling reason after reason or fact after

another. The more straightforward and more elaborate the reasons

are, the better your standing in the case.

These tips heavily rely on three fundamental factors:

➔ How much do people care about the issue?

➔ How open are they to our particular argument?

➔ How strong-willed are they in general?

If they are not invested or receptive to our perspective, more

reasons can help. People tend to perceive quantity as a sign of

quality. The more the topic matters, the more the quality of reasons

matters. Piling up justifications is likely to backfire when the other

party is stubborn, skeptical of our view, and resistant to rethinking

because they have a stake in the issue. More reasons mean more

ammunition in their hands to shoot us down.

In other words, the one person most likely to persuade you to

change your mind is YOU!

So what next if all these attempts backfire and the opponent starts

drawing lousy blood? Easy, a master negotiator will express their

honest feelings. That would go somewhere along the lines of, "I'm

disappointed in the way this discussion has unfolded – are you

frustrated with it?" Or, "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?"

If the answer is ‘nothing,' then there's no point in debating any

further.

Grant makes an exemplary move by expressing how wrong he was in

one of the statements made in his former book, Originals. He shows

how he has metamorphosed, and his thought pattern has changed

since then.
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 6:

BAD BLOOD ON THE DIAMOND: DIMINISHING

PREJUDICE BY DESTABILIZING STEREOTYPES

The stakes in convincing a partner in the debate take a step up if the

other party has preconceived biases and stereotypes concerning the

subject matter. If you want to find out how true this is, try convincing

a Red Sox fan to root for the Yankees.

Such stereotypes are common across all walks of life – Republicans

vs. Democrats, sports, school against an adversary, religion, you

name it. As these stereotypes stick and prejudice deepens, we don't

just identify with our group; we dis-identify with our 'antagonists';

hence we define who we are by what we're not. Put plainly; we find

self-worth in prosecuting our rivals.

In these cases, people will go to extremes to vent that hatred and

upraise their team. So why do people form such stereotypes, and

what does it take to rethink them?

Human society is conditioned to seek belonging and status since

creation. Identifying with a particular group or tribe checks both

boxes at the same time. Psychologist George Kelly describes beliefs

as a pair of reality googles that we use to make sense of the world

and navigate our surroundings. A threat to our opinions and beliefs

cracks our goggles, leaving our vision blurred. We result in putting

our guard up as a natural response. We thus end up defending the

beliefs even when we know deep down that they are wrong.

These stereotypes become stickier in society since we find ourselves

interacting with people who share them. This phenomenon is

referred to as group polarization. Polarization is further enforced

through conformity.
Grant goes ahead to list different hypothesis to try and cure

stereotypes:

i The first hypothesis is the overview effect. Try to find common

grounds – like viewing Earth from a bird's view and realizing the

vanity of our petty differences. This approach does not always

work.

ii The second methodology Grant tries is the psychology of

peace. This method tries to draw out empathy from rivals.

Nonetheless, you may succeed in changing the attitudes of the

rivaling parties, but the stereotypes remain. You may see the

other person as more human and relatable but consider them a

unique version of the entire group.

iii The third hypothesis is beasts of habit. Make the rival

contemplate on the arbitrariness of animosity as opposed to

the positive qualities of the opposition. Let the person reflect

 on how silly the rivalry is. For instance, as a Red Sox fun if you

were born in a Yankee's family, would you still support your

team if you are honest? This allows them to feel what it's like to

be disliked for a minor part of you. This winning strategy may

not happen overnight but may just be the antidote to

stereotypes.

Proceed to lead the nemesis to counterfactual thinking by opening

them up to the possibility of living in other alternatives of reality.

A critical piece to demolishing stereotypes is actual encounters and

conversations between opposing parties. If you’re prejudiced and fail

to have a conversation with someone because of their (or your)

stereotypes, you miss out on a big chance to make them see how

good you are. You essentially give up the opportunity to open their

minds to your light.

