|
}}
{{Section separator}}
== Introduction ==
}}
📘 '''''{{Tooltip|Think Again}}''''' ({{Tooltip|Viking}}, 2 February 2021) is {{Tooltip|Adam Grant’s nonfictionGrant}}’s guide to the practice of rethinking—urging readers to replacerethinking—replacing “preacher, prosecutor, politician” mindsets with a scientist’s habit of testing beliefs and updating them.<ref name="PRH2021" />
GrantIt blends social-science research with case-led storytelling toand teachteaches tools such as persuasive listening that persuades and building “challenge networks,” illustrated withby an international debate champion, a musician who deradicalizes, and a “vaccine whisperer.”<ref name="PRH2021" />
{{Tooltip|Library Journal}} describedcalled the book asit a “fast-paced account” byfrom a leading authority on the psychology of thinking, noting its accessibilityaccessible forto general readers.<ref name="LibraryJournal2020">{{cite web |title=Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know |url=https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/think-again-the-power-of-knowing-what-you-dont-know |website=Library Journal |publisher=Library Journal |date=1 December 2020 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
Structurally,The the textbook is organized in three sections—individual, interpersonal, and collective rethinking—followed by a concluding chapter.<ref name="PRHHE2021">{{cite web |title=Think Again |url=https://penguinrandomhousehighereducation.com/book/?isbn=9780593395783 |website=Penguin Random House Higher Education |publisher=Penguin Random House |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
The first edition (320 pages; ISBN 978-1-9848-7810-6) was publishedappeared in hardcover on 2 February 2021 byfrom {{Tooltip|Viking}}.<ref name="PRH2021" /><ref name="OCLC1191456279">{{cite web |title=Think again : the power of knowing what you don't know |url=https://search.worldcat.org/title/Think-again-%3A-the-power-of-knowing-what-you-don%27t-know/oclc/1191456279 |website=WorldCat |publisher=OCLC |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
The publisher lists the titlebook as a #1 New York Times bestseller, and it appeared on year-end lists from ''{{Tooltip|The Washington Post}}'' and ''{{Tooltip|Newsweek}}'' in 2021.<ref name="PRH2021" /><ref name="WaPoBest2021">{{cite news |title=Best nonfiction of 2021 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/11/18/best-nonfiction-2021/ |work=The Washington Post |date=18 November 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="NewsweekFav2021">{{cite news |title=Our 21 Favorite Books of 2021 |url=https://www.newsweek.com/our-21-favorite-books-2021-1661466 |work=Newsweek |date=22 December 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
{{Section separator}}
== Chapter summary ==
=== Part I – Individual Rethinking: Updating Our Own Views === ▼''This outline follows the Viking hardcover edition (2 February 2021, ISBN 978-1-9848-7810-6).''<ref name="PRH2021">{{cite web |title=Think Again by Adam Grant |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/607660/think-again-by-adam-grant/ |website=Penguin Random House |publisher=Penguin Random House |date=2 February 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="OCLC1191456279">{{cite web |title=Think again : the power of knowing what you don't know |url=https://search.worldcat.org/title/Think-again-%3A-the-power-of-knowing-what-you-don%27t-know/oclc/1191456279 |website=WorldCat |publisher=OCLC |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> ▼
=== Chapter 1 – A Preacher, a Prosecutor, a Politician, and a Scientist Walk into Your Mind ===
▲=== I – Individual Rethinking: Updating Our Own Views ===
🧠 '''1 – A Preacher, a Prosecutor, a Politician, and a Scientist Walk into Your Mind.''' In {{Tooltip|Milan }}, more than a hundred Italian startup founders entered a four‑monthfour-month entrepreneurship program and were randomly assigned either to standard training or to add “scientist’s goggles,” treating strategies as hypotheses, interviews as hypothesis generation, and prototypes as experiments. Over the following year the control group averaged under $300 in revenue, while the scientific‑thinkingscientific-thinking group averaged over $12,000, pivoted more than twice as often, and won customers sooner. The chapter introduces {{Tooltip|Phil Tetlock’sTetlock}}’s three mindsets—preacher, prosecutor, politician—to showpolitician—show how identity can eclipse evidence when we defend sacred beliefs, hunt for others’ errors, or chase approval. {{Tooltip|Stephen Greenspan’sGreenspan}}’s cautionary tale illustrates the cost: he invested nearly a third of his retirement savings in a fund tied to {{Tooltip|Bernie Madoff }}, watched it rise 25 percent, and then lost it overnight when the Ponzi scheme collapsed. {{Tooltip|Mike Lazaridis’sLazaridis}}’s {{Tooltip|BlackBerry }} offers a corporate parallel: after marveling at the first iPhone in 2007 and overseeing a company valued above $70 billion in 2008, he still resisted adding a robust browser . andHe later balked at features like encrypted messaging—an opening {{Tooltip|WhatsApp }} eventually seized in a $19 billion acquisition—because he didn’tfailed to test alternatives to his favored device model. The chaptertraps namesinclude the traps—confirmationconfirmation bias, desirability bias, and the “I’m not biased” bias—andbias, shows howand intelligence can harden certainty rather than sharpen accuracy. Thinking like a scientist means tyingties identity to the quest for truth, not to any one idea; it normalizes runningrun small tests, seekingseek disconfirming data, and revisingrevise models . By shifting from identity‑protective reasoning to evidence‑based updating, we build a rethinkingso cycle—humilityhumility, curiosity, and discovery—thatdiscovery keepsprevent success from calcifying into dogma. ▼
=== Chapter 2 – The Armchair Quarterback and the Impostor: Finding the Sweet Spot of Confidence ===
▲🧠 '''1 – A Preacher, a Prosecutor, a Politician, and a Scientist Walk into Your Mind.''' In Milan, more than a hundred Italian startup founders entered a four‑month entrepreneurship program and were randomly assigned either to standard training or to add “scientist’s goggles,” treating strategies as hypotheses, interviews as hypothesis generation, and prototypes as experiments. Over the following year the control group averaged under $300 in revenue, while the scientific‑thinking group averaged over $12,000, pivoted more than twice as often, and won customers sooner. The chapter introduces Phil Tetlock’s three mindsets—preacher, prosecutor, politician—to show how identity can eclipse evidence when we defend sacred beliefs, hunt for others’ errors, or chase approval. Stephen Greenspan’s cautionary tale illustrates the cost: he invested nearly a third of his retirement savings in a fund tied to Bernie Madoff, watched it rise 25 percent, and then lost it overnight when the Ponzi scheme collapsed. Mike Lazaridis’s BlackBerry offers a corporate parallel: after marveling at the first iPhone in 2007 and overseeing a company valued above $70 billion in 2008, he still resisted adding a robust browser and later balked at features like encrypted messaging—an opening WhatsApp eventually seized in a $19 billion acquisition—because he didn’t test alternatives to his favored device model. The chapter names the traps—confirmation bias, desirability bias, and the “I’m not biased” bias—and shows how intelligence can harden certainty rather than sharpen accuracy. Thinking like a scientist means tying identity to the quest for truth, not to any one idea; it normalizes running small tests, seeking disconfirming data, and revising models. By shifting from identity‑protective reasoning to evidence‑based updating, we build a rethinking cycle—humility, curiosity, and discovery—that keeps success from calcifying into dogma.
