Adam Grant (2)Ressenyes

The book varies greately in quality of information and non-fiction writing approach. At times it is journalism with stories of individuals leading the “truth” of a psychological idea, at ofhers a process involving the author to discover answers, and other still studies which are presented in summary form as given ground truth.

The book reveals some interesting ideas, some more original than others. The book also gives direction for a more “scientific” apporach involving reviewing ideas all the time to establish what is good knowledge.

But there is a big problem which underlies the whole text that stopped me from taking it seriously which is that some fundamentals of scientific method are not applies in the actual knowledge presented by the book. The author says we should be ready to update our ideas based on evidence but then presents views dogmatically, without trying to illustrate counter examples, without looking at the statistics underlying this knowledge, without trying to explain to what extent these ideas are true…

Ultimately the author assumes the reader is in a fairly narrow socio-cultural-economic space. The author is talking to big companies, successful people, working on problems that are quite niche. How would this translate to a broader world population I cannot see, and if it doesn’t could it be the basic of knowledge here is not set up correctly?

I found the book very useful as an example of how well meaning scientific knowledge is presented devoid of the tools that give science the power to actually create consensus.

Very likely all these problems were part of the process of the author’s engagement with publishers and their concers of how accessible the text would be. The end chapters give a picture of how invasive publishers can be.

Most of the book was good advice on thought processes for better knowledge and understanding psychologically. The end fizzled out for me. I will definitely copy the 30 action points for impact at the end to make notes.
Biggest takeaway was the section on persuasive listening. The learning organization had some good ideas, but didn't seem as well thought out and written.

3.5 rounded up. This is quick and entertaining but nothing new or ground breaking. Just be curious, be willing to fail, and never stop learning. There are always others who will have a leg up on you, but that doesn't have to hold you back. That's the jist here.½

Nonfiction bookworms who have read a dozen or more self-help/personal growth books will discover that some concepts in Grant’s latest work have been covered before. I fall into this group of readers and agree with reviewers who suggest that “Hidden Potential” revisits a lot of familiar territory. Nevertheless, this engaging work offers fresh spins on achieving goals and serves up many intriguing anecdotes I’ve never heard before. For me, the most valuable aspect of the book is that it effectively reinforces some important strategies for success (most of us benefit from occasional reminders as we trudge down the twist-filled path toward self-improvement). Among the helpful tidbits:
 Perfection is a liability. Accept – and even appreciate – inescapable flaws. Grant touches on the ancient philosophy of wabi sabi that celebrates the beauty of imperfection.
 Don’t aim to be perfect. Aim for a clear and attainable target.
 Get comfortable being uncomfortable. It can help unlock new learning.
 The true measure of our potential is not the height of the peak we reach, but how far we’ve climbed to get there.
 Making progress isn’t always about moving forward. Sometimes it’s about bouncing back. Resilience is a form of growth.
 People typically judge our skills based on our best moments, not our worst. Let’s give ourselves the same leeway. (Example: The Bard wrote “Hamlet,” but he also penned many less-than-stellar works.)
In summary, “Hidden Potential” was well worth with the investment of time.
In summary, “Hidden Potential” was well worth with the investment of time.

I really enjoyed this book!

You know those meetings where you think, this could have been an email, or even a fair sized sticky note? I have something similar for books where I sometimes think, “this could have been an article”. This book falls squarely into that category for me. There were certainly a few valuable insights but overall I just got the impression that the author was trying his level best to fill up space.

Some thoughtful thoughts. Nothing mind-blowing. A nice quick read.

Ei ihan niin hyvä ja kiinnostava teos kuin odotin, viihdyttävästi kirjoitettu mutta olisin kaivannut enemmän konkretiaa ja paikoin myös vahvempia todisteita. Toivottavasti tästä kuitenkin jäi joitakin vinkkejä mieleen, mitä voisi kokeilla tosielämän vuorovaikutustilanteissa. Kirjan pääväittämästä eli siitä, että on positiivista ja fiksuuden merkki tajuta erehtyneensä ja muuttaa mieltään, ei toki voi olla muuta kuin samaa mieltä.

Interesting. I found the corporate culture examples and the parts about the pitfalls of asking career goals from young children the most compelling. Not sure the epilogue added much value. Some of the cartoons gave me a good chuckle. Worth the read.