 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 7:

VACCINE WHISPERERS AND MILD-MANNERED

INTERROGATORS: HOW THE RIGHT KIND OF LISTENING
MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO CHANGE

“It’s a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn’t want to

hear.”

– Attributed to Dick Cavette

So far, it's clear that what doesn't sway us makes our beliefs

stronger. This notion especially holds water in the anti-vax

communities. No amount of scientific data labeled as 'true' can

convince them of the safety of vaccines. If anything, it only stems

their beliefs further, and they end up demonizing vaccines all the

more.

Grant uses this analogy to show another aspect of the art of

persuasion. Vaccines reportedly inoculate our physical immune

system against a virus, supposing there are no side effects. Similarly,

the art of resistance fortifies our psychological immune system.

Refuting a point of view, according to Grant, produces antibodies

against future influence attempts. This leaves us more confident of

our opinions and less curious about alternative views.

So what’s the medicine for such hard-core resistance?

Motivation through interviewing!

We can rarely motivate someone else to change their outlooks. It is

much more compelling to assist them in finding their own motivation

to change. Motivational interviewing starts with an attitude of

humility and curiosity. The goal isn't to tell someone what to do but

to help them break out of overconfidence cycles and see new

possibilities. Hopefully, they'll be on their way towards the rethinking

process and perhaps put on scientific glasses in humility.

Motivation interviewing involves:

 ✔ Asking open-ended questions.

✔ Engaging in reflective listening.

✔ Affirming the other person's desire and ability to change.

Overall, motivational interviewing has a statistically and clinically

meaningful effect on behavior change in roughly three out of four

studies. What's more, it's not limited to professional settings but also

in daily interactions. People who ignore advice more often than not

resist the sense of pressure and feel that someone else controls their

decision. Motivational interviewing guides the person to self-

discovery.

To achieve the full measure of motivational interviewing, develop

the skill of listening more rather than talking. Instead of sustain talk,

which is merely commentaries that seek to maintain the status quo,

engage in change talk that aims to make adjustments. Change talk

leads the person towards their desired goal effectively. In concluding

a motivational talk, summarize your understanding of the other

person's reasons for change and standpoint. Ask whether you've

missed or misrepresented anything and inquire about their plans and

possible next steps. Be the guide.

Who knows? You might be the one whose mind is changed.

Grant gives a strong warning, though: motivational interviewing

should not be used manipulatively. Have a genuine desire to help

out.

Authentic listening involves asking and responding. It entails showing

more interest in other people's interests rather than judging their

status or proving our own. Avoid the righting reflex – getting caught

up in the superhuman mentality of fixing everything. When it comes

to people's problems, humans want sympathy rather than a fixer of

solutions.
 SUMMARY OF
PART III:

COLLECTIVE RETHINKING: CREATING

COMMUNITIES OF LIFELONG LEARNERS
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 8:

CHARGED CONVERSATIONS: DEPOLARIZING OUR

DIVIDED DISCUSSIONS

We, humans, tend to seek clarity and closure by simplifying a

complex continuum of polarizing subjects into two categories. In

layman's terms, we subdivide complex issues into either black or

white and find safety leaning on one extreme.

The antidote to this proclivity, as Grant suggests, is complexifying:

showcasing the range of possibilities across a given spectrum. A dose

of complexity can disrupt overconfidence cycles and spur rethinking

cycles. It leaves us humble and curious to learn more.

Complexifying starts to address binary bias as it opens up the door

for skeptics to a whole world of possibilities. It's also relevant to

distinguish skeptics from deniers to formulate a strategic plan to

change mindsets.
If the mid-section of this spectrum is invisible, the majority’s will to

act vanishes. There should be a balance in presenting all fronts, or

else people won't be motivated to act since others aren't. Therefore,

as an information consumer, be sure to take a nuanced point of

view. Complexity, more often than not, denotes credibility. The same

applies when we produce or communicate information.

