Think Again
Metadata
Highlights
-
Intelligence is traditionally viewed as the ability to think and learn. Yet in a turbulent world, thereâs another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn. (Location 105)
- Part of the problem is cognitive laziness. Some psychologists point out that weâre mental misers: we often prefer the ease of hanging on to old views over the difficulty of grappling with new ones. Yet there are also deeper forces behind our resistance to rethinking. Questioning ourselves makes the world more unpredictable. It requires us to admit that the facts may have changed, that what was once right may now be wrong. Reconsidering something we believe deeply can threaten our identities, making it feel as if weâre losing a part of ourselves. (Location 123)
- We favor the comfort of conviction over the discomfort of doubt, and we let our beliefs get brittle long before our bones. 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. (Location 129)
- This book is an invitation to let go of knowledge and opinions that are no longer serving you well, and to anchor your sense of self in flexibility rather than consistency. (Location 245)
-
If you can master the art of rethinking, I believe youâll be better positioned for success at work and happiness in life. Thinking again can help you generate new solutions to old problems and revisit old solutions to new problems. Itâs a path to learning more from the people around you and living with fewer regrets. (Location 246)
- hallmark of wisdom is knowing when itâs time to abandon some of your most treasured toolsâand some of the most cherished parts of your identity. (Location 248)
- 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 peopleâs reasoning: we marshal arguments to prove them wrong and win our case. We shift into politician mode when weâre seeking to win over an audience: we campaign and lobby for the approval of our constituents. The risk is that we become so wrapped up in preaching that weâre right, prosecuting others who are wrong, and politicking for support that we donât bother to rethink our own views. (Location 307)
-
Whatâs surprising about these results is that we typically celebrate great entrepreneurs and leaders for being strong-minded and clear-sighted. Theyâre supposed to be paragons of conviction: decisive and certain. Yet evidence reveals that when business executives compete in tournaments to price products, the best strategists are actually slow and unsure. Like careful scientists, they take their time so they have the flexibility to change their minds. Iâm beginning to think decisiveness is overrated . . . but I reserve the right to change my mind. (Location 346)
-
Mental horsepower doesnât guarantee mental dexterity. No matter how much brainpower you have, if you lack the motivation to change your mind, youâll miss many occasions to think again. Research reveals that the higher you score on an IQ test, the more likely you are to fall for stereotypes, because youâre faster at recognizing patterns. And recent experiments suggest that the smarter you are, the more you might struggle to update your beliefs. (Location 379)
-
The better you are at crunching numbers, the more spectacularly you fail at analyzing patterns that contradict your views. If they were liberals, math geniuses did worse than their peers at evaluating evidence that gun bans failed. If they were conservatives, they did worse at assessing evidence that gun bans worked. In psychology there are at least two biases that drive this pattern. One is confirmation bias: seeing what we expect to see. The other is desirability bias: seeing what we want to see. These biases donât just prevent us from applying our intelligence. They can actually contort our intelligence into a weapon against the truth. We find reasons to preach our faith more deeply, prosecute our case more passionately, and ride the tidal wave of our political party. The tragedy is that weâre usually unaware of the resulting flaws in our thinking. (Location 387)
-
Thinking like a scientist involves more than just reacting with an open mind. It means being actively open-minded. It requires searching for reasons why we might be wrongânot for reasons why we must be rightâand revising our views based on what we learn. (Location 398)
-
After all, the purpose of learning isnât to affirm our beliefs; itâs to evolve our beliefs. (Location 409)
-
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. They saw many of their policies as experiments to run, not points to score. Although they might have been politicians by profession, they often solved problems like scientists. (Location 419)
- Recognizing our shortcomings opens the door to doubt. As we question our current understanding, we become curious about what information weâre 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 donât know is wisdom. (Location 427)
-