Just because you have the heart for something.....does not mean you should write a book on the topic. I just don't get it. (And I minored in Psychology.) I just don't know what really was trying to be conveyed. The back said "generosity." Honestly, I didn't get that.

Ein wirklich beeindruckendes Buch, das mir ermöglicht hat, kreativer und flexibler zu denken. An konkreten Beispielen fächert der Autor auf, wie man heute auf Veränderungen reagieren und besser vorankommen kann.

Einser Uni-Abschlüsse garantieren nicht den Karriere Erfolg, sondern Flexibilität und schnelles Umdenken.

Lernen muss intrinsisch sein, Herausforderungen bieten, die den Lernenden in die Lehr-Funktion ver-setzen, um selbstständig agieren zu können. Nicht pauken, sondern selbst denken und handeln sind Kern dieser Denkweise.

Ich irre, also lerne ich.

„Menschen, die sich rühmen, ihre Ansichten niemals zu wechseln, sind Toren, die an ihre Unfehlbarkeit glauben.“ (Balzac)

This a thought-provoking and insightful challenge to reexamine your beliefs and assumptions. Grant argues that in a rapidly changing world, the ability to rethink and unlearn old ideas is essential for growth.

As Grant says, "we don't have to believe everything we think or internalize everything we feel. It's an invitation to let go of views that are no longer serving us well and prize mental flexibility over foolish consistency."

Pulling from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, and business, Grant offers practical tactics for developing a more flexible mindset and making better decisions. A must-read for anyone looking to improve their critical thinking skills and stay open to new ideas.

Enjoyable read with a nice balance of illustrative stories, research, and practical takeaways. Grant offers great commentary on value of confident humility and scientific thinking. An important reminder that the goal of individuals and organizations need to focus less on getting the right answer, and more on adapting to new information and being critical of our prior assumptions.

"The path to embracing mistakes is full of painful moments, and we handle those moments better when we remember they're essential for progress. But if we can't learn to find occasional glee in discovering we were wrong, it will be awfully hard to get anything right."

Read about 100 pages, but gave up. Really didn’t like the author’s style - sort of a business school / corporate self-help feel. Got the book because of a positive mini-review in the NYT, and the subject matter, being willing to change one’s mind and be open to other alternatives, appeals to me. The book isn’t badly written, it just grated on my nerves.

In this thought-provoking novel, Grant shares the importance of rethinking, the evidence and results of rethought processes and ways to rethink. Out of ten, I give this book a 4.9 star rating. There are great illustrations and practical advice and new beneficial perspectives. I found that some of the diagrams were hard to comprehend and understand the complete relevance. Also, because I have not read any self-help books, I have nothing to compare to. I think that people who have read this book or will read this book will learn and apply the different approaches. Personally, in chapter three and ten, Grant gave me a new perspective on being wrong and stereotyping. This was a great book.

Adam Grant examines how we know what we know and asks us to rethink our beliefs, assumptions, and 0pinions. Rigid adherence to beliefs, and “knowing,” without questioning, usually results in poor outcomes. He asks us to regularly update our beliefs based on new evidence.

Many people are more concerned about being right or defending beliefs or seeking approval, and these often take precedence over the truth. He asks us to take the mental role of a scientist, searching for what is true by hypothesizing, experimenting, and analyzing. The result, he argues, is a path to integrity, improved thinking skills, knowledge, and lifelong learning.

The book is structured in three parts: the individual level, one-on-one, and group level. Each part makes the argument for rethinking. Grant is an excellent writer, and it is certainly a timely topic. The book is entertaining and presents a strong case. The only drawback, for me, is that he covers lots of ground at a high level, and it leaves lots of room to dig deeper. Even so, I can only applaud a book that encourages curiosity, open-mindedness, listening, flexibility, and empathy.

