逆向思考的心理学与实践

Have you noticed that in the past few years? It’s increasingly difficult to communicate with people with different opinions online Some people in Taiwan suspect voting in presidential election An endless stream of discriminatory remarks America has global warming deniers Climate change agenda Is a hoax. Climate change agenda Is a hoax. flat earth conspiracy theory The earth is not round because we can't prove it's globe. It's not because we can't prove it's globe. So what is this picture? If not a live instant picture of the Earth, what would it be? So what is that then? What I'm looking at if i'm not looking at a live picture? You're looking at the CGI. Communicating and debating with others on many issues are always trying to get through the wall. The book I’m going to face today is “Reverse Thinking” Let’s talk about how to use psychology to break through the existing cognition Let yourself, others, and the collective rethink This book has sold millions of copies around the world The author, Adam Grant, is a psychologist at the Wharton School of Business Today we will introduce this video in three parts: personal rethinking Rethinking interpersonal relationships and collective rethinking There are three common mentalities that people have when thinking When things we believe are questioned people become missionaries Want to change the other person’s beliefs Let the other party join our camp When there are flaws in someone else’s argument people become prosecutors Attack the other side's arguments like a picket line When we want others to agree with us will become like politicians Use various words to persuade others to support your arguments All three patterns prevent us from rethinking our perspectives Psychologist Csikszentmihalyi studied master scientists and artists I found that these people all have one thing in common is cognitively flexible Willingness to move from one extreme of thinking to another in a given situation This cognitive flexibility allows them to keep an open mind Willing to learn new knowledge and revise existing opinions This cognitive flexibility is the basis of scientific thinking Psychologists conducted an experiment to study 100 founders of new startups Give them 4 months of training A group trained in scientific thinking maintained cognitive flexibility The control group will not receive scientific thinking training turn out Entrepreneurs without scientific thinking training are more likely to stick to their original business model Average profit is less than $300 But cognitively resilient entrepreneurs The average business profit exceeds $12,000 Because they are more willing to change business strategies based on customer feedback data We all think that only by working hard and adhering to our original intention will we succeed But research shows Successful companies experiment while changing strategies For example, Mike Lazaridis, the founder of BlackBerry In the early stages of entrepreneurship, we used the thinking model of scientists Build a mobile phone that can press the keyboard with your thumbs But after the rise of Apple in 2007 Apple mobile phones incorporate many computer functions to make them more competitive But Lazaridis still insists on his opinion and does not want to add browser features By 2012 Apple already has 1/4 of the global market share But BlackBerry CEO Still Won't Switch to Touch Keyboard I think current users are very satisfied This is a kind of "confirmation bias" He only sees satisfied customers with their BlackBerrys Ignore that hundreds of millions of users prefer touch keyboards The author calls this the overconfidence cycle People first think they understand Look up information based on a certain belief Feeling complacent when you find some information that confirms your thoughts Then strengthen your beliefs Ignore voices of differing opinions Eventually it became a politician mentality Want to convince others that you are right Apple’s Steve Jobs also fell into this overconfidence cycle In the beginning, Apple mainly produced computers and iPods, not mobile phones. Because Jobs thinks If you make a mobile phone that can listen to music Instead, it will lead to loss of iPod business. After six months of meetings and discussions, Apple engineers It took a lot of effort to convince Steve Jobs to doubt his own beliefs. This allowed Jobs to break the cycle of overconfidence Entering a cycle of rethinking First make a list of areas you don’t know about admit one's ignorance Let your curiosity search for relevant information keep an open mind Let's see what new discoveries we make So the first step to rethinking It’s about breaking the cycle of overconfidence. Usually those who like to say that I am not biased I am an objective and neutral person more likely to be biased Because they didn't even realize their own prejudices Only then do you dare to declare loudly that you are more objective than others So then we have to ask Why are people blind to their blind spots? How to identify your own cognitive blind spots? Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger conducted an experiment Ask subjects to also evaluate the test scores they will receive during the test turn out The poorer the performers, the more likely they are to overestimate their abilities Another survey pointed out 93% of American drivers believe their driving ability is better than the average person’s Research statistics found that Ask executives from around the world to assess their capabilities As a result, without exception, managers in all countries overestimate their abilities. This phenomenon is called the Dak effect by psychologists People without real material are more likely to inflate themselves Because I am not familiar with this field yet So I thought I understood This Dak effect has a curve Newbies who are just starting to learn new knowledge The Dak effect is most likely to occur Because novices make the fastest progress when absorbing knowledge It creates the illusion that "I seem to be powerful" As a result, people who clearly don’t understand love to express their opinions. But when the amount of knowledge increases to a threshold People will find that they actually still have a lot to learn At this time, I won’t express my opinions easily. Afraid of showing one's ignorance So the British philosopher Russell said "The problem with the modern world is that fools are overconfident and smart people are full of doubts about themselves." People who are more capable are less confident This is what we often hear about “imposter syndrome” Many students who get into the prestigious National Taiwan University feel they are not worthy I think other people are better Imposter syndrome isn’t actually a bad thing Because these people are successful It’s because they keep questioning that they’re not good enough Self-doubt will make you work harder to improve yourself For example, candidate Halla Tómasdóttir in the 2016 Icelandic presidential election In male-dominated political circles Being a woman makes her feel impostor syndrome So more willing to do more for voters Respond personally to social media messages Although he was not elected president in the end But it changed the local electoral culture In comparison Iceland’s central bank governor David Oddsson has no knowledge of economics After taking office, he privatized the bank. Leading to Iceland's bankruptcy during the 2009 financial crisis It was his ignorance of economics that gave him the Dak effect and overconfidence. Later, in order to force him to step down, The Icelandic parliament even passed a new bill Require local administrative officials to have a master's degree in economics So the second step to rethinking Just pay attention to the balance between your own ability and self-confidence The third step to rethinking is to accept making mistakes Because mistakes are a sign of learning something new Harvard University once conducted a psychology experiment After asking students to tell their own positions Send law students to attack their arguments See how they react Some people are willing to accept criticism But some people are stubborn For example, one student firmly believed that the Industrial Revolution was a disaster for mankind. Technology harms nature and corrupts people's hearts dissatisfied with desire If technology continues to develop, human society will be doomed. This person does not accept that his or her views are questioned Later he became a genius mathematician But his anti-industrial social thinking is becoming more and more extreme It actually made him plan to kill three people with bombs. This person is the famous American serial bomber Ted Kaczynski If he had been doing psychology experiments at Harvard Able to question one's own opinions Wouldn't something so extreme happen? Psychologists study human brain activity and discover When our core beliefs are challenged triggers the brain's amygdala This is a relatively primitive brain area of human beings In ancient times, it was responsible for the fight or flight response. That is, when our opinions are challenged Our minds will become more defensive and closed A "totalitarian self" will emerge Responsible for eliminating dangerous information But there's a way to stop your brain from triggering this reaction Just separate your thoughts from your self-identity Don’t get attached to ideas "What knowledge do you believe" and "who you are" are two different things Thus You won’t feel like others are attacking you as a person when they refute your argument. The reason why many master scientists can become masters It’s because they can face their mistakes comfortably For example, in 1992 Physicist Andrew Lyne discovers a planet orbiting a neutron star Neutron stars only appear after supernova explosions How could any planet exist in that situation? He immediately submitted this huge discovery to a top scientific journal Later published in front of thousands of scientists As a result, Andrew Lyne admitted in person that it was his miscalculation. But this time He actually got a standing ovation from all the scientists present. Admitting your mistakes won't make you look more incompetent Scientific research is inherently about using new data to overturn past conclusions. If you never tell yourself that I was stupid a year ago That means you haven't learned anything this year So how do you discover your mistakes? A practical method is to establish a "dissent network" The author said that he has a habit when writing books will find a group of critics Ask them to critique each chapter This will allow the author to know how to improve his work. Rather than being satisfied with our own finished products When faced with criticism, many people tend to avoid those who criticize them But it's not a sign of disrespect if someone criticizes you. On the contrary, it is a sign of respect This means I value your opinion enough to question it. If I don't pay