I think, therefore I am...

I was recently watching an episode of the hillarious Netflix series 'Cunk on Earth'.  The series, on its surface, starts with exploring the history of the world, in the style of the great Sir David Attenborough in BBC Earth, but frequently lapses into nonsensical questions and remarks.  In one passage of the episode I was watching, Cunk makes fun of the famous philosphical dictum 'I think, therefore I am' (reputedly coined by the 17th century French phisopher Rene Descartes) and goes into some convoluted ruminations on that, and also asks hillarious questions of an expert.

But, quite apart from all that Descartes meant to convey by the phrase, this seems to have a surprising parallel to the world of quantum physics.  As physicists like Carlo Rovelli (in his 'Helgoland', a history of how quantum theory was postulated in 1920s and then developed by a series of renowned scientists, many of them Nobel laureates) like to explain, anything in this world exists only in as much as it interacts with other things.  It's like answering the age old question 'If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, did it actually fall' with a 'No', since it didn't 'interact' with anyone.  In that sense, it seems all things actually exist only as... ummm... possibilities or potential, not as real things, and 'pop into being' only when they interact with other things.  In the style of the elusive particles the observed behaviour of which apparently gave rise to the whole discipline of quantum physics.

But coming back to philosophy, it may also be said that even human beings exist only as possibilities or potential, in the rhetorical sense at least.  Positive Psychology guru Martin Seligman says that more than half of us are 'living in the future', that we're constantly thinking about future scenarios moment to moment, sometimes based on things done in the past and often predicted by what we intend to do.  But all such future plans are potential only, good or bad, and fructify as concrete things only when our plans or intentions are translated into actual action...

Book Review - 'Think Again' by Adam Grant

The subtitle of this book is 'The power of knowing what you don't know', and this describes very well the whole premise of the book, that we need to consider letting go of our set ways of thinking, to be able to enhance our understanding and knowledge of how things work in this increasingly VUCA - volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous - world.

The successive chapters of the book describe ways to deal with different aspects of the rethinking process: personal, interpersonal, collective, organizational and for kids.  Certain ideas in the book expand upon well-known strategies for fresh thinking, supporting the same with scientific and behavioural research findings.  Ideas like 'think like a scientist', constructing and testing hypothesis; 'persuasive listening', taking account of the 'question to statement ratio'; debunk myths for kids, stop asking them 'what do you want to be when you grow up'; and (in an organizational setting) foster psychological safety.

Some of the perspectives brought out well in the book hit home accurately.  For instance the thought about avoiding to be 'stranded on Mount Stupid', courtesy over confidence and misplaced reliance on a stand (haven't we met such 'stranded' people so many times!).  Grant also goes into some detail on different aspects of conflict.  First off, he recommends not only being receptive about but actively seeking contrary views, to counteract confirmation bias.  Towards this, he suggests building a 'challenge network', beyond the support network most of all strive for.  He posits the 'benefits of doubt', and suggests celebrating the 'joy of being wrong'.

But Grant also alerts the reader that while 'task conflict' is constructive and beneficial, allowing it to  become 'relationship conflict' is fraught with risks.  He posits that interpersonal conflicts need to be handled more like a dance and less like a battle. Towards this, he shares some strategies.  Like ask more 'How' questions, instead of more 'Whys' which may potentially harden the listener's stance.  Also, 'less is more': don't pile on too many arguments, which anyway makes the opponent put up their defences, and instead lead with a few strong points.  And while doing that, respect the autonomy of the other party, their choice to make their own decisions - don't be a 'logic bully', as one of Grant's former students apparently called him when bombarded with a flurry of arguments for career choices.  Seems many of us may've been at the wrong end of such 'over argument' from 'logic bullies'!

A large part of the book's appeal lies in the counterintuitive thoughts which Grant brings in, things which we don't readily think about.  Things like 'complexify', which goes opposite the buzzword of simplifying everything.  Grant argues that focusing on shades of grey of certain things or situations actually helps bring in more realistic and relevant perspectives, and thus helps us resolve or understand issues better.  Another advice, for oganizations this time, is to abandon 'best practices' (ah... aren't we all upto our gills with this term!), as the term assumes that we're already in the best place possible.  Instead, he says strive for 'better practices' on a continual basis.

Overall, a gem of a book which really makes the reader think about the act of Thinking, and equips us to deal with the ever-changing world in a better way.