Treat your opinions as hypotheses and your decisions as experiments
Treat your opinions as hypotheses and your decisions as experiments
Organizational psychologist Adam Grant on why we should all try to think like scientists
“I don't think we should worry about being authentic to what we're thinking and feeling in any given moment. I think what we want to ask is, ‘Is what I'm about to do or say consistent with my principles?’ Sometimes that means you will be false to your personality in order to be true to your values. Sometimes that means you will feel like you're not honoring your thought or your emotion in the moment, but you're doing that with a broader view toward ‘Who is the person that I want to be?’”
–Adam Grant
Quick Summary
Neuroscientist Andrew Huberman and organizational psychologist Adam Grant talk about a wide variety of topics, from procrastination to motivation to cognitive biases. Adam gives tips for how to collect better feedback as well as how to avoid spiraling into negative thoughts and emotions. He also explains our four modes of thinking as preachers, prosecutors, politicians, and scientists—and why one mode is better than the rest when it comes to being open-minded and learning new ideas. Spoiler: It’s thinking like a scientist.
You can catch the complete episode (3 hours, 12 minutes) on YouTube.
Key Takeaways
Why do we procrastinate? Because we’re trying to avoid negative emotions. For example, we may put off tasks because we find them boring, or because they cause fear or anxiety.
One way to generate intrinsic motivation for a task: get curious. Consider the way people describe curiosity as an “itch,” something you want to scratch. While curiosity can’t prevent procrastination altogether, it can help get us into action when we’re otherwise unengaged. For example, Adam advises students to approach their least favorite class by finding an interesting mystery or puzzle in the subject—something they’re driven to get to the bottom of.
Extrinsic rewards work best when they’re presented as symbols of appreciation and value for a certain behavior—and not as a means of control. Adam relates this to the workplace, explaining that having a sense of autonomy makes extrinsic rewards more appealing. For example, if managers present rewards in a controlling way (”In order to earn this reward, you need to do X, Y, and Z”), employees won’t be so motivated. Rewards are more effective when delivered in a way that gives employees a greater sense of control, e.g., ”We’d love to see X, Y, and Z happen, and want to make it worth your while by offering this reward.”
Incentives can change motivation. If you’re paid to do an interesting task, you might end up being less motivated to do it later without payment. This finding comes from Stanford researcher Mark Lepper, who offered some kids a reward for drawing with magic markers. Although the kids had been interested in drawing before any reward was given, they became less motivated to do so once there was no payoff. This phenomenon, where an expected external incentive reduces the motivation to do something, is known as the “overjustification effect.”
Get better feedback by asking for specific tips. After delivering a speech, Adam used to say to listeners, “I’d love to get some feedback.” The responses weren’t very helpful—mostly general statements that he’d done well. Now, to get more concrete and actionable suggestions, he asks, “What is one thing I could do better next time?” Asking for a specific tip as opposed to a general evaluation tends to generate better feedback.
When we make a mistake, perform poorly, or otherwise fail to live up to our expectations, how do we avoid letting that negative experience consume our thoughts? Adam offers two strategies to avoid spiraling into negativity: distraction and reframing.
Distraction: Find something else to consume your attention, unrelated to what you failed at.
Reframing: Take a different perspective on your failure. For example, as a former competitive diver, Adam used to see diving as a big part of his identity—and bad practice days made him feel worthless. His diving coach reframed those bad days by asking two questions: “Did you make yourself better today? Did you make someone else better today?” The questions reframed the goal of practice to be about improving and helping others improve rather than just about performing well.
We’re blind to not only our weaknesses, but also our strengths. Adam suggests the Reflected Best Self exercise to find out about the personal strengths you’re not aware of. This involves contacting 10-20 people who know you well in different walks of life (e.g., family members, colleagues, friends) and asking them to tell a story about a time when you were at your best. After collecting these anecdotes, you can then comb through them and look for common patterns and themes. People who go through this process end up with more clarity about what they’re good at.
We have four modes of thinking: as preachers, prosecutors, politicians, or scientists. Adam explains each mode, noting that the first three often prevent you from questioning your own assumptions and beliefs.
Preachers proselytize their views. This way of thinking often makes for great salespeople and visionary leaders.
Prosecutors attack others’ ideas to prove them wrong. Adam says prosecutor mode is his biggest vice, as others have called him a “logic bully.” Prosecutors excel at taking apart other people’s reasoning.
Politicians don’t bother listening to others unless they have the same views. They lobby and campaign to gain approval.
Scientists—the mode of thinking Adam recommends adopting—are curious and seek out new knowledge. They have the humility to know what they don’t know. When people are taught to think like scientists, their judgment and decision-making improve. “All of your opinions are just hypotheses waiting to be tested,” Adam explains. “All of your decisions are experiments.” Rather than trying to prove that you’re right, the goal is to find out whether you’re wrong, and if so, to change your opinion.
How do you balance authenticity and etiquette? Both Andrew and Adam agree that you can’t justify disrespectful behavior by claiming you were being true to yourself. Adam points out that as humans, we all have “multiple selves,” thanks to our thoughts, emotions, values, and personalities. That means authenticity sometimes means being in conflict with oneself.
“We all could be authentic to one part of ourselves and inauthentic to another part,” Adam points out. “I think the most important part is to ask, ‘What do I stand for?’ And if I'm what I'm about to communicate is not consistent with that, then maybe I could self-censor.”
Thoughts
If you made it this far, thank you for being here! These are my final sketch notes for the year as I move on to other projects: writing, painting, and more generally, trying to figure out the next steps of my career.
The best way to support Sketch Pad is by liking this post on Substack or sharing these notes with someone who might enjoy them. If you’re new, you might find something of interest in Sketch Pad’s archive.
As always, feel free to reply to this email or leave a comment on Substack with your podcast recommendations. I’ll still be listening to a lot of podcasts this holiday season :)
See you in 2024!
–Joyce
Thank you for this! I really like this one