attention at all Just ignore you Another example of a dissent network is When Pixar was making "The Incredibles" Invited director Brad Bird In the past, Pixar animations were all about toys, insects, and monsters. So animation is not technically difficult But The Incredibles was the first time Pixar drew humans This was beyond the capabilities of computer animation drawings at the time. But Brad Bird objected Insist on being able to show the character’s personality He will also deliberately find people who like to cause controversy and criticize to join the team. Think this can inspire new perspectives Provide more objections For example, Brad Bird originally wanted to design Xiaojie to be able to turn into a lump of jelly However, it was rejected by the producer due to production difficulties. Until 14 years later Animation technology is in place Episode 2 of The Incredibles finally gets the idea off the ground Dissent in this network of dissent The first episode of "The Incredibles" won an Oscar If the team had insisted on making Xiaojie into jelly Made with the technology of the time It might become a failure This is about building a network of dissent Only then can we bring ourselves to rethink After introducing personal rethinking Next let’s look at how to lead others to rethink Management professor Neil Rackham studies the skills of expert negotiators Found that they all have three characteristics The first negotiator will spend 1/3 of their efforts on finding common ground. We usually think we need to win an argument The key is logic, data, and persuasion skills But when we try to convince others would act like a missionary On the contrary, it will arouse the other party's wariness In comparison First approve some of the other person’s ideas On the contrary, it will make the other party feel that you are not here to cause trouble. But a reasonable person really want to discuss things For example, IBM held a debate in 2019 Let international debate champion Harish Natarajan debate AI Should the government subsidize kindergartens? AI can tap into vast databases on the web Data support can be found at any time Looks more likely to win Research clearly shows that a good preschool can help kids overcome the disadvantages often associated with poverty Research clearly shows that a good preschool can help kids overcome the disadvantages often associated with poverty. The OECD has recommended that government subsidize pre primary education to boost performance in poor areas The OECD has recommended that government subsidize pre primary education to boost performance in poor areas. But let’s have a look at Harish’s debating skills If we believe preschools are good in principle, surely it is worth subsidizing them If we believe preschools are good in principle, surely it is worth giving money to subsidize those, But I don't think that is ever enough of a justification for subsidies . Because there are multiple things which are good for society that could be, because there are multiple things which are good for society that could be, in countries like the United States, Increased investment in health care, which would often also have returns for education, which the OECD would also note is probably very beneficial to deal with poverty. Harris first agreed with his opponent, saying The data presented by AI is correct Subsidized kindergarten does help disadvantaged students Then argue that such data alone is not enough Because to deal with poverty you don’t have to subsidize kindergartens This allowed him to reach a consensus with his opponent first It's only effective if it's discussed The second technique for leading others to rethink is Focus on a single statement to support your point of view Sometimes there are too many reasons On the contrary, it gives others more opportunities to find your flaws. The author once conducted an experiment for the university Testing how to get stingy alumni to donate Group A alumni received messages emphasizing altruism Group B alumni received messages emphasizing self-interest. It turns out that both messages are equally effective can get 6.5% of alumni to donate money But if alumni receive these two messages at the same time The donation rate dropped to 3% instead why Because when you use multiple reasons to convince someone It feels like a missionary, on purpose On the contrary, it will arouse people's defensiveness Instead of supporting your argument with multiple reasons It's better to use a single statement to feel like a sincere conversation A third negotiation tip for getting others to think is to avoid using strong words Use question marks more often to end a sentence Many negotiators will deliberately express curiosity and say "So you don't see any merit in this question?" This kind of question helps the other party get out of the cycle of overconfidence and rethink the issue. You don’t have to convince the other person that you are right Just use various questions to open up the other person's curiosity Invite the other person to question their original ideas Let their curiosity automatically lead them to the answers This rethinking of psychology It also allows us to deal with social discrimination and prejudice issues Because many prejudices and discriminations are learned silently from childhood. So we can “unlearn” the prejudices we have received For example, psychologists have found Many astronauts who have been to outer space After returning to Earth, my thinking changed. they