When a book inspires me to jot down several insights to share with students in my college communications classes, the work automatically scores at least four stars. Adam Grant’s book spurred me to scribble down more than 20 nuggets that will be helpful to students who deliver persuasive speeches in my oral communications class. There were even some tips for strategic rethinking that will be helpful to my media literacy students as we explore a variety of timely and controversial topics. True, some of Grant’s concepts have been explored in other self-help books. But the author’s skill in articulating these strategies and his excellent examples make this a must-read book. I won’t list all of the takeaways – or even a half-dozen. But here are a couple instructive nuggets. When trying to advance an argument, don’t be a “logic bully” by attempting to overwhelm a listener with many arguments. A string arguments can feel like an onslaught. One compelling argument – especially if it’s phrased as a question – can feel more like a conversation. Also, embrace the joy of being wrong. Don’t . Instead, celebrate it as evidence that you’re learning. “Focus less on proving yourself and more on improving yourself.” Kudos to Adam Grant.½

Life is uncertain, complex, and changes, so approach it like a scientist. Think Again tugs between presenting answers like a self-help book and telling the reader to revisit important topics themselves to find answers.

Internally, it seems like common sense to a questioner personality like me, but there were some good parts about questioning others and organizations in a non-judgemental way.

I found Mr. Grant's thoughts very compelling - the idea that we don't know as much as we think we do and recognizing that fact can actually serve us well in our efforts to understand complex issues and to communicate with others.½

This was a timely read personally. Moving to a new company recently, ideas from previous experiences had to be re-thought and seen through a different lens with different light in a completely different context. This book has definitely helped me formulate how I am going to do this on a day-to-day basis ...

A book that unexpectedly touched on some timely topics .... like vaccine whisperer (he was referring to measles, not COVID) and Bil and Melinda Gates (who just announced their divorce).

10 stars! An Exceptionally Good Book

At only one other time in my life, have I felt that a book should be read by everyone, as everyone has something to learn from this. Such is this exceptional book.

From the back cover:

Intelligence is usually seen as the ability to think and learn, but in a rapidly changing world, there's another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn. In our daily lives, too many of us favor the comfort of conviction over the discomfort of doubt. We listen to opinions that make us feel good, instead of ideas that make us think hard. We see disagreement as a threat to our egos, rather than an opportunity to learn. We surround ourselves with people who agree with our conclusions, when we should be gravitating toward those who challenge our thought process. The result is that our beliefs get brittle long before our bones. We think too much like preachers defending our sacred beliefs, prosecutors proving the other side wrong, and politicians campaigning for approval--and too little like scientists searching for truth. Intelligence is no cure, and it can even be a curse: being good at thinking can make us worse at rethinking. The brighter we are, the blinder to our own limitations we can become.

Organizational psychologist Adam Grant is an expert on opening other people's minds--and our own. As Wharton's top-rated professor and the bestselling author of Originals and Give and Take, he makes it one of his guiding principles to argue like he's right but listen like he's wrong. With bold ideas and rigorous evidence, he investigates how we can embrace the joy of being wrong, bring nuance to charged conversations, and build schools, workplaces, and communities of lifelong learners. You'll learn how an international debate champion wins arguments, a Black musician persuades white supremacists to abandon hate, a vaccine whisperer convinces concerned parents to immunize their children, and Adam has coaxed Yankees fans to root for the Red Sox. Think Again reveals that we don't have to believe everything we think or internalize everything we feel. It's an invitation to let go of views that are no longer serving us well and prize mental flexibility over foolish consistency. If knowledge is power, knowing what we don't know is wisdom.

------------

I can't say it better than I did above. This book was not just good to me, but something I feel that everyone can gain something from. Any words that I would make, wouldn't do it justice. I'll let the quotes below guide. Keeping a highlighted copy for myself to refer to.

Quotes I liked:

We laugh at people who still use Windows 95, yet we still cling to opinions that we formed in 1995. We listen to views that make us feel good instead of ideas that make us think hard.

If we are insecure, we make fun of others. If we are comfortable being wrong, we're not afraid to poke fun at ourselves. Laughing at ourselves reminds us that although we might take our decisions seriously, we don't have to take ourselves too seriously. Research suggests that the more frequently we make fun of ourselves, the happier we tend to be.

Every time we encounter new information, we have a choice. We can attach our opinions to our identities and stand our ground in the stubborness of preaching and prosecuting. Or we can operate more like scientists, defining ourselves as people committed to the pursuit of truth - even if it means proving your own views wrong.