🪑 '''2 – The Armchair Quarterback and the Impostor: Finding the Sweet Spot of Confidence.''' {{Tooltip|Ursula Mercz }}, a seamstress admitted to a clinic with headaches and dizziness, insisted she could still see despite neurological blindness—a classic sign of {{Tooltip|Anton’s syndrome }} and a metaphor for how people can be blind to their own blind spots. TheTwo chapterIcelandic figures then contrastsbracket twothe Icelandic figuresrange: business leader Halla Tómasdóttir, publicly petitioned in 2015 to run for president, who hesitated out of self‑doubtself-doubt yet ultimately finished second with more than a quarter of the vote, andwhile former prime minister Davíð Oddsson , whoseprojected unwavering confidence belieddespite earlier failures. These cases bracketmap theonto {{Tooltip|Dunning–Kruger pattern}}: the unskilled can be overconfident “armchair quarterbacks,” whileand capable people often underrate themselves as “impostors.” Practical antidotes include objective yardsticks, learning goals, and “confident humility,” illustrated by {{Tooltip|Sara Blakely }} teaching herself hosiery manufacturing and patent basics before launching {{Tooltip|Spanx }}. Research cited from {{Tooltip|Basima Tewfik }} shows that professionals with impostor thoughts can be rated more interpersonally effective, and {{Tooltip|Danielle Tussing’s study inTussing}}’s rotating charge‑nursecharge-nurse rolesstudy finds that those who felt some hesitation sought second opinions and led teams more effectively. The chapter’s throughline is calibration: matchCalibrate confidence to competence by anchoring self‑beliefself-belief in evidence and treattreating doubt as a cue to prepare and listen .; Thekeep mechanismtesting isassumptions continuous re‑estimation—actively sampling feedback, inviting disconfirmation, and usingso humility to powerpowers learning while confidence sustains action. ▼
=== Chapter 3 – The Joy of Being Wrong: The Thrill of Not Believing Everything You Think ===
▲🪑 '''2 – The Armchair Quarterback and the Impostor: Finding the Sweet Spot of Confidence.''' Ursula Mercz, a seamstress admitted to a clinic with headaches and dizziness, insisted she could still see despite neurological blindness—a classic sign of Anton’s syndrome and a metaphor for how people can be blind to their own blind spots. The chapter then contrasts two Icelandic figures: business leader Halla Tómasdóttir, publicly petitioned in 2015 to run for president, who hesitated out of self‑doubt yet ultimately finished second with more than a quarter of the vote, and former prime minister Davíð Oddsson, whose unwavering confidence belied earlier failures. These cases bracket the Dunning–Kruger pattern: the unskilled can be overconfident “armchair quarterbacks,” while capable people often underrate themselves as “impostors.” Practical antidotes include objective yardsticks, learning goals, and “confident humility,” illustrated by Sara Blakely teaching herself hosiery manufacturing and patent basics before launching Spanx. Research cited from Basima Tewfik shows that professionals with impostor thoughts can be rated more interpersonally effective, and Danielle Tussing’s study in rotating charge‑nurse roles finds that those who felt some hesitation sought second opinions and led teams more effectively. The chapter’s throughline is calibration: match confidence to competence by anchoring self‑belief in evidence and treat doubt as a cue to prepare and listen. The mechanism is continuous re‑estimation—actively sampling feedback, inviting disconfirmation, and using humility to power learning while confidence sustains action.
🤯 '''3 – The Joy of Being Wrong: The Thrill of Not Believing Everything You Think.''' Nobel Prize–winning psychologist {{Tooltip|Daniel Kahneman }} models what delight in error looks like: when evidence overturns his view, he reacts with curiosity and genuine enthusiasm rather than defensiveness. That posture—holding ideas lightly—sets up the chapter’s theme thatlightly—treats mistakes areas data, not threats to identity. Evidence from the {{Tooltip|Good Judgment Project }}, a multi‑yearmulti-year forecasting tournament run for {{Tooltip|IARPA }} from 2011 to 2015, shows that the most accurate forecasters treated beliefs as working hypotheses and updated their probabilities frequently, improving their {{Tooltip|Brier scores }} over time. These “superforecasters” didn’t succeed by certainty; they succeeded by revising early and often, even when revisions meant admitting yesterday’s confidence was misplaced. The chapter traces how identity‑protectiveIdentity-protective thinking—equating “I’m right” with “I am”—blocks this learning loop and makes disconfirming facts feel like personal attacks. It suggests simpleSimple tests ofloosen attachment , like: askingask what evidence would change one’syour mind or writingwrite down conditions that would trigger a pivot. It also stresses theThe social side ofmatters errortoo: surroundingsurround ourselvesyourself with people who notice when we’reyou’re off and make it safe to acknowledge it. Taken together, the stories and studies reframe wrongness as a milestone on the path to being more right tomorrow. The central move is emotional as much as intellectual: takeTake pride in revising beliefs faster, not in defending them longer . Mechanistically,; progress comes from decoupling identity from opinions and replacing confirmation with hypothesis testing—frequenttesting through frequent updates, explicit falsification tests, and an open invitationdoor for disconfirming feedback. ▼
=== Chapter 4 – The Good Fight Club: The Psychology of Constructive Conflict ===
▲🤯 '''3 – The Joy of Being Wrong: The Thrill of Not Believing Everything You Think.''' Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman models what delight in error looks like: when evidence overturns his view, he reacts with curiosity and genuine enthusiasm rather than defensiveness. That posture—holding ideas lightly—sets up the chapter’s theme that mistakes are data, not threats to identity. Evidence from the Good Judgment Project, a multi‑year forecasting tournament run for IARPA from 2011 to 2015, shows that the most accurate forecasters treated beliefs as working hypotheses and updated their probabilities frequently, improving their Brier scores over time. These “superforecasters” didn’t succeed by certainty; they succeeded by revising early and often, even when revisions meant admitting yesterday’s confidence was misplaced. The chapter traces how identity‑protective thinking—equating “I’m right” with “I am”—blocks this learning loop and makes disconfirming facts feel like personal attacks. It suggests simple tests of attachment, like asking what evidence would change one’s mind or writing down conditions that would trigger a pivot. It also stresses the social side of error: surrounding ourselves with people who notice when we’re off and make it safe to acknowledge it. Taken together, the stories and studies reframe wrongness as a milestone on the path to being more right tomorrow. The central move is emotional as much as intellectual: take pride in revising beliefs faster, not in defending them longer. Mechanistically, progress comes from decoupling identity from opinions and replacing confirmation with hypothesis testing—frequent updates, explicit falsification tests, and an open invitation for disconfirming feedback.