will develop a global consciousness More concerned about the interests of mankind as a whole For example, American NASA astronaut Jeffrey Ashby said People on earth are a community with a shared future If the atmosphere breaks down, all mankind will suffer together View of Earth from space You will feel that everyone on earth is one family Many international disputes suddenly become unimportant This is called in psychology Overview Effect When you look at the overview of the entire group from the outside You will realize that they actually have a lot in common A classic case that leads the other party to rethink Daryl Davis, a well-known American black musician America’s Ku Klux Klan believes in white supremacy Believes that black people have criminal genes and are the source of social chaos Daryl Davis actually went to a Ku Klux Klan party Go head-to-head with these people. First, ask the other person a question You don’t even know me yet, how can you hate me? how can you hate me when you don't even know me? They have never had an answer that they can come up with that justifies how they can hate me. First by asking questions Make the other person question their own point of view Instead of rushing to change the other person's mind right away Then find out what the two sides have in common. Like the music we like together Make the other person aware of the common humanity behind their skin color over the past 20 years Daryl Davis kept talking to the KKK this way These people discovered many of their prejudices against black people In fact, I have been instilled in my family since I was a child. Daryl Davis guides them to rethink their own biases In the end, more than 200 KKK members changed their views on black people and left the KKK. I consider frank to be my friend. I consider frank to be my friend. I consider Daryl to be my friend as well. This is the psychology of using the other party to rethink. Finally we look at how to get collectives to rethink Psychologist Peter Coleman at Columbia University Set up a Difficult Conversations Laboratory Pair up two people with opposite opinions to debate Before the debate, both sides will be given a discussion article on gun control. The article presents the pros and cons of both sides There is a 46% chance that the two people will reach a consensus when they discuss it later. Then do another set of experiments Allow subjects to see articles that present diverse perspectives rather than black and white The result was that 100% of the subjects reached a consensus during the discussion Subject's conversations were recorded Play it to them after the experiment is over turn out Dialogues that reach consensus and are productive There will be more diverse emotions Like anger, curiosity, anxiety During the conversation, you will constantly revise your feelings. In comparison Unproductive conversations tend to be very one-dimensional Because the discussions are all fixed on the original thinking This experiment revealed We thought we were going to get out of the stratosphere Just listen to different opinions But this approach It will probably only strengthen your original thoughts. Think the other person is stupid Binary BiasBinary Bias It is to simplify complex issues into only the pros and cons. Human Psychology To facilitate understanding of issues Binary bias naturally occurs To avoid this bias, we must restore the original complexity of the issue. For example, a 2020 survey found 54% of Americans believe the climate crisis is a threat But 18% of Americans don’t believe there is a climate crisis The media has a habit of dividing people into two groups Climate change acknowledgments and climate change deniers But there are actually 6 species in the United States alone Climate skeptics are not the same as climate change deniers They will read scientific information And then said he doubted these results Believe that doubt is the spirit of scientific research But the voices of these skeptics are often ignored Climate scientists would classify them as deniers It is unscientific to say that they are all the same. This prevents real dialogue And on the other end of the spectrum Although most climate scientists acknowledge the climate crisis But these people look the same In fact, the solutions they proposed are also very different. So if the 6 positions on the spectrum are faithfully presented In fact, it will increase the complexity of the discussion. This is not conducive to media coverage So the media can only simplify them into two groups: those who support and those who oppose climate science. Another example is in the world of psychology Daniel Goleman proposed the term emotional intelligence EQ Emotional intelligence refers to how well we handle ourselves and our relationships. Self-awareness. Knowing what we're feeling, why we're feeling it, which is a basis of , for example, good intuition, good decision-making. suddenly became very popular Many companies have begun to believe that EQ is more important than IQ when recruiting employees. Later in 2016 Another psychologist, Jordan Peterson, wrote an article rebutting Said there is no such thing as EQ This is just a self-marketing scam by psychologists The psychology community has not yet decided how to measure EQ. This is just a false concept conceived by psychologists who want to make companies care more about their voices You always hear that emotional intelligence is needed to succeed in the workplace, right? You know how