Research shows that how often parents argue has no bearing on their children's academic, social, or emotional development. What matters is how respectfully parents argue, not how frequently. Kids whose parents clash constructively feel more emotionally safe in elementary school...and demonstrate more compassion towards classmates.

Motivational interviewing starts with an attitude of humility and curiousity. 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; its 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 enpower them to examine their beliefs and behaviors. That can activate a rethinking cycle, in which people approach their own views scientifically. They develop more humility about their knowledge, doubt in their convictions, and curiosity about alternative points of view.

Psychologists find that people will ignore or even deny the existence of a problem if they're not fond of the solution. Liberals were more dismissive of the issue of intruder violence when they read an argument that strict gun control laws could make it difficult for homeowners to protect themselves. Conservatives were more receptive to climate science when they read about a green technology proposal than about emissions restriction proposal.

The greater the distance between us and an adversary, the more likely we are to oversimplify their actual motives and invent explanations that stray far from their reality. What works is not perspective taking but perspective seeking: actually talking to people to gain insight into their nuances of their views.

Psychologically safe teams reported more errors, but they actually made fewer errors. By freely admitting their mistakes, they were then able to learn what caused them and eliminate them moving forward. In psychologically unsafe teams, people hid their mishaps to avoid penalties, which made it difficult for anyone to diagnose the root causes and prevent future problems. They keep repeating the same mistakes.

It takes confident humility to admit that we're a work in progress. It shows that we care more about improving ourselves than proving ourselves. If that mindset spreads far enough within an organization, it can give people the freedom and courage to speak up.

{regarding what a vacation can and can't do -- and how you need to do the personal work}
There's a lot vacation can do .... but it can't fix deeper issues. WE can take you on a hike. We can't turn you into someone who likes hiking. Remember, you're still going to be YOU on vacation. If you are sad where you are, and then you get on a plane to Italy, the you in Italy will be the same sad you from before, just in a new place.

Compelling read. The thesis -- that we should develop ways of reconsidering the beliefs we take for granted and that there are evidence-based principles for doing so -- is reasonable, so I can't say it's the most provocative book I've read, but the book certainly is full of persuasive anecdotes and practical tips.

I like that the theory is relatively light. The ideas we refer back to again are rethinking cycles and the alternatives to rethinking -- politicking, preaching, and prosecuting. We get introduced to these and other ideas and then immediately see how they connect to examples in the real world. There are also citations to scientific papers, but they're not the real focus. Which makes me wonder if we're not being convinced by lots of anecdotal evidence without understanding the underlying science (or maybe I'm just a little skeptical of how psychology operates as a science).

My main problem would be that some of his examples seem to have a built-in "right answer" -- for example, a vaccine whisperer convincing parents to vaccinate their children. Naturally, I have to wonder, then, if there are not rethinkers who can put forward compelling claims for the alternatives? And if there aren't, isn't that making assumptions about what's true and false already? Grant takes care to apply his own principles to the book in other places, but this seems like one that's pretty obvious.

Overall, lots to like. I think the book is pretty aptly summarized by its "Actions for Impact" section, so I'm not sure I'd recommend everybody read the whole thing. But definitely brings up points that are worth considering. Time to try these ideas out in the real world now.

I like brain books. I’ve read quite a few. I thought I’d like this one… the topic sounded promising. Grant’s writing style is easy to read. He simplifies the topics at hand. But I think he really falls short of whatever he was trying to accomplish. He wants us to use science to shape our thinking - that is the best of all possible recommendations. James Morrow says in his novel Only Begotten Daughter, "Science does have all the answers. We just don't have all the science." (To which I add..."yet.") Beats the hell out of philosophical nonsense musings. But, applying the principle here… the book doesn’t hold up well. His entire book could have been reduced to a trifold tract. Minus all of the graphs and charts that were more filler than useful.

Part 1 - Individual Rethinking: Don’t fall for the D-K effect; do second guess yourself; question everything (well, what you think about everything)

Part 2 - Interpersonal Rethinking: some people are better at convincing others; most people won’t have their minds changed. Some buzz phrases - Motivational Interviewing; Influential Listening.

Part 3 - Collective Rethinking: … {crickets}

Okay, that's harsh. BUT... I'll save you some time: skip to the end and read Grant's Actions for Impact, top thirty practical takeaways for rethinking. That is good stuff.