🥊 '''4 – The Good Fight Club: The Psychology of Constructive Conflict.''' In 2000 at {{Tooltip|Pixar }}, leaders hired director {{Tooltip|Brad Bird }} to “shake things up”; technical heads initially told himsaid his vision would take a decade and $500 million, so he built a team of self‑describedself-described misfits, invited rigorous debate, and four years later delivered Pixar’s most complex film to date while reducing cost per minute of animation. That story illustrates how dissent, whenDissent aimed at ideas , not people, becomes an engine for quality. Drawing on researchResearch by {{Tooltip|Karen “Etty” Jehn , the chapter}} distinguishes task conflict (clashes over content and process) from relationship conflict (personal friction) and shows that teams with low relational friction can tolerate—and benefit from—high task conflict. An experiment by {{Tooltip|Jennifer Chatman }} and {{Tooltip|Sigal Barsade }} foundfinds that agreeableness adapts to norms: in cooperative climates , agreeable people stayedstay accommodating, but in competitive climates they pushedpush back as hard as their disagreeable peers, underscoring thathow context shapes whether conflict helps or harms. TheCreative narrativework widensechoes tothe creative workpattern: Brad Bird’s “good fights” in story meetings sharpened scenes, and the {{Tooltip|Wright brothers’brothers}}’ spirited arguments over propeller design illustrate how disagreeing well improvesimproved solutions. Practical safeguardsSafeguards include naming the shared goal, framing disputes as debates, and separating critiques of work from judgments of worth. A “challenge network” of disagreeable givers—peers who care enough to criticize—keeps blind spots visible and prevents leaders from drifting into yes‑manyes-man traps. At heart, the chapter shows that harmony isn’t the absence of conflict but the presence of productiveProductive tension that moves ideas forward . The mechanism is structural and social: cultivatewhen norms that welcome task conflict while protecting relationships, and recruit critics who will pressure‑testpressure-test assumptions so the best ideas, not the loudest egos, win. ▼
{{Section separator}}
▲🥊 '''4 – The Good Fight Club: The Psychology of Constructive Conflict.''' In 2000 at Pixar, leaders hired director Brad Bird to “shake things up”; technical heads initially told him his vision would take a decade and $500 million, so he built a team of self‑described misfits, invited rigorous debate, and four years later delivered Pixar’s most complex film to date while reducing cost per minute of animation. That story illustrates how dissent, when aimed at ideas not people, becomes an engine for quality. Drawing on research by Karen “Etty” Jehn, the chapter distinguishes task conflict (clashes over content and process) from relationship conflict (personal friction) and shows that teams with low relational friction can tolerate—and benefit from—high task conflict. An experiment by Jennifer Chatman and Sigal Barsade found that agreeableness adapts to norms: in cooperative climates, agreeable people stayed accommodating, but in competitive climates they pushed back as hard as their disagreeable peers, underscoring that context shapes whether conflict helps or harms. The narrative widens to creative work: Brad Bird’s “good fights” in story meetings sharpened scenes, and the Wright brothers’ spirited arguments over propeller design illustrate how disagreeing well improves solutions. Practical safeguards include naming the shared goal, framing disputes as debates, and separating critiques of work from judgments of worth. A “challenge network” of disagreeable givers—peers who care enough to criticize—keeps blind spots visible and prevents leaders from drifting into yes‑man traps. At heart, the chapter shows that harmony isn’t the absence of conflict but the presence of productive tension that moves ideas forward. The mechanism is structural and social: cultivate norms that welcome task conflict while protecting relationships, and recruit critics who will pressure‑test assumptions so the best ideas, not the loudest egos, win.