you always hear you need emotional intelligence to thrive in a workplace? In fact, it's exactly the other way around. Turns out that it's exactly backwards. Disagreeable people do better as managers in the workplace. So it's actually if you lack EQ you're more likely to be an effective manager . So who is right and who is wrong in this debate? the author thinks In fact the situation is more complicated The psychology community recognizes the existence of EQ EQ is a predictive factor in experiments But this does not mean that the other school’s view is correct. EQ is not really more important than IQ It depends on the nature of the work Jobs such as service industry and business running EQ will be more important than IQ So this debate Both sides got some things right, and both sides got some things wrong. Restore the complexity of things to their original appearance To break the cycle of overconfidence inspire people to rethink Finally, let’s collectively rethink A culture of collective learning must be established This usually starts with leaders Like many university professors teaching the same subject every year The syllabus also follows last year’s The teacher himself didn’t even think about it again. How can we ask students to rethink? Robert Nozick, a philosopher at Harvard University in the United States, insists on teaching a new course every year He has taught various classes Truth, Neuroscience, Socrates, and the Russian Revolution to him Open a class that you haven’t taught before It’s an opportunity to study with students The author himself is a professor of psychology He will be on course planning I intentionally left the last lesson blank. Have students discuss in groups and put forward their own ideas See what you want to take in the last class This requires students to rethink What do you want to get from this course? Don’t passively receive the teacher’s knowledge But take the initiative to learn The author also served as an advisor to the Bill Gates Foundation to help their organizations build psychological safety Because although there are professionals in various fields in the team, But everyone is afraid that if they say the wrong thing, they will offend Bill Gates. lead people in the team They don’t dare to come up with bold ideas The author did an experiment Let the management of Group A proactively ask employees How you can improve your company This can improve psychological safety in the short term But there is no way to last Because there are always some supervisors who don’t like to hear criticism Supervisors in Group B were asked to share with employees that the team had benefited from employees’ criticism. Publicly acknowledge that there are areas where the company can improve This is equivalent to showing employees Supervisors can take criticism In other words, showing weakness is normalized. When superiors are willing to show their weaknesses The team’s psychological safety will actually increase Because they feel their superiors make mistakes too Progress is also needed Later, the author was inspired by Jimmy Kimmel's talk show There is a segment where artists are asked to read out tweets criticizing them on Twitter. Elizabeth Olsen has super weird fingers It’s true, I have weird hands Has anyone noticed that Samuel Jackson looks like a snapping turtle? No offense, but why does Anderson Cooper make me think of dinosaurs? It’s your fault The author also uses this trick in organizational management Employees can write down what they dislike about the company on the card The supervisor takes the initiative to read it out and admit where he can improve This ritual helps reduce the superior's sense of authority This is when leaders take the lead themselves Lead the team to rethink Today's video We introduce the psychology of disruptive thinking The first is individual rethinking Remember, your opinions do not define your self-identity Beware of the Dak Effect Overconfidence in yourself may reflect your ignorance It’s good to find mistakes and correct them Just the opportunity to correct my thinking Let’s get into the rethinking of interpersonal relationships Find common ground behind differences of opinion Instead of using multiple arguments Why not use a main argument to discuss it? Don’t spend time convincing the other person to believe you Instead, practice listening to each other better. Use questions to get the other person to rethink Finally, a collective rethink Give a complex look to controversial topics Instead of choosing one from the black and white right or wrong questions Create a culture of active learning Leaders themselves must be able to accept doubts and challenges Only then can we lead the group to create a sense of psychological safety. Lead the entire team to rethink If you want to know more about the psychology of subversive thinking Then read this book "Reverse Thinking" together Let you break the rules and reflect boldly

Have you noticed that in the past few years? It’s increasingly difficult to communicate with people with different opinions online Some people in Taiwan suspect voting in presidential election An endless stream of discriminatory remarks America has global warming deniers Climate change agenda Is a hoax.
Climate change agenda Is a hoax. flat earth conspiracy theory The earth is not round because we can't prove it's globe.
It's not because we can't prove it's globe. So what is this picture? If not a live instant picture of the Earth, what would it be? 