As always, I did make some notes and observations; selections here:

You've probably seen this

When people reflect on what it takes to be mentally fit, the first idea that comes to mind is usually intelligence. The smarter you are, the more complex the problems you can solve—and the faster you can solve them. Intelligence is traditionally viewed as the ability to think and learn. Yet in a turbulent world, there’s another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn.

And "when it comes to our own knowledge and opinions, we often favor feeling right over being right. [...] The accelerating pace of change means that we need to question our beliefs more readily than ever before. This is not an easy task. As we sit with our beliefs, they tend to become more extreme and more entrenched."

Nice analogies

Two decades ago my colleague Phil Tetlock discovered something peculiar. As we think and talk, we often slip into the mindsets of three different professions: preachers, prosecutors, and politicians. In each of these modes, we take on a particular identity and use a distinct set of tools. 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. You’re paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. [...] But being a scientist is not just a profession. It’s a frame of mind—a mode of thinking that differs from preaching, prosecuting, and politicking." I like that last part.

With "Research reveals that the higher you score on an IQ test, the more likely you are to fall for stereotypes, because you’re faster at recognizing patterns. And recent experiments suggest that the smarter you are, the more you might struggle to update your beliefs. ", I disagree somewhat and ask the obvious “more likely” is not an absolute, right?

On Presidents: "What set great presidents apart was their intellectual curiosity and openness. They read widely and were as eager to learn about developments in biology, philosophy, architecture, and music as in domestic and foreign affairs. They were interested in hearing new views and revising their old ones." We’ll assume that the lack of those traits reflects the opposite of great. Clearly.

Belaboring the obvious: "When we find out we might be wrong, a standard defense is “I’m entitled to my opinion.” I’d like to modify that: yes, we’re entitled to hold opinions inside our own heads. If we choose to express them out loud, though, I think it’s our responsibility to ground them in logic and facts, share our reasoning with others, and change our minds when better evidence emerges."

On debating (rethinking others)

For centuries, debating has been prized as an art form, but there’s now a growing science of how to do it well. In a formal debate your goal is to change the mind of your audience. In an informal debate, you’re trying to change the mind of your conversation partner. That’s a kind of negotiation, where you’re trying to reach an agreement about the truth. [And one expert, champion debater] He knew that making too many points could come at the cost of developing, elaborating, and reinforcing his best ones. “If you have too many arguments, you’ll dilute the power of each and every one,”

This should be obvious but isn't intuitive. Skilled obfuscators (and unskilled, but serial obfuscators like 45) use the Gish Gallop. Don't be distracted from the main point, or couple of points.

Grant quotes Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, "You develop an instant global consciousness . . . an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics looks so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a b*tch.’” Not said is that Mitchell was a paranormal nut after he returned from the moon.

Truth:

It’s especially important to distinguish skeptics from deniers. Skeptics have a healthy scientific stance: They don’t believe everything they see, hear, or read. They ask critical questions and update their thinking as they gain access to new information. Deniers are in the dismissive camp, locked in preacher, prosecutor, or politician mode: They don’t believe anything that comes from the other side. They ignore or twist facts to support their predetermined conclusions.

Good advice on questioning briefers (and yourself?): "What leads you to that assumption? Why do you think it is correct? What might happen if it’s
wrong? What are the uncertainties in your analysis? I understand the advantages of your recommendation. What are the disadvantages? "

Grant states something I have had in my head, un-articulated: "In my first semester of college, I decided to major in psychology, but that didn’t open any doors — it just gave me a few to close." It's always helpful to know what not to do.

THIS!: “I think it’s one of the most useless questions an adult can ask a child,” Michelle Obama writes. “What do you want to be when you grow up? As if growing up is finite. As if at some point you become something and that’s the end.”

I liked the selected Grant Allen epigraph for Chapter 9: “No schooling was allowed to interfere with my education.” I like to check on the source for quotes and it appears this is a permutation of what he said in multiple writings, but not that explicitly. The first came from an 1894 book “Post-Prandial Philosophy” in the form “What a misfortune it is that we should thus be compelled to let our boys’ schooling interfere with their education!”