Our convictions can lock us in prisons of our own making. The solution is not to decelerate our thinkingâitâs to accelerate our rethinking. Thatâs what resurrected Apple from the brink of bankruptcy to become the worldâs most valuable company. (Location 449)
-
Research shows that when people are resistant to change, it helps to reinforce what will stay the same. Visions for change are more compelling when they include visions of continuity. Although our strategy might evolve, our identity will endure. (Location 463)
- When we lack the knowledge and skills to achieve excellence, we sometimes lack the knowledge and skills to judge excellence. (Location 610)
- What he lacked is a crucial nutrient for the mind: humility. The antidote to getting stuck on Mount Stupid is taking a regular dose of it. âArrogance is ignorance plus conviction,â blogger Tim Urban explains. âWhile humility is a permeable filter that absorbs life experience and converts it into knowledge and wisdom, arrogance is a rubber shield that life experience simply bounces off of.â (Location 636)
- Confidence is a measure of how much you believe in yourself. Evidence shows thatâs distinct from how much you believe in your methods. You can be confident in your ability to achieve a goal in the future while maintaining the humility to question whether you have the right tools in the present. Thatâs the sweet spot of confidence. (Location 646)
- What we want to attain is confident humility: having faith in our capability while appreciating that we may not have the right solution or even be addressing the right problem. That gives us enough doubt to reexamine our old knowledge and enough confidence to pursue new insights. (Location 651)
- Great thinkers donât harbor doubts because theyâre impostors. They maintain doubts because they know weâre all partially blind and theyâre committed to improving their sight. They donât boast about how much they know; they marvel at how little they understand. Theyâre 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. (Location 740)
- 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. (Location 743)
-
The goal is not to be wrong more often. Itâs to recognize that weâre all wrong more often than weâd like to admit, and the more we deny it, the deeper the hole we dig for ourselves. (Location 785)
-
In a classic paper, sociologist Murray Davis argued that when ideas survive, itâs not because theyâre trueâitâs because theyâre interesting. What makes an idea interesting is that it challenges our weakly held opinions. (Location 798)
- That kind of conviction is a common response to threats. Neuroscientists find that when our core beliefs are challenged, it can trigger the amygdala, the primitive âlizard brainâ that breezes right past cool rationality and activates a hot fight-or-flight response. The anger and fear are visceral: it feels as if weâve been punched in the mind. The totalitarian ego comes to the rescue with mental armor. We become preachers or prosecutors striving to convert or condemn the unenlightened. âPresented with someone elseâs argument, weâre quite adept at spotting the weaknesses,â journalist Elizabeth Kolbert writes, but âthe positions weâre blind about are our own.â (Location 819)
- he genuinely enjoys discovering that he was wrong, because it means he is now less wrong than before. (Location 841)
-
âBeing wrong is the only way I feel sure Iâve learned anything.â (Location 847)
-
Danny isnât interested in preaching, prosecuting, or politicking. Heâs a scientist devoted to the truth. When I asked him how he stays in that mode, he said he refuses to let his beliefs become part of his identity. âI change my mind at a speed that drives my collaborators crazy,â he explained. âMy attachment to my ideas is provisional. Thereâs no unconditional love for them.â (Location 848)
- Attachment. Thatâs 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. Iâve learned that two kinds of detachment are especially useful: detaching your present from your past and detaching your opinions from your identity. (Location 851)
-
My past self was Mr. FactsâI was too fixated on knowing. Now Iâm more interested in finding out what I donât know. As Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio told me, âIf you donât look back at yourself and think, âWow, how stupid I was a year ago,â then you must not have learned much in the last year.â (Location 861)
- Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. (Location 869)
-
As journalist Kathryn Schulz observes, âAlthough small amounts of evidence are sufficient to make us draw conclusions, they are seldom sufficient to make us revise them.â (Location 917)
-
âThereâs no benefit to me for being wrong for longer. Itâs much better if I change my beliefs sooner, and itâs a good feeling to have that sense of a discovery, that surpriseâI would think people would enjoy that.â (Location 930)
-
âIf the evidence strongly suggests that my tribe is wrong on a particular issue, then so be it. I consider all of my opinions tentative. When the facts change, I change my opinions.â (Location 949)