=== Part II – Interpersonal Rethinking: Opening Other People's Minds === ▼
=== Chapter 5 – Dances with Foes: How to Win Debates and Influence People ===
▲=== II – Interpersonal Rethinking: Opening Other People's Minds ===
🗣️ '''5 – Dances with Foes: How to Win Debates and Influence People.''' At {{Tooltip|IBM’s Think conference }} in San Francisco on 11 February 2019, debate champion {{Tooltip|Harish Natarajan }} faced IBM’s {{Tooltip|Project Debater }} before a large live audience on the motion “We should subsidize preschools.” {{Tooltip|Intelligence Squared U.S. }} hosted the event, with moderator John Donvan giving each side 15 minutes to prepare, a four‑minutefour-minute opening, a four‑minutefour-minute rebuttal, and a two‑minutetwo-minute close. A pre‑debatepre-debate poll showed most attendees favored subsidies, and the winner would be whoever shifted more minds by the end. Natarajan listened first, surfaced common ground, and then advanced a few strong counterpoints rather than a scattershot list, echoing research on expert negotiators who ask more questions and make fewer, sharper arguments. He steel‑mannedsteel-manned the AI’s case by restating its best claims and then probing assumptions and trade‑offstrade-offs. Post‑debatePost-debate voting swung enough to award him the victory even as many spectators reported learning from the machine’s torrent of evidence. TheRepeatable chaptermoves teases out repeatable movesfollow: lead with curiosity, frame debates as joint problem‑solvingproblem-solving, and invite the other side to help set the terms for what would change your mind. In essence, persuasionPersuasion works better when it feels like a dance , thannot a duel, with both partners adjusting step by step toward overlap. It works by loweringduel—lower psychological reactance and fostering autonomy: ask genuine questions, present a small number of well‑supportedwell-supported reasons, and let people reason their own way to a revised view. ▼
=== Chapter 6 – Bad Blood on the Diamond: Diminishing Prejudice by Destabilizing Stereotypes ===
▲🗣️ '''5 – Dances with Foes: How to Win Debates and Influence People.''' At IBM’s Think conference in San Francisco on 11 February 2019, debate champion Harish Natarajan faced IBM’s Project Debater before a large live audience on the motion “We should subsidize preschools.” Intelligence Squared U.S. hosted the event, with moderator John Donvan giving each side 15 minutes to prepare, a four‑minute opening, a four‑minute rebuttal, and a two‑minute close. A pre‑debate poll showed most attendees favored subsidies, and the winner would be whoever shifted more minds by the end. Natarajan listened first, surfaced common ground, and then advanced a few strong counterpoints rather than a scattershot list, echoing research on expert negotiators who ask more questions and make fewer, sharper arguments. He steel‑manned the AI’s case by restating its best claims and then probing assumptions and trade‑offs. Post‑debate voting swung enough to award him the victory even as many spectators reported learning from the machine’s torrent of evidence. The chapter teases out repeatable moves: lead with curiosity, frame debates as joint problem‑solving, and invite the other side to help set the terms for what would change your mind. In essence, persuasion works better when it feels like a dance than a duel, with both partners adjusting step by step toward overlap. It works by lowering psychological reactance and fostering autonomy: ask genuine questions, present a small number of well‑supported reasons, and let people reason their own way to a revised view.
⚾ '''6 – Bad Blood on the Diamond: Diminishing Prejudice by Destabilizing Stereotypes.''' Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s childhood confession of hating the Yankees sets the stage forshows how the {{Tooltip|Boston Red Sox–New York Yankees rivalry }} models tribal thinking that easily hardens into prejudice. The chapter shows how loyaltiesLoyalties born from accidents of birth—what city we grow up in, which colors our family cheers—can morph into sweeping stereotypes about rivals. Drawing on fieldField experiments around baseball fandom and the working idea that “bad blood” is often arbitrary , it demonstratesdemonstrate that highlighting the contingency of allegiances softens hostility. Counterfactual prompts—asking fans what they’d believe if they’d been born into the other city—and individuating stories complicate one‑dimensionalone-dimensional caricatures. The narrative widens to {{Tooltip|Daryl Davis }}, a Black blues musician in the {{Tooltip|Washington, D.C. }}, area,offers whosea stark example: patient conversations with {{Tooltip|Ku Klux Klan }} members led some to renounce the organization and hand over their robes, illustratingshowing how respectful contact destabilizes stereotypes. Empathy exercises that focus on a specific out‑groupout-group individual can also flip in‑groupin-group helping biases, especially when people see overlapping identities and goals. Together these tools chip away at identity‑protectiveidentity-protective thinking and make room for nuance without demanding anyone abandon community ties. At bottom, progress against prejudiceProgress starts by exposing how flimsy many group labels are and replacing monolithic categories with concrete, conflicting details . The mechanism is cognitive and social:; counterfactual thinking, shared identities, and humanizing contact disrupt snap generalizations so people update the stories they tell about who “they” are. ▼
=== Chapter 7 – Vaccine Whisperers and Mild-Mannered Interrogators: How the Right Kind of Listening Motivates People to Change ===
▲⚾ '''6 – Bad Blood on the Diamond: Diminishing Prejudice by Destabilizing Stereotypes.''' Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s childhood confession of hating the Yankees sets the stage for how the Boston Red Sox–New York Yankees rivalry models tribal thinking that easily hardens into prejudice. The chapter shows how loyalties born from accidents of birth—what city we grow up in, which colors our family cheers—can morph into sweeping stereotypes about rivals. Drawing on field experiments around baseball fandom and the working idea that “bad blood” is often arbitrary, it demonstrates that highlighting the contingency of allegiances softens hostility. Counterfactual prompts—asking fans what they’d believe if they’d been born into the other city—and individuating stories complicate one‑dimensional caricatures. The narrative widens to Daryl Davis, a Black blues musician in the Washington, D.C., area, whose patient conversations with Ku Klux Klan members led some to renounce the organization and hand over their robes, illustrating how respectful contact destabilizes stereotypes. Empathy exercises that focus on a specific out‑group individual can also flip in‑group helping biases, especially when people see overlapping identities and goals. Together these tools chip away at identity‑protective thinking and make room for nuance without demanding anyone abandon community ties. At bottom, progress against prejudice starts by exposing how flimsy many group labels are and replacing monolithic categories with concrete, conflicting details. The mechanism is cognitive and social: counterfactual thinking, shared identities, and humanizing contact disrupt snap generalizations so people update the stories they tell about who “they” are.