So what is that then? What I'm looking at if i'm not looking at a live picture? You're looking at
the CGI. Communicating and debating with others on many issues are always trying to get through the wall. The book I’m going to face today is “Reverse Thinking” Let’s talk about how to use psychology to break through the existing cognition Let yourself, others, and the collective rethink This book has sold millions of copies around the world The author, Adam Grant, is a psychologist at the Wharton School of Business Today we will introduce this video in three parts: personal rethinking Rethinking interpersonal relationships and collective rethinking There are three common mentalities that people have when thinking When things we believe are questioned people become missionaries Want to change the other person’s beliefs Let the other party join our camp When there are flaws in someone else’s argument people become prosecutors Attack the other side's arguments like a picket line When we want others to agree with us will become like politicians Use various words to persuade others to support your arguments All three patterns prevent us from rethinking our perspectives Psychologist Csikszentmihalyi studied master scientists and artists I found that these people all have one thing in common is cognitively flexible Willingness to move from one extreme of thinking to another in a given situation This cognitive flexibility allows them to keep an open mind Willing to learn new knowledge and revise existing opinions This cognitive flexibility is the basis of scientific thinking Psychologists conducted an experiment to study 100 founders of new startups Give them 4 months of training A group trained in scientific thinking maintained cognitive flexibility The control group will not receive scientific thinking training turn out Entrepreneurs without scientific thinking training are more likely to stick to their original business model Average profit is less than $300 But cognitively resilient entrepreneurs The average business profit exceeds $12,000 Because they are more willing to change business strategies based on customer feedback data We all think that only by working hard and adhering to our original intention will we succeed But research shows Successful companies experiment while changing strategies For example, Mike Lazaridis, the founder of BlackBerry In the early stages of entrepreneurship, we used the thinking model of scientists Build a mobile phone that can press the keyboard with your thumbs But after the rise of Apple in 2007 Apple mobile phones incorporate many computer functions to make them more competitive But Lazaridis still insists on his opinion and does not want to add browser features By 2012 Apple already has 1/4 of the global market share But BlackBerry CEO Still Won't Switch to Touch Keyboard I think current users are very satisfied This is a kind of "confirmation bias" He only sees satisfied customers with their BlackBerrys Ignore that hundreds of millions of users prefer touch keyboards The author calls this the overconfidence cycle People first think they understand Look up information based on a certain belief Feeling complacent when you find some information that confirms your thoughts Then strengthen your beliefs Ignore voices of differing opinions Eventually it became a politician mentality Want to convince others that you are right Apple’s Steve Jobs also fell into this overconfidence cycle In the beginning, Apple mainly produced computers and iPods, not mobile phones. Because Jobs thinks If you make a mobile phone that can listen to music Instead, it will lead to loss of iPod business. After six months of meetings and discussions, Apple engineers It took a lot of effort to convince Steve Jobs to doubt his own beliefs. This allowed Jobs to break the cycle of overconfidence Entering a cycle of rethinking First make a list of areas you don’t know about admit one's ignorance Let your curiosity search for relevant information keep an open mind Let's see what new discoveries we make So the first step to rethinking It’s about breaking the cycle of overconfidence. Usually those who like to say that I am not biased I am an objective and neutral person more likely to be biased Because they didn't even realize their own prejudices Only then do you dare to declare loudly that you are more objective than others So then we have to ask Why are people blind to their blind spots? How to identify your own cognitive blind spots? Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger conducted an experiment Ask subjects to also evaluate the test scores they will receive during the test turn out The poorer the performers, the more likely they are to overestimate their abilities Another survey pointed out 93% of American drivers believe their driving ability is better than the average person’s Research statistics found that Ask executives from around the world to assess their capabilities As a result, without exception, managers in all countries overestimate their abilities. This phenomenon is called the Dak effect by psychologists People without real material are more likely to inflate themselves Because I am not familiar with this field yet So I thought I understood This Dak effect has a curve Newbies who are just starting to learn new knowledge The Dak effect is most likely to occur Because novices make the fastest progress when absorbing knowledge It creates the illusion that "I seem to be powerful" As a result, people who clearly don’t understand love to express their opinions. But when the amount of knowledge increases to a threshold People will find that they actually still have a lot to learn At this time, I won’t express my opinions easily. Afraid of showing one's ignorance So the British philosopher Russell said "The problem with the modern world is that fools are overconfident