- Research suggests that the more frequently we make fun of ourselves, the happier we tend to be.* Instead of beating ourselves up about our mistakes, we can turn some of our past misconceptions into sources of present amusement. (Location 968)
- Iâve noticed a paradox in great scientists and superforecasters: the reason theyâre so comfortable being wrong is that theyâre terrified of being wrong. What sets them apart is the time horizon. Theyâre determined to reach the correct answer in the long run, and they know that means they have to be open to stumbling, backtracking, and rerouting in the short run. They shun rose-colored glasses in favor of a sturdy mirror. The fear of missing the mark next year is a powerful motivator to get a crystal-clear view of last yearâs mistakes. (Location 973)
-
âPeople who are right a lot listen a lot, and they change their mind a lot,â Jeff Bezos says. âIf you donât change your mind frequently, youâre going to be wrong a lot.â (Location 977)
- Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everybody in good society holds exactly the same opinions. âOscar Wilde (Location 1027)
- âThe absence of conflict is not harmony, itâs apathy.â (Location 1063)
-
Disagreeable people tend to be more critical, skeptical, and challengingâand theyâre more likely than their peers to become engineers and lawyers. Theyâre not just comfortable with conflict; it energizes them. If youâre highly disagreeable, you might be happier in an argument than in a friendly conversation. That quality often comes with a bad rap: disagreeable people get stereotyped as curmudgeons who complain about every idea, or Dementors who suck the joy out of every meeting. When I studied Pixar, though, I came away with a dramatically different view. (Location 1095)
- The ideal members of a challenge network are disagreeable, because theyâre fearless about questioning the way things have always been done and holding us accountable for thinking again. Thereâs evidence that disagreeable people speak up more frequentlyâespecially when leaders arenât receptiveâand foster more task conflict. Theyâre like the doctor in the show House or the boss in the film The Devil Wears Prada. They give the critical feedback we might not want to hear, but need to hear. (Location 1111)
-
âI want people who are disgruntled because they have a better way of doing things and they are having trouble finding an avenue,â Brad told me. âRacing cars that are just spinning their wheels in a garage rather than racing. You open that garage door, and man, those people will take you somewhere.â (Location 1124)
- We learn more from people who challenge our thought process than those who affirm our conclusions. Strong leaders engage their critics and make themselves stronger. Weak leaders silence their critics and make themselves weaker. This reaction isnât limited to people in power. (Location 1141)
- Ernest Hemingway once said, âThe most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof sh*t detector.â (Location 1158)
- The notion of a spirited debate captures something important about how and why good fights happen. If you watch Brad argue with his colleaguesâor the pirates fight with one anotherâyou can quickly see that the tension is intellectual, not emotional. The tone is vigorous and feisty rather than combative or aggressive. They donât disagree just for the sake of it; they disagree because they care. âWhether you disagree loudly, or quietly yet persistently put forward a different perspective,â Nicole explains, âwe come together to support the common goal of excellenceâof making great films.â (Location 1182)
-
After seeing their interactions up close, I finally understood what had long felt like a contradiction in my own personality: how I could be highly agreeable and still cherish a good argument. Agreeableness is about seeking social harmony, not cognitive consensus. Itâs possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Although Iâm terrified of hurting other peopleâs feelings, when it comes to challenging their thoughts, I have no fear. In fact, when I argue with someone, itâs not a display of disrespectâitâs a sign of respect. It means I value their views enough to contest them. If their opinions didnât matter to me, I wouldnât bother. I know I have chemistry with someone when we find it delightful to prove each other wrong. (Location 1186)
- Experiments show that simply framing a dispute as a debate rather than as a disagreement signals that youâre receptive to considering dissenting opinions and changing your mind, which in turn motivates the other person to share more information with you. A disagreement feels personal and potentially hostile; we expect a debate to be about ideas, not emotions. Starting a disagreement by asking, âCan we debate?â sends a message that you want to think like a scientist, not a preacher or a prosecutorâand encourages the other person to think that way, too. (Location 1222)
- âHonest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each otherâs eyes so both can see clearly,â (Location 1228)