An excellent way to improve complex communication is taking a

closer look at how scientists relay information. Consider how

researchers feature multiple paragraphs about the limitations of

each study. We see them as portholes to future discoveries instead

of faulting them as inaccurate. The veil of ignorance for the scientist

would be to ask whether we'd accept the study results based on

methods involved without knowing the conclusion.

Opposing parties will have a more significant divide and binary bias

once they distance themselves further from each other's

perspective. Instead of perspective-taking, practice more empathy

through perspective-seeking – actually talking to people to gain

insights into their views' nuances. Test their hypothesis like the

scientist you are by striking a conversation.

Complexity also extends to the emotional spectrum. Don't try locking

out emotions from conversations, as this will be restrictive. Besides,

don't just classify emotions as positive or negative, or else you won't

get the full measure of the conversation. Instead, consider emotional

complexity as a more effective route. You can be angry one minute

about a particular view, curious the next, laughing the other until

you reach the point of rethinking. Expressing emotions don't stand in

the way of rethinking but having a restricted range of emotions and

refusing to let them out will definitely confine the conversation's

trajectory.
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 9:

REWRITING THE TEXTBOOK: TEACHING STUDENTS TO

QUESTION KNOWLEDGE

Closed mindsets start at an early age and are cemented through our

school years. Think about it, how many times do you remember

questioning the knowledge presented in your textbooks while in

school?

Teachers don’t do enough to encourage students to question

themselves and one another. Questioning information presented by

a teacher is often perceived as an insult or a threat. If we are to

change this pattern, educators need to instill intellectual humility,

disseminate doubt, and cultivate curiosity. Research shows that if

false scientific beliefs aren’t addressed in elementary school, they

become harder to change later. This cannot be achieved in

traditional forms of education.

Policies in education need to change towards active learning. It may

not be fun, to say the least, as active learning involves more mental

energy, but it cultivates deeper understanding. One other reason is

that traditional lectures aren't designed to accommodate dialogue or

disagreements. Hence, they turn students into passive receivers of

information rather than active thinkers.

If the orator casts a spell on the audience, as is the case with most

motivational speakers, they are less likely to scrutinize the material

and more likely to forget the content. However, such a spell-cast

audience will claim to remember more of the content, as research

now shows. Social scientists refer to this as the awestruck effect.

Grant gives it a better name – the dumbstruck effect.

Another bold move educator can take is to learn together with their

students. It's okay not to know everything. It doesn't make you

incompetent in the eyes of your audience but opens up the grand

door for students to learn from anyone (rather than rely solely on

you.)

Encourage students to redo their work multiple times and allow

them to judge each other's content. Judge the work, not the

individual. Instead of "I am horrible," the student should develop the

winning mindset of, "This work is horrible. I can give it a better shot."

The judgments from students should have recommendations on how

to better improve. The drafts then work as a learning lesson in itself

to introduce new thought patterns. That should be the definition of

education – not merely an accumulation of information, but more so

the habits, trends, mindset, and patterns we develop as we keep

revising and assessing our drafts as well as the technical and mental

skills, we build to keep learning and growing.

 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 10:

THAT’S NOT THE WAY WE’VE ALWAYS DONE IT:

BUILDING CULTURES OF LEARNING AT WORK

So far, we have been trying to diversify rethinking from an individual

skill to a collective capability that heavily depends on an

organization's culture. 'Norms' in the organization may equal failure

big time or significant drawbacks. Sure, you may have several wins

spurring you on to the overconfidence cycle, but when the fall

comes, it won't be minimal.

This calls for learning cultures in the organization. Evidence shows

that learning cultures innovate more and make fewer mistakes. Such

a culture will thrive under a particular combination of psychological

safety and accountability. We used to think that psychological safety

alone can breed complacency. If there’s less burden or punishment

associated with taking failed risks, the organization members may

grow comfortable to a fault.