💉 '''7 – Vaccine Whisperers and Mild-Mannered Interrogators: How the Right Kind of Listening Motivates People to Change.''' In {{Tooltip|Sherbrooke, Québec }}, Marie‑HélèneMarie-Hélène Étienne‑RousseauÉtienne-Rousseau delivered a premature son, Tobie, in 2018 and planned to refuse the newborn’s vaccines; neonatologist {{Tooltip|Arnaud Gagneur }} met her at the University of Sherbrooke’s{{Tooltip|Sherbrooke}}’s {{Tooltip|Fleurimont Hospital }} for an unhurried conversation rooted in motivational interviewing. He asked open questions, reflected her worries, and asked permission before sharing information, ending by affirming the decision was hers. Weeks later, after reading about local measles risk, she chose to vaccinate her older children at home and approved Tobie’s shots before discharge. The story sits within Québec’s “PromoVac”“{{Tooltip|PromoVac}}” program , which placed vaccination counselors in maternity wards and, in trials, improved early‑infantearly-infant vaccine coverage versus usual care. TheLaw chapterenforcement thenoffers turnsa toparallel: “mild‑mannered interrogators” in law enforcement, where rapport‑basedrapport-based interviewing and language‑stylelanguage-style matching elicit more accurate information than confrontational, confession‑drivenconfession-driven tactics. Across settings , the pattern is consistentholds: preaching and pressure trigger resistance, while reflective listening and autonomy support invite “change talk.” TheUse the cadence—ask, reflect, affirm, summarize, and ask again—scalesagain—to scale from hospital rooms to tense negotiations without sacrificing truth or agency. In short, listeningListening that respects people’s goals often persuades better than arguing from authority .; Itself-persuasion workssticks by activating self‑persuasion:when people voice their own reasons for change , whichand makes new commitments stick while thea interviewer’scurious curiosityinterviewer keeps the rethinking cycle alive. ▼
{{Section separator}}
▲💉 '''7 – Vaccine Whisperers and Mild-Mannered Interrogators: How the Right Kind of Listening Motivates People to Change.''' In Sherbrooke, Québec, Marie‑Hélène Étienne‑Rousseau delivered a premature son, Tobie, in 2018 and planned to refuse the newborn’s vaccines; neonatologist Arnaud Gagneur met her at the University of Sherbrooke’s Fleurimont Hospital for an unhurried conversation rooted in motivational interviewing. He asked open questions, reflected her worries, and asked permission before sharing information, ending by affirming the decision was hers. Weeks later, after reading about local measles risk, she chose to vaccinate her older children at home and approved Tobie’s shots before discharge. The story sits within Québec’s “PromoVac” program, which placed vaccination counselors in maternity wards and, in trials, improved early‑infant vaccine coverage versus usual care. The chapter then turns to “mild‑mannered interrogators” in law enforcement, where rapport‑based interviewing and language‑style matching elicit more accurate information than confrontational, confession‑driven tactics. Across settings, the pattern is consistent: preaching and pressure trigger resistance, while reflective listening and autonomy support invite “change talk.” The cadence—ask, reflect, affirm, summarize, and ask again—scales from hospital rooms to tense negotiations without sacrificing truth or agency. In short, listening that respects people’s goals often persuades better than arguing from authority. It works by activating self‑persuasion: people voice their own reasons for change, which makes new commitments stick while the interviewer’s curiosity keeps the rethinking cycle alive.
== Part III – Collective Rethinking: Creating Communities of Lifelong Learners ==
=== IIIChapter 8 – CollectiveCharged RethinkingConversations: Creating CommunitiesDepolarizing ofOur LifelongDivided LearnersDiscussions ===
⚡ '''8 – Charged Conversations: Depolarizing Our Divided Discussions.''' At {{Tooltip|Columbia University’s Difficult Conversations Lab }}, psychologist {{Tooltip|Peter T. Coleman }} pairs strangers who disagree on polarizing issues and studies what helps them talk productively. In one lab setup, participants first read about gun control: if the article argued one side, they had roughly a 46% chance of drafting a joint statement; if it framed the topic as complex with shades of gray, every pair found common ground. TheThis chapter names this“complexifying” move “complexifying” to countercounters binary bias—the tendency to compress a spectrum into two boxes—and shows why merely presenting “both sides” can entrench polarization. ItEmotion alsomatters spotlights the role of emotion, finding thattoo: conversations go better when people experiencefeel a mix of feelings—curiositymix—curiosity alongside anxiety—rather than being locked in anger. Techniques from persuasion research reinforce the point: ask genuine questions, map the full range of positions, and, when useful, morally reframe arguments to align with the other side’s values without distorting facts. Across examples, theThe aim is not to win a verdict but to make thinking more granular so agreement has more places to land. The core idea is that complexity—notComplexity—not combat—creates conditions for rethinking; by expanding the menu of plausible views and feelings, people stop defending identities and start updating beliefs. The mechanism is cognitive and emotional: replace either/or with a spectrum and broaden the affective palette , whichto reducesreduce reactance and invitesinvite cooperative problem‑solving. ''When conflict is cliché, complexity is breaking newsproblem-solving. ''▼
=== Chapter 9 – Rewriting the Textbook: Teaching Students to Question Knowledge ===
▲⚡ '''8 – Charged Conversations: Depolarizing Our Divided Discussions.''' At Columbia University’s Difficult Conversations Lab, psychologist Peter T. Coleman pairs strangers who disagree on polarizing issues and studies what helps them talk productively. In one lab setup, participants first read about gun control: if the article argued one side, they had roughly a 46% chance of drafting a joint statement; if it framed the topic as complex with shades of gray, every pair found common ground. The chapter names this move “complexifying” to counter binary bias—the tendency to compress a spectrum into two boxes—and shows why merely presenting “both sides” can entrench polarization. It also spotlights the role of emotion, finding that conversations go better when people experience a mix of feelings—curiosity alongside anxiety—rather than being locked in anger. Techniques from persuasion research reinforce the point: ask genuine questions, map the full range of positions, and, when useful, morally reframe arguments to align with the other side’s values without distorting facts. Across examples, the aim is not to win a verdict but to make thinking more granular so agreement has more places to land. The core idea is that complexity—not combat—creates conditions for rethinking; by expanding the menu of plausible views and feelings, people stop defending identities and start updating beliefs. The mechanism is cognitive and emotional: replace either/or with a spectrum and broaden the affective palette, which reduces reactance and invites cooperative problem‑solving. ''When conflict is cliché, complexity is breaking news.''