-
When we argue about why, we run the risk of becoming emotionally attached to our positions and dismissive of the other sideâs. Weâre more likely to have a good fight if we argue about how. (Location 1233)
-
When social scientists asked people why they favor particular policies on taxes, health care, or nuclear sanctions, they often doubled down on their convictions. Asking people to explain how those policies would work in practiceâor how theyâd explain them to an expertâactivated a rethinking cycle. They noticed gaps in their knowledge, doubted their conclusions, and became less extreme; they were now more curious about alternative options. (Location 1235)
-
A good debate is not a war. Itâs not even a tug-of-war, where you can drag your opponent to your side if you pull hard enough on the rope. Itâs more like a dance that hasnât 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, youâre more likely to end up in rhythm. (Location 1366)
-
One difference was visible before anyone even arrived at the bargaining table. Prior to the negotiations, the researchers interviewed both groups about their plans. The average negotiators went in armed for battle, hardly taking note of any anticipated areas of agreement. The experts, in contrast, mapped out a series of dance steps they might be able to take with the other side, devoting more than a third of their planning comments to finding common ground. (Location 1375)
- They actually presented fewer reasons to support their case. They didnât want to water down their best points. As Rackham put it, âA weak argument generally dilutes a strong one.â (Location 1381)
- Convincing other people to think again isnât just about making a good argumentâitâs 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 weâre not preachers, prosecutors, or politicians trying to advance an agenda. Weâre scientists trying to get to the truth. (Location 1402)
-
When I asked Harish how to improve at finding common ground, he offered a surprisingly practical tip. Most people immediately start with a straw man, poking holes in the weakest version of the other sideâs case. He does the reverse: he considers the strongest version of their case, which is known as the steel man. (Location 1425)
- There are times when preaching and prosecuting can make us more persuasive. Research suggests that the effectiveness of these approaches hinges on three key factors: how much people care about the issue, how open they are to our particular argument, and how strong-willed they are in general. (Location 1444)
- Psychologists have long found that the person most likely to persuade you to change your mind is you. You get to pick the reasons you find most compelling, and you come away with a real sense of ownership over them. (Location 1468)
- 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 donât have to convince them that weâre rightâwe just need to open their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong. Their natural curiosity might do the rest. (Location 1475)
-
When someone becomes hostile, if you respond by viewing the argument as a war, you can either attack or retreat. If instead you treat it as a dance, you have another optionâyou can sidestep. Having a conversation about the conversation shifts attention away from the substance of the disagreement and toward the process for having a dialogue. The more anger and hostility the other person expresses, the more curiosity and interest you show. When someone is losing control, your tranquility is a sign of strength. It takes the wind out of their emotional sails. Itâs pretty rare for someone to respond by screaming âSCREAMING IS MY PREFERRED MODE OF COMMUNICATION!â (Location 1512)
-
In a heated argument, you can always stop and ask, âWhat evidence would change your mind?â If the answer is ânothing,â then thereâs no point in continuing the debate. You can lead a horse to water, but you canât make it think. (Location 1521)
-
An informed audience is going to spot the holes in our case anyway. We might as well get credit for having the humility to look for them, the foresight to spot them, and the integrity to acknowledge them. By emphasizing a small number of core strengths, Michele avoided argument dilution, focusing attention on her strongest points. And by showing curiosity about times the team had been wrong, she may have motivated them to rethink their criteria. They realized that they werenât looking for a set of skills and credentialsâthey were looking to hire a human being with the motivation and ability to learn. Michele knew what she didnât know and had the confidence to admit it, which sent a clear signal that she could learn what she needed to know. (Location 1560)
-
By asking questions rather than thinking for the audience, we invite them to join us as a partner and think for themselves. If we approach an argument as a war, there will be winners and losers. If we see it more as a dance, we can begin to choreograph a way forward. By considering the strongest version of an opponentâs perspective and limiting our responses to our few best steps, we have a better chance of finding a rhythm. (Location 1565)