Further still, if there is too much trust' among colleagues, there may

be no need to counter-check each other's work. On the other side of

the coin, in psychologically unsafe environments, people hide their

mishaps to avoid penalties, making it hard to diagnose the root cause

and prevent future problems.

Psychological safety doesn’t mean relaxing standards or making

people feel nice and comfortable. On the contrary, it’s about

fostering a climate of respect, trust, and openness, where people can

raise concerns and suggestions without fear of reprisal.

Performance cultures significantly undermine psychological safety.

People want to protect their careers, so they fail to stand up to the

big bosses. There is pressure to conform to authority and well-

tested, familiar methods. Employees end up censoring themselves in

the presence of experts who seem to know-it-all, especially when we

lack confidence in our expertise.

Asking questions like, "How do you know that" or "How did you

reach that conclusion" is essential in the workplace. Managers

should be serious about the work but more accommodating to take

on personal jabs that will help them improve. If managers show

employees that they are incomplete and a work-in-progress,

employees are more open to constructive criticism. This takes

confident humility, though, from top-level management.

To cement this kind of openness, organizations need to develop a

specific type of accountability – the style that has people thinking

about their workplaces' best practices. Creating this is more

manageable in cultures where ‘better practices' in their workplaces

are appraised. Where 'best practices' are cherished as the norm,

innovation may be limited. The key to unlocking this door of a

continuous learning zone is a mix of process accountability and

psychological safety.
SUMMARY OF
PART IV:

CONCLUSION
 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 11:

ESCAPING TUNNEL VISION: RECONSIDERING OUR

BEST-LAID CAREER AND LIFE PLANS

For the majority, growing up, we changed careers like clothes –

uncertain of what we want to be once we grow up. We developed

these notions growing up: where we want to live, the kind of person

we want to marry, the type of car we'll drive, and so forth and so on.

These ingrained images inspire us to make bolder goals and form our

vision of what 'happiness' is.

The danger of this illusion is that it can give us ‘tunnel vision’ which

blinds us to alternative paths. It may end up giving us the right

direction to the wrong destination. This pattern of dedicating more

resources to a plan ‘even when it seems it will fail’ is called

escalation of commitment (similar to the sunk-cost fallacy.)

Escalation of commitment is fueled by grit – an uneven combination

of passion and perseverance. It’s high time we considered the

difference between heroic persistence and foolish stubbornness.

When we lock ourselves in preconceived career choices, we end up

in identity foreclosure. Grant proposes that this sort of identity

foreclosure begins when adults ask kids who think Santa exists,

"What do you want to be when you grow up?" Identity foreclosure is

the opposite of identity crisis.

In the former, rather than accepting the uncertainty about who we

want to become, we develop compensatory conviction and plunge

head-over-heels into an absolute career path. This manner of chasing

happiness has the potential of chasing it away.

We are often too busy pursuing happiness that we don't enjoy the

everyday events that make us happy. We are busy evaluating why

our lives haven't reached the peak of happiness and fail to realize the

daily positive events that ought to be savored. We pursue happiness

by changing our environment or buying things to find ourselves in

the former sad state. It's the actions we take - rather than our

current surroundings - that make a whole lot of difference.

At work and in life, the best we can do is to plan for what we want to

learn and contribute over the next year or two and stay open to

what might come next.

 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ABOUT
THINK AGAIN
Adam Grant is on a writing spree and shows skill, intellect, expertise,

and a touch of thoughtfulness as he composes this script. The book is

more psychological and less self-help but relatable in all walks of life.

He uses rethinking principles that can be used at home, in the

workplace, at school, and even some that will help you avoid

'catching fire.’ What’s more, Grant himself rethinks certain

statements he made in his former book, Originals, something most

established writers dread doing.

Grant summarizes rethinking as an artistic life skill that is essential in

everything we do. It is needed even in our daily interactions. To

convince and persuade someone to see your viewpoint, rethinking is

a must. Before you become a master negotiator who changes other

people’s minds, you have to be open to the possibility of having your

mind changed.