📚 '''9 – Rewriting the Textbook: Teaching Students to Question Knowledge.''' Wisconsin social‑studiessocial-studies teacher Erin McCarthy hands her eighth graders a 1940 history textbook and asks them to read it like investigators, noting errors, omissions, and slanted language; the exercise jolts students into seeing knowledge as provisional, not permanent. She then assignshas them to rewrite sections and, in another lesson, to study a chapter drafted entirely from girls’ and women’s perspectives, which helps some boys feel how a single‑lenssingle-lens narrative distorts the record. TheClassroom chaptervignettes threadsconnect these classroom vignettes withto research showing that active learning—questioning sources, comparing accounts, and teaching others—beats passive lecture for durable understanding. {{Tooltip|Ron Berger’sBerger}}’s “Austin’s“{{Tooltip|Austin’s Butterfly”Butterfly}}” protocol supplies a concrete craft: a first grader at {{Tooltip|Anser Charter School }} in Boise takes a scientific illustration through multiple drafts, guided by kind, specific peer critique, until the work becomes precise. Students learn to check whether the “sender is the source,” to resist popularity and rankings as proxies for truth, and to ask questions that don’t have just one right answer. Rather than cramming facts, they practice argument literacy: how claims are built, tested, and revised. The core idea is to positionPosition school as a workshop for rethinking—whererethinking—treat confusion is treated as a cue for inquiry and expect drafts are expected on the way to clarity. The mechanism is structural:clarity—and bake uncertainty, multiple perspectives, and iterative feedback into tasks so curiosity and intellectual humility become habits, not slogans. ▼
=== Chapter 10 – That’s Not the Way We’ve Always Done It: Building Cultures of Learning at Work ===
▲📚 '''9 – Rewriting the Textbook: Teaching Students to Question Knowledge.''' Wisconsin social‑studies teacher Erin McCarthy hands her eighth graders a 1940 history textbook and asks them to read it like investigators, noting errors, omissions, and slanted language; the exercise jolts students into seeing knowledge as provisional, not permanent. She then assigns them to rewrite sections and, in another lesson, to study a chapter drafted entirely from girls’ and women’s perspectives, which helps some boys feel how a single‑lens narrative distorts the record. The chapter threads these classroom vignettes with research showing that active learning—questioning sources, comparing accounts, and teaching others—beats passive lecture for durable understanding. Ron Berger’s “Austin’s Butterfly” protocol supplies a concrete craft: a first grader at Anser Charter School in Boise takes a scientific illustration through multiple drafts, guided by kind, specific peer critique, until the work becomes precise. Students learn to check whether the “sender is the source,” to resist popularity and rankings as proxies for truth, and to ask questions that don’t have just one right answer. Rather than cramming facts, they practice argument literacy: how claims are built, tested, and revised. The core idea is to position school as a workshop for rethinking—where confusion is treated as a cue for inquiry and drafts are expected on the way to clarity. The mechanism is structural: bake uncertainty, multiple perspectives, and iterative feedback into tasks so curiosity and intellectual humility become habits, not slogans.
🏢 '''10 – That’s Not the Way We’ve Always Done It: Building Cultures of Learning at Work.''' NASA’s tragedies loom as cautionary tales: before {{Tooltip|Challenger }} and {{Tooltip|Columbia }}, engineers raised concerns that were muted or missed in a culture primed to perform, not to pause. Research by {{Tooltip|Amy Edmondson }} shows why that climate backfires—teams with higher psychological safety surface more errors on paper yet make fewer in practice , because people feel free to speak up early. Former {{Tooltip|Johnson Space Center }} director {{Tooltip|Ellen Ochoa }} models how to reset norms: leaders broadcast their own uncertainties, demand dissent on consequential calls, and keep asking, “How do we know?” so status won’t substitute for scrutiny. The chapter distinguishesDistinguish performance cultures, which canonize “best practices,” from learning cultures, which expect continual updates and separate process accountability (How carefully did we decide?) from outcome accountability (Did it work?). Process accountability shows up in rituals like {{Tooltip|premortems }}, red‑teamred-team reviews, and {{Tooltip|decision logs }} that force alternatives to be considered before momentum hardens. When organizations reward candor and curiosity as much as results, they catch small problems early and adapt faster after setbacks. The core idea is that rethinkingRethinking thrives where safety and scrutiny intersect—people feel secure enough to challenge and are obligated to examine how choices are made. The mechanism is institutional:made—so pair psychological safety with process accountability soand feedback flows uphill, “best” routines stay revisable, andkeep the learning zone becomesas the default. ''The worst thing about best practices is that once we’ve declared a routine the best, it becomes frozen in time.''▼
{{Section separator}}
▲🏢 '''10 – That’s Not the Way We’ve Always Done It: Building Cultures of Learning at Work.''' NASA’s tragedies loom as cautionary tales: before Challenger and Columbia, engineers raised concerns that were muted or missed in a culture primed to perform, not to pause. Research by Amy Edmondson shows why that climate backfires—teams with higher psychological safety surface more errors on paper yet make fewer in practice, because people feel free to speak up early. Former Johnson Space Center director Ellen Ochoa models how to reset norms: leaders broadcast their own uncertainties, demand dissent on consequential calls, and keep asking, “How do we know?” so status won’t substitute for scrutiny. The chapter distinguishes performance cultures, which canonize “best practices,” from learning cultures, which expect continual updates and separate process accountability (How carefully did we decide?) from outcome accountability (Did it work?). Process accountability shows up in rituals like premortems, red‑team reviews, and decision logs that force alternatives to be considered before momentum hardens. When organizations reward candor and curiosity as much as results, they catch small problems early and adapt faster after setbacks. The core idea is that rethinking thrives where safety and scrutiny intersect—people feel secure enough to challenge and are obligated to examine how choices are made. The mechanism is institutional: pair psychological safety with process accountability so feedback flows uphill, “best” routines stay revisable, and the learning zone becomes the default. ''The worst thing about best practices is that once we’ve declared a routine the best, it becomes frozen in time.''
