Brown presents excerpts from organizational psychologist Adam Grant’s book Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know, focusing on the skill of intellectual humility and the ability to question one’s own beliefs. Brown frames Grant’s work as intersecting with her own research at the point where cognitive science meets vulnerability and courage—specifically, the difficult practice of rethinking and unlearning what one believes to be true.

Grant identifies a fundamental problem in how people approach knowledge and beliefs: Individuals tend to slip into three unproductive mindsets when defending or promoting their ideas. These are the preacher (protecting sacred beliefs through sermons), the prosecutor (proving others wrong through arguments), and the politician (campaigning for approval and support). Each of these modes prioritizes conviction over truth and creates resistance to changing one’s mind. Grant proposes an alternative: adopting the mindset of a scientist who actively searches for reasons they might be wrong rather than reasons they must be right. This scientific approach involves treating beliefs as hypotheses to test rather than certainties to defend.

The practical value of scientific thinking appears in Grant’s research with Italian startup founders. When entrepreneurs were trained to view their business strategies as hypotheses requiring rigorous testing, they generated over forty times more revenue than the control group and pivoted more than twice as often when data contradicted their assumptions. This demonstrates how the willingness to rethink assumptions based on evidence leads to better outcomes than stubborn attachment to original plans.

Grant addresses a counterintuitive finding: Higher intelligence can actually hinder rethinking. Research shows that people with stronger analytical skills are more susceptible to confirmation bias and desirability bias when data conflicts with their existing beliefs. Intelligent individuals often use their cognitive abilities to rationalize and defend their positions rather than objectively evaluate evidence. This phenomenon—what Grant calls the “I’m not biased” bias—makes smart people particularly vulnerable to intellectual rigidity because they assume their reasoning is more objective than it actually is (71).

The chapter emphasizes that scientific thinking requires both skill and motivation. Studies of eminent scientists, creative architects, and effective presidents reveal that intellectual curiosity and openness to revising views distinguish exceptional performers from their peers. These individuals treat policies and decisions as experiments to run rather than points to score, remaining eager to learn across diverse fields and willing to shift positions based on new information.

Grant describes a productive cycle that begins with intellectual humility—acknowledging the vast territory of what one does not know. This humility generates doubt, which sparks curiosity, leading to discovery, which in turn reinforces humility by revealing how much remains to be learned. When individuals abandon this scientific mindset, they enter an overconfident cycle where pride prevents recognition of knowledge gaps, confirmation bias narrows perspective, and validation breeds arrogance.

Grant’s work builds on decades of research into confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, but frames these concepts in an accessible way that emphasizes agency: Individuals can choose to adopt thinking patterns that promote flexibility rather than rigidity.

Chapter Lessons

• Approach beliefs as hypotheses to test rather than truths to defend.
• Recognize the three unproductive mindsets: preacher (protecting beliefs), prosecutor (proving others wrong), and politician (attempting to win approval).
• Smart people often use their analytical skills to rationalize existing beliefs rather than objectively evaluate contradictory evidence.
• Cultivate intellectual humility: The productive rethinking cycle begins with acknowledging the limits of one’s knowledge.

Reflection Questions

• In what areas of your life do you find yourself most often operating as a preacher, prosecutor, or politician rather than a scientist? What beliefs or positions do you defend without actively seeking evidence that might challenge them?
• Think of a time when you changed your mind about something important based on new evidence. What enabled that shift? What barriers typically prevent you from rethinking your positions, and how might you lower those barriers?