and smart people are full of doubts about themselves." People who are more capable are less confident This is what we often hear about “imposter syndrome” Many students who get into the prestigious National Taiwan University feel they are not worthy I think other people are better Imposter syndrome isn’t actually a bad thing Because these people are successful It’s because they keep questioning that they’re not good enough Self-doubt will make you work harder to improve yourself For example, candidate Halla Tómasdóttir in the 2016 Icelandic presidential election In male-dominated political circles Being a woman makes her feel impostor syndrome So more willing to do more for voters Respond personally to social media messages Although he was not elected president in the end But it changed the local electoral culture In comparison Iceland’s central bank governor David Oddsson has no knowledge of economics After taking office, he privatized the bank. Leading to Iceland's bankruptcy during the 2009 financial crisis It was his ignorance of economics that gave him the Dak effect and overconfidence. Later, in order to force him to step down, The Icelandic parliament even passed a new bill Require local administrative officials to have a master's degree in economics So the second step to rethinking Just pay attention to the balance between your own ability and self-confidence The third step to rethinking is to accept making mistakes Because mistakes are a sign of learning something new Harvard University once conducted a psychology experiment After asking students to tell their own positions Send law students to attack their arguments See how they react Some people are willing to accept criticism But some people are stubborn For example, one student firmly believed that the Industrial Revolution was a disaster for mankind. Technology harms nature and corrupts people's hearts dissatisfied with desire If technology continues to develop, human society will be doomed. This person does not accept that his or her views are questioned Later he became a genius mathematician But his anti-industrial social thinking is becoming more and more extreme It actually made him plan to kill three people with bombs. This person is the famous American serial bomber Ted Kaczynski If he had been doing psychology experiments at Harvard Able to question one's own opinions Wouldn't something so extreme happen? Psychologists study human brain activity and discover When our core beliefs are challenged triggers the brain's amygdala This is a relatively primitive brain area of human beings In ancient times, it was responsible for the fight or flight response. That is, when our opinions are challenged Our minds will become more defensive and closed A "totalitarian self" will emerge Responsible for eliminating dangerous information But there's a way to stop your brain from triggering this reaction Just separate your thoughts from your self-identity Don’t get attached to ideas "What knowledge do you believe" and "who you are" are two different things Thus You won’t feel like others are attacking you as a person when they refute your argument. The reason why many master scientists can become masters It’s because they can face their mistakes comfortably For example, in 1992 Physicist Andrew Lyne discovers a planet orbiting a neutron star Neutron stars only appear after supernova explosions How could any planet exist in that situation? He immediately submitted this huge discovery to a top scientific journal Later published in front of thousands of scientists As a result, Andrew Lyne admitted in person that it was his miscalculation. But this time He actually got a standing ovation from all the scientists present. Admitting your mistakes won't make you look more incompetent Scientific research is inherently about using new data to overturn past conclusions. If you never tell yourself that I was stupid a year ago That means you haven't learned anything this year So how do you discover your mistakes? A practical method is to establish a "dissent network" The author said that he has a habit when writing books will find a group of critics Ask them to critique each chapter This will allow the author to know how to improve his work. Rather than being satisfied with our own finished products When faced with criticism, many people tend to avoid those who criticize them But it's not a sign of disrespect if someone criticizes you. On the contrary, it is a sign of respect This means I value your opinion enough to question it. If I don't pay attention at all Just ignore you Another example of a dissent network is When Pixar was making "The Incredibles" Invited director Brad Bird In the past, Pixar animations were all about toys, insects, and monsters. So animation is not technically difficult But The Incredibles was the first time Pixar drew humans This was beyond the capabilities of computer animation drawings at the time. But Brad Bird objected Insist on being able to show the character’s personality He will also deliberately find people who like to cause controversy and criticize to join the team. Think this can inspire new perspectives Provide more objections For example, Brad Bird originally wanted to design Xiaojie to be able to turn into a lump of jelly However, it was rejected by the producer due to production difficulties. Until 14 years later Animation technology is in place Episode 2 of The Incredibles finally gets the idea off the ground Dissent in this network of dissent The first episode of "The Incredibles" won an Oscar If the team had insisted on making Xiaojie into jelly Made with the technology of the time It might become a failure This is about building a network of dissent Only then can we bring ourselves to rethink After introducing personal rethinking Next let’s look at how to lead others to rethink Management professor Neil Rackham studies the skills of expert negotiators Found that they all have three characteristics The first negotiator will spend 1/3 of their efforts on finding common ground. We usually think we need to win an argument The key is logic, data, and persuasion skills But when we try to convince others would act like a missionary On the contrary, it will arouse the other party's wariness In comparison First approve some of the other person’s ideas On the contrary, it will make the other party feel that you are not here to cause trouble. But a reasonable person really want to discuss things For example, IBM held a debate in 2019 Let international debate champion Harish Natarajan debate AI Should the government subsidize kindergartens? AI can tap into vast databases on the web Data support can be found at any time Looks more likely to win Research clearly shows that a good preschool can help kids overcome the disadvantages often associated with poverty Research clearly shows that a good preschool can help kids overcome the disadvantages