=== Part IV – Conclusion === ▼
=== Chapter 11 – Escaping Tunnel Vision: Reconsidering Our Best-Laid Career and Life Plans ===
🔭 '''11 – Escaping Tunnel Vision: Reconsidering Our Best-Laid Career and Life Plans.''' Cousin Ryan, expected by his family to become a physician, felt doubts before applying to college about committing to pre‑medpre-med and wondered about economics instead; he pushed ahead, completed medical training, and later, as a neurosurgeon, admitted he would have chosen differently. His path shows how sunk costs tempt people to keep investing even when the fit is wrong, a familiar pattern of escalation of commitment. A second trap, identity foreclosure, appears when a person adopts a career label early and then closes off exploration, treating a job title as the self. Rather than askingAsk children “what do you wantlike to bedo?” , therather chapter reframes the prompt tothan “what do you likewant to dobe?” so possibilities stay open as interests change. The practical stance is to thinkThink like a scientist: treat a career direction as a hypothesis, run small tests, and look for disconfirming evidence before doubling down. Drawing on Herminia Ibarra’s work in ''Working Identity '', it favors actingact and experimentingexperiment into clarity overinstead of waiting for perfect self‑knowledgeself-knowledge. Low‑riskLow-risk trials—shadowing, project sprints, or job crafting—generate data about enjoyment, strengths, and fit without burning bridges. To keepKeep plans flexible , the chapter proposeswith a twice‑yearlytwice-yearly career checkup that asks whether learning has plateaued and whether the work still matches evolving values and skills. Identities anchored in principles (curiosity, service, integrity) travel better across roles than identities anchored in a single occupation, which makes pivots less threatening. The larger lesson is to preventPrevent grit from calcifying into stubbornness by continually testing whether the path still deserves persistence .; Psychologically, rethinking works by looseningloosen attachment to a chosen identity and interruptinginterrupt sunk‑costsunk-cost reasoning so evidence and curiosity—not inertia—steer the next move. ▼
▲'' This—Note: outlineThe above summary follows the {{Tooltip|Viking }} hardcover edition (2 February 2021, ISBN 978-1-9848-7810-6).''<ref name="PRH2021">{{cite web |title=Think Again by Adam Grant |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/607660/think-again-by-adam-grant/ |website=Penguin Random House |publisher=Penguin Random House |date=2 February 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="OCLC1191456279" >{{cite web |title=Think again : the power of knowing what you don't know |url=https:/ /search.worldcat.org/title/Think-again-%3A-the-power-of-knowing-what-you-don%27t-know/oclc/1191456279 |website=WorldCat |publisher=OCLC |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
▲🔭 '''11 – Escaping Tunnel Vision: Reconsidering Our Best-Laid Career and Life Plans.''' Cousin Ryan, expected by his family to become a physician, felt doubts before applying to college about committing to pre‑med and wondered about economics instead; he pushed ahead, completed medical training, and later, as a neurosurgeon, admitted he would have chosen differently. His path shows how sunk costs tempt people to keep investing even when the fit is wrong, a familiar pattern of escalation of commitment. A second trap, identity foreclosure, appears when a person adopts a career label early and then closes off exploration, treating a job title as the self. Rather than asking children “what do you want to be?”, the chapter reframes the prompt to “what do you like to do?” so possibilities stay open as interests change. The practical stance is to think like a scientist: treat a career direction as a hypothesis, run small tests, and look for disconfirming evidence before doubling down. Drawing on Herminia Ibarra’s work in Working Identity, it favors acting and experimenting into clarity over waiting for perfect self‑knowledge. Low‑risk trials—shadowing, project sprints, or job crafting—generate data about enjoyment, strengths, and fit without burning bridges. To keep plans flexible, the chapter proposes a twice‑yearly career checkup that asks whether learning has plateaued and whether the work still matches evolving values and skills. Identities anchored in principles (curiosity, service, integrity) travel better across roles than identities anchored in a single occupation, which makes pivots less threatening. The larger lesson is to prevent grit from calcifying into stubbornness by continually testing whether the path still deserves persistence. Psychologically, rethinking works by loosening attachment to a chosen identity and interrupting sunk‑cost reasoning so evidence and curiosity—not inertia—steer the next move.
{{Section separator}}
== Background & reception ==
🖋️ '''Author & writing'''. Grant, an organizational psychologist and Wharton professor, is widely recognized for his teaching and research on motivation and meaning.<ref name="WhartonProfile">{{cite web |title=Adam Grant - Wharton Management |url=https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/grantad/ |website=Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania |publisher=University of Pennsylvania |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> Before ''{{Tooltip|Think Again}}'', he authored ''Give and Take'' and ''Originals'' and co-authored ''Option B''; this book focuses on the art of rethinking and unlearning.<ref name="PRH2021" /> He contrasts the “preacher, prosecutor, politician” modes with thinking like a scientist and popularizes tactics such as cultivating a “challenge network.”<ref name="PRH2021" /><ref name="EntrepreneurChNetwork">{{cite news |title=Are You Thinking Like a Challenger? |url=https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/are-you-thinking-like-a-challenger/373175 |work=Entrepreneur |date=27 June 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> The narrative voice mixes synthesis of research synthesis with storytelling—Librarystorytelling—{{Tooltip|Library Journal}} called it a “fast-paced account”—and the book is structured in three sections: individual, interpersonal, and collective rethinking.<ref name="LibraryJournal2020" /><ref name="PRHHE2021" /> Grant promoted the work in public forums, including a {{Tooltip|WHYY}} conversation about why there can bethe “joy in admitting we’re wrong,” and {{Tooltip|TED}} highlighted the book alongside his talk “What frogs in hot water can teach us about thinking again.”<ref name="WHYY2021">{{cite web |title=Adam Grant on “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know” |url=https://whyy.org/episodes/adam-grant-on-think-again-the-power-of-knowing-what-you-dont-know/ |website=WHYY |publisher=WHYY |date=26 March 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="TEDBooks2021">{{cite web |title=New books from TED speakers: Summer reading |url=https://ideas.ted.com/new-books-from-ted-speakers-summer-reading/ |website=TED Ideas |publisher=TED Conferences |date=23 June 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> The Library of Congress also showcased Grant and the book’s themes at the 2021 National Book Festival.<ref name="LoCBookFest2021">{{cite web |title=Adam Grant |url=https://www.loc.gov/events/2021-national-book-festival/authors/item/n2012065680/adam-grant/ |website=Library of Congress |publisher=Library of Congress |date=2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