New highlights added May 17, 2022 at 5:27 PM
- As stereotypes stick and prejudice deepens, we donât just identify with our own group; we disidentify with our adversaries, coming to define who we are by what weâre not. We donât just preach the virtues of our side; we find self-worth in prosecuting the vices of our rivals. (Location 1619)
- When students at The Ohio State University were paid to participate in an experiment, they learned that if they were willing to lie to a student from a different school, their own pay would double and the other studentâs compensation would be cut in half. Their odds of lying quadrupled if the student attended the University of Michiganâtheir biggest rivalârather than Berkeley or Virginia. (Location 1625)
- Kelly noticed that we become especially hostile when trying to defend opinions that we know, deep down, are false. Rather than trying on a different pair of goggles, we become mental contortionists, twisting and turning until we find an angle of vision that keeps our current views intact. (Location 1656)
- Weâd finally made some progress. Our next step was to examine the key ingredients behind the shift in fansâ views. We found that it was thinking about the arbitrariness of their animosityânot the positive qualities of their rivalâthat mattered. Regardless of whether they generated reasons to like their rivals, fans showed less hostility when they reflected on how silly the rivalry was. Knowing what it felt like to be disliked for ridiculous reasons helped them see that this conflict had real implications, that hatred for opposing fans isnât all fun and games. (Location 1773)
- People gain humility when they reflect on how different circumstances could have led them to different beliefs. They might conclude that some of their past convictions had been too simplistic and begin to question some of their negative views. That doubt could leave them more curious about groups theyâve stereotyped, and they might end up discovering some unexpected commonalities. (Location 1791)
- Sometimes letting go of stereotypes means realizing that many members of a hated group arenât so terrible after all. And thatâs more likely to happen when we actually come face-to-face with them. For over half a century, social scientists have tested the effects of intergroup contact. In a meta-analysis of over five hundred studies with over 250,000 participants, interacting with members of another group reduced prejudice in 94 percent of the cases. Although intergroup communication isnât a panacea, that is a staggering statistic. The most effective way to help people pull the unsteady Jenga blocks out of their stereotype towers is to talk with them in person. Which is precisely what Daryl Davis did. (Location 1826)
- As we work toward systemic change, Daryl urges us not to overlook the power of conversation. When we choose not to engage with people because of their stereotypes or prejudice, we give up on opening their minds. âWe are living in space-age times, yet there are still so many of us thinking with stone-age minds,â he reflects. âOur ideology needs to catch up to our technology.â (Location 1850)
- Motivational interviewing starts with an attitude of humility and curiosity. We donât know what might motivate someone else to change, but weâre genuinely eager to find out. The goal isnât to tell people what to do; itâs 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. (Location 1931)
- The process of motivational interviewing involves three key techniques: Asking open-ended questions Engaging in reflective listening Affirming the personâs desire and ability to change (Location 1935)
- When we try to convince people to think again, our first instinct is usually to start talking. Yet the most effective way to help others open their minds is often to listen. (Location 1983)
- But Peter went on to do something far more impressive. He randomly assigned some pairs to read another version of the same article, which led 100 percent of them to generate and sign a joint statement about abortion laws. That version of the article featured the same information but presented it differently. Instead of describing the issue as a black-and-white disagreement between two sides, the article framed the debate as a complex problem with many shades of gray, representing a number of different viewpoints. (Location 2141)
- Psychologists have a name for this: binary bias. Itâs 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 donât. An antidote to this proclivity is complexifying: showcasing the range of perspectives on a given topic. We might believe weâre 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. (Location 2155)