All in all, it's a good read characterized by dramatic stories and

relevant examples. He combines these with visuals in the form of

pictures, graphs, and pie-charts that make his points more candid in

the reader’s mind. At least you’re sure not to fall asleep when

reading the book. In case you do, it’s time to Think Again.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ABOUT
ADAM GRANT
You may know him as a TED Speaker; others may recognize him as an

established writer. Adam Grant is an organizational psychologist

dedicated to helping individuals find meaning in their work. He has

successfully worked with established institutions, including Google,

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, NBA, and Bridgewater. This

exposure has enabled him to be listed among the top ten most

influential management thinkers globally. He is also recognized as

the author of five bestselling books and the host of Worklife. If you

think that’s not serious enough, he also serves on the Defensive

Innovation Board at the Pentagon. Follow him on social media for

more.
 TRIVIA QUESTIONS
1. What are some of the toots that we cling to that prevent us

from rethinking?

2. Why is it so hard to apply the same judgments we make on

others to ourselves?

3. What three professions do most people slip into during

conversations?

4. What makes smart people more likely to fall into these three

professional slip-ups?

5. When does the Dunning-Kruger effect kick in?

6. What is the antidote to get off Mount Stupid?

7. What’s the difference between a debate and a disagreement?

8. What sort of information seriously brings out the totalitarian

ego inside you?

9. What is the underlying difference between strong and weak

leaders in relation to criticism?

10. What are some of the facts used by great negotiators that

can assist you in entering into rhythm with a disagreeable

person?

11. What are the three fundamental factors that Grant

mentions which determine how easily you can convince

someone to open up their mind to the possibility of being

wrong?
12. Why do people dearly hold on to stereotypes?

13. Which hypothesis works best in dis-fueling stereotypes?

14. What’s the solution to getting rid of antibodies in hard-

core believers?

15. What’s the red-light in motivational interviewing?

16. How do emotions play into the rethinking puzzle?

17. How often do you fall into the political spell of charismatic

speakers?

18. How can grit turn into foolish stubbornness, according to

Grant?
 TRIVIA QUESTIONS
1. Which cycle do you usually find yourself in between the

rethinking and overconfidence cycle? What amends do you

plan on making?

2. Which best characterizes you between the armchair

quarterback syndrome and the impostor syndrome?

3. Do you remember getting yourself in a task conflict? How did

you go about it?

4. Which kinds of detachments does Grant consider meaningful in

changing your worldview?

5. What stereotypes do you personally hold?

6. Do you agree with Grant's views and the analogy of vaccines

and resistance to change?

7. Have you used motivational interviewing on someone else

before? How well did it work out?

8. Explain complexifying communication according to Adam

Grant.

9. Schools have a massive role in reeducating the community to

embrace rethinking. What do you think teachers need to do

differently to produce distinct rethinking adults?

10. How would you describe the work ethic in your

organization in terms of psychological safety? Do you

personally feel psychologically safe and accountable enough to

the process to correct your boss?

 THANK YOU FOR FINISHING THE BOOK!
We would like to thank you very much for supporting us and reading through

to the end. We know you could have picked any number of books to read, but

you picked this book and for that we are extremely grateful.

We hope you enjoyed your reading experience. If so, it would be really nice if

you could share this book with your friends and family by posting to Facebook

and Twitter.

Chapter Zoom stands for the highest reading quality and we will always

endeavor to provide you with high-quality books.

Would you mind leaving us a review on Amazon before you go? Because it will

mean a lot to us and support us in creating high-quality guidelines for you in

the future.

Please help us reach more readers by taking 30 seconds to write just

a few words on Amazon now

Warmly,
The Chapter Zoom Team
 Download Your Free Gift

Biohacking Secrets – a 12-part video and audio training series to

learn to live your best life and claim your personal powers!

Click here to get it before it expires!

https://l.ead.me/chapter-zoom-free-gift