📈 '''Commercial reception'''. {{Tooltip|Penguin Random House}} lists ''{{Tooltip|Think Again}}'' as a #1 New York Times bestseller.<ref name="PRH2021" /> ''Publishers Weekly'' reported the book at #8 on its national print bestsellers for the week of 22 February 2021.<ref name="PWFeb2021">{{cite news |title=This Week's Bestsellers: February 22, 2021 |url=https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/85646-this-week-s-bestsellers-february-22-2021.html |work=Publishers Weekly |date=19 February 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> It also appeared on ''{{Tooltip|The Washington Post}}'' lists, including #9 on the hardcover bestsellers dated 30 March 2021 and later on the paperback list in March 2024.<ref name="WaPoHB2021">{{cite news |title=Washington Post hardcover bestsellers |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/washington-post-hardcover-bestsellers/2021/03/30/4e6ec406-9181-11eb-9668-89be11273c09_story.html |work=The Washington Post |date=30 March 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="WaPoPB2024">{{cite news |title=Washington Post paperback bestsellers |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/03/20/washington-post-paperback-bestsellers/ |work=The Washington Post |date=20 March 2024 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
👍 '''Praise'''. ''{{Tooltip|The Washington Post}}'' named ''{{Tooltip|Think Again}}'' one of its best nonfiction books of 2021, noting that it “delivers smart advice on unlearning assumptions and opening ourselves up to curiosity and humility.”<ref name="WaPoBest2021" /> ''{{Tooltip|Newsweek}}'' included it among “Our 21 Favorite Books of 2021,” praising its emphasis on questioning deeply held beliefs.<ref name="NewsweekFav2021" /> {{Tooltip|Library Journal}} recommended it to general readers as a brisk, authoritative account of rethinking and decision-making.<ref name="LibraryJournal2020" />
👎 '''Criticism'''. ''Kirkus Reviews'' judged that the book “breaks little to no ground,” even while offering useful reminders to test one’s beliefs.<ref name="Kirkus2020">{{cite web |title=THINK AGAIN |url=https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/adam-grant/think-again-grant/ |website=Kirkus Reviews |publisher=Kirkus Reviews |date=24 November 2020 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> A review in ''Quillette'' argued that Grant “provides few clues about where rethinking a given issue ought to end,” calling for clearer boundaries between healthy doubt and paralyzing uncertainty.<ref name="Quillette2021">{{cite news |title=Six Great Ideas from Adam Grant's 'Think Again' |url=https://quillette.com/2021/05/28/six-great-ideas-from-adam-grants-think-again/ |work=Quillette |date=28 May 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> An academic notice in the ''Journal of Character and Leadership Development'' found the leadership framing compelling but observed the book’s reliance on familiar corporate cautionary tales (e.g., Blockbuster, Kodak, {{Tooltip|BlackBerry}}).<ref name="JCLD2021">{{cite journal |author=Dickman, K. |date=2021 |title=A Review of “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know” |journal=Journal of Character and Leadership Development |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages= |url=https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/view/222 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
🌍 '''Impact & adoption'''. Universities have assigned the book in courses and reading groups, including a University of Florida Honors (Un)Common Read seminar (Fall 2022), a University of Denver graduate course on Persuasion and Influence (2023), and a University of Pennsylvania critical-writing course (2025).<ref name="UFHonors2022">{{cite web |title=IDH 2930 (un)common read – Think Again (syllabus) |url=https://www.honors.ufl.edu/media/honorsufledu/syllabi/fall-22/2042_27881-ThinkAgain-Hershfield.pdf |website=University of Florida Honors Program |publisher=University of Florida |date=2022 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="UDenver2023">{{cite web |title=COMM 4016 Persuasion and Influence (syllabus excerpt) |url=https://www.furman.edu/faculty-development-center/event/think-again-the-power-ofknowingwhat-you-dot-know/ |website=Furman University / University of Denver course materials |publisher=Furman University |date=18 January 2022 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref><ref name="UPennCritWriting2025">{{cite web |title=Critical Writing Course Collection – Rethinking (course description) |url=https://apps.sas.upenn.edu/writing/ccs/catalog.php?action=query_results&conj=and&first_row=1&mode=all&prog=CRIT&term=2025A |website=School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania |publisher=University of Pennsylvania |date=2025 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref> Beyond campuses, publicPublic-facing platforms amplified the ideas—WHYYideas—{{Tooltip|WHYY}} hosted a live conversation and {{Tooltip|TED}} featured the book alongside Grant’s related talk—and former U.S. President {{Tooltip|Bill Clinton}} publicly cited ''{{Tooltip|Think Again}}'' as prompting him to reconsider unexamined preconceptions.<ref name="WHYY2021" /><ref name="TEDBooks2021" /><ref name="GuardianClinton">{{cite news |title=Bill Clinton: ‘I always wanted to be a writer, but doubted my ability to do it’ |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/11/bill-clinton-i-always-wanted-to-be-a-writer-but-doubted-my-ability-to-do-it |work=The Guardian |date=11 June 2021 |access-date=8 November 2025}}</ref>
{{Section separator}}
== Related content & more ==
== See also ==
{{Youtube thumbnail | CIlgTBmiov0 | TED Talk — Adam Grant: What frogs in hot water can teach us about thinking again}}
=== YouTube videos ===
{{Youtube thumbnail | CIlgTBmiov0ZCYVqivcg_g | TED''Think TalkAgain'' — Adamanimated Grant:book Whatsummary frogsby inProductivity hot water can teach us about thinking again (15 min)Game}}
{{Youtube thumbnail | ZCYVqivcg_g | Think Again — animated book summary by Productivity Game (9 min)}}
=== CapSach articles ===
{{DigitalThinking, MinimalismFast and Slow/thumbnail}}
{{Four Thousand WeeksMindset/thumbnail}}
{{The One ThingOutliers/thumbnail}}
{{Make Your BedFlow/thumbnail}}
{{ThePredictably Magic of Thinking BigIrrational/thumbnail}}
{{Thebook Compound Effectsummaries/thumbnail}}
{{CS/Self-improvement book summaries/thumbnail}}
{{Insert before References}}
{{Section separator}}
== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Self-improvement books]]
[[Category:CS articles]]
{{Insert bottom}}
|