- If we donât understand someone, we canât have a eureka moment by imagining his perspective. Polls show that Democrats underestimate the number of Republicans who recognize the prevalence of racism and sexismâand Republicans underestimate the number of Democrats who are proud to be Americans and oppose open borders. 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 the nuances of their views. Thatâs what good scientists do: instead of drawing conclusions about people based on minimal clues, they test their hypotheses by striking up conversations. (Location 2333)
- She collects old history books because she enjoys seeing how the stories we tell change over time, and she decided to give her students part of a textbook from 1940. Some of them just accepted the information it presented at face value. Through years of education, they had come to take it for granted that textbooks told the truth. Others were shocked by errors and omissions. It was ingrained in their minds that their readings were filled with incontrovertible facts. The lesson led them to start thinking like scientists and questioning what they were learning: whose story was included, whose was excluded, and what were they missing if only one or two perspectives were shared? (Location 2408)
- I believe that good teachers introduce new thoughts, but great teachers introduce new ways of thinking. Collecting a teacherâs knowledge may help us solve the challenges of the day, but understanding how a teacher thinks can help us navigate the challenges of a lifetime. Ultimately, education is more than the information we accumulate in our heads. Itâs the habits we develop as we keep revising our drafts and the skills we build to keep learning. (Location 2633)
- It takes confident humility to admit that weâre 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. But mindsets arenât enough to transform a culture. Although psychological safety erases the fear of challenging authority, it doesnât necessarily motivate us to question authority in the first place. To build a learning culture, we also need to create a specific kind of accountabilityâone that leads people to think again about the best practices in their workplaces. (Location 2792)
- Focusing on results might be good for short-term performance, but it can be an obstacle to long-term learning. Sure enough, social scientists find that when people are held accountable only for whether the outcome was a success or failure, they are more likely to continue with ill-fated courses of action. Exclusively praising and rewarding results is dangerous because it breeds overconfidence in poor strategies, incentivizing people to keep doing things the way theyâve always done them. It isnât until a high-stakes decision goes horribly wrong that people pause to reexamine their practices. (Location 2811)
- We all have notions of who we want to be and how we hope to lead our lives. Theyâre not limited to careers; from an early age, we develop ideas about where weâll live, which school weâll attend, what kind of person weâll marry, and how many kids weâll have. These images can inspire us to set bolder goals and guide us toward a path to achieve them. The danger of these plans is that they can give us tunnel vision, blinding us to alternative possibilities. We donât know how time and circumstances will change what we want and even who we want to be, and locking our life GPS onto a single target can give us the right directions to the wrong destination. (Location 2930)
- Iâve noticed that the students who are the most certain about their career plans at twenty are often the ones with the deepest regrets by thirty. (Location 2986)
- They get trapped in an overconfidence cycle, taking pride in pursuing a career identity and surrounding themselves with people who validate their conviction. By the time they discover it was the wrong fit, they feel itâs too late to think again. The stakes seem too high to walk away; the sacrifices of salary, status, skill, and time seem too great. For the record, I think itâs better to lose the past two years of progress than to waste the next twenty. In hindsight, identity foreclosure is a Band-Aid: it covers up an identity crisis, but fails to cure it. (Location 2993)
- My advice to students is to take a cue from health-care professions. Just as they make appointments with the doctor and the dentist even when nothing is wrong, they should schedule checkups on their careers. I encourage them to put a reminder in their calendars to ask some key questions twice a year. When did you form the aspirations youâre currently pursuing, and how have you changed since then? Have you reached a learning plateau in your role or your workplace, and is it time to consider a pivot? Answering these career checkup questions is a way to periodically activate rethinking cycles. It helps students maintain humility about their ability to predict the future, contemplate doubts about their plans, and stay curious enough to discover new possibilities or reconsider previously discarded ones. (Location 2997)
- Deciding to leave a current career path is often easier than identifying a new one. My favorite framework for navigating that challenge comes from a management professor, Herminia Ibarra. She finds that as people consider career choices and transitions, it helps to think like scientists. A first step is to entertain possible selves: identify some people you admire within or outside your field, and observe what they actually do at work day by day. A second step is to develop hypotheses about how these paths might align with your own interests, skills, and values. A third step is to test out the different identities by running experiments: do informational interviews, job shadowing, and sample projects to get a taste of the work. The goal is not to confirm a particular plan but to expand your repertoire of possible selvesâwhich keeps you open to rethinking. (Location 3010)
- Whether we do checkups with our partners, our parents, or our mentors, itâs worth pausing once or twice a year to reflect on how our aspirations have changed. As we identify past images of our lives that are no longer relevant to our future, we can start to rethink our plans. That can set us up for happinessâas long as weâre not too fixated on finding it. (Location 3037)
- As Ernest Hemingway wrote, âYou canât get away from yourself by moving from one place to another.â Meanwhile, students who changed their actions by joining a new club, adjusting their study habits, or starting a new project experienced lasting gains in happiness. Our happiness often depends more on what we do than where we are. Itâs our actionsânot our surroundingsâthat bring us meaning and belonging. (Location 3072)
- When my students talk about the evolution of self-esteem in their careers, the progression often goes something like this: Phase 1: Iâm not important Phase 2: Iâm important Phase 3: I want to contribute to something important Iâve noticed that the sooner they get to phase 3, the more impact they have and the more happiness they experience. (Location 3092)
- Itâs left me thinking about happiness less as a goal and more as a by-product of mastery and meaning. âThose only are happy,â philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, âwho have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.â Careers, relationships, and communities are examples of what scientists call open systemsâtheyâre constantly in flux because theyâre not closed off from the environments around them. We know that open systems are governed by at least two key principles: there are always multiple paths to the same end (equifinality), and the same starting point can be a path to many different ends (multifinality). We should be careful to avoid getting too attached to a particular route or even a particular destination. There isnât one definition of success or one track to happiness. (Location 3096)
- At work and in life, the best we can do is plan for what we want to learn and contribute over the next year or two, and stay open to what might come next. To adapt an analogy from E. L. Doctorow, writing out a plan for your life âis like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.â (Location 3108)
- Our identities are open systems, and so are our lives. We donât have to stay tethered to old images of where we want to go or who we want to be. The simplest way to start rethinking our options is to question what we do daily. It takes humility to reconsider our past commitments, doubt to question our present decisions, and curiosity to reimagine our future plans. What we discover along the way can free us from the shackles of our familiar surroundings and our former selves. Rethinking liberates us to do more than update our knowledge and opinionsâitâs a tool for leading a more fulfilling life. (Location 3130)
- Learn something new from each person you meet. Everyone knows more than you about something. Ask people what theyâve been rethinking lately, or start a conversation about times youâve changed your mind in the past year. (Location 3243)
- Build a challenge network, not just a support network. Itâs helpful to have cheerleaders encouraging you, but you also need critics to challenge you. Who are your most thoughtful critics? Once youâve identified them, invite them to question your thinking. To make sure they know youâre open to dissenting views, tell them why you respect their pushbackâand where they usually add the most value. (Location 3245)
- Practice the art of persuasive listening. When weâre trying to open other peopleâs minds, we can frequently accomplish more by listening than by talking. How can you show an interest in helping people crystallize their own views and uncover their own reasons for change? A good way to start is to increase your question-to-statement ratio. (Location 3253)
- Throw out the ten-year plan. What interested you last year might bore you this yearâand what confused you yesterday might become exciting tomorrow. Passions are developed, not just discovered. Planning just one step ahead can keep you open to rethinking. (Location 3301)