often associated with poverty. The OECD has recommended that government subsidize pre primary education to boost performance in poor areas
The OECD has recommended that government subsidize pre primary education to boost performance in poor areas. But let’s have a look at Harish’s debating skills If we believe preschools are good in principle, surely it is worth subsidizing them
If we believe preschools are good in principle, surely it is worth giving money to subsidize those, But I don't think that is ever enough of a justification for subsidies
. Because there are multiple things which are good for society that could be,
because there are multiple things which are good for society that could be, 
in countries like the United States, Increased investment in health care,
which would often also have returns for education, 
which the OECD would also note is probably very beneficial to deal with poverty. Harris first agreed with his opponent, saying The data presented by AI is correct Subsidized kindergarten does help disadvantaged students Then argue that such data alone is not enough Because to deal with poverty you don’t have to subsidize kindergartens This allowed him to reach a consensus with his opponent first It's only effective if it's discussed The second technique for leading others to rethink is Focus on a single statement to support your point of view Sometimes there are too many reasons On the contrary, it gives others more opportunities to find your flaws. The author once conducted an experiment for the university Testing how to get stingy alumni to donate Group A alumni received messages emphasizing altruism Group B alumni received messages emphasizing self-interest. It turns out that both messages are equally effective can get 6.5% of alumni to donate money But if alumni receive these two messages at the same time The donation rate dropped to 3% instead why Because when you use multiple reasons to convince someone It feels like a missionary, on purpose On the contrary, it will arouse people's defensiveness Instead of supporting your argument with multiple reasons It's better to use a single statement to feel like a sincere conversation A third negotiation tip for getting others to think is to avoid using strong words Use question marks more often to end a sentence Many negotiators will deliberately express curiosity and say "So you don't see any merit in this question?" This kind of question helps the other party get out of the cycle of overconfidence and rethink the issue. You don’t have to convince the other person that you are right Just use various questions to open up the other person's curiosity Invite the other person to question their original ideas Let their curiosity automatically lead them to the answers This rethinking of psychology It also allows us to deal with social discrimination and prejudice issues Because many prejudices and discriminations are learned silently from childhood. So we can “unlearn” the prejudices we have received For example, psychologists have found Many astronauts who have been to outer space After returning to Earth, my thinking changed. they will develop a global consciousness More concerned about the interests of mankind as a whole For example, American NASA astronaut Jeffrey Ashby said People on earth are a community with a shared future If the atmosphere breaks down, all mankind will suffer together View of Earth from space You will feel that everyone on earth is one family Many international disputes suddenly become unimportant This is called in psychology Overview
Effect When you look at the overview of the entire group from the outside You will realize that they actually have a lot in common A classic case that leads the other party to rethink Daryl Davis, a well-known American black musician America’s Ku Klux Klan believes in white supremacy Believes that black people have criminal genes and are the source of social chaos Daryl Davis actually went to a Ku Klux Klan party Go head-to-head with these people. First, ask the other person a question You don’t even know me yet, how can you hate me? 
how can you hate me when you don't even know me? They have never had an answer that they
can come up with that justifies how they can hate me. First by asking questions Make the other person question their own point of view Instead of rushing to change the other person's mind right away Then find out what the two sides have in common. Like the music we like together Make the other person aware of the common humanity behind their skin color over the past 20 years Daryl Davis kept talking to the KKK this way These people discovered many of their prejudices against black people In fact, I have been instilled in my family since I was a child. Daryl Davis guides them to rethink their own biases In the end, more than 200 KKK members changed their views on black people and left the KKK. I consider frank to be my friend.
I consider frank to be my friend. I consider Daryl to be my friend
as well. This is the psychology of using the other party to rethink. Finally we look at how to get collectives to rethink Psychologist Peter Coleman at Columbia University Set up a Difficult Conversations Laboratory Pair up two people with opposite opinions to debate Before the debate, both sides will be given a discussion article on gun control. The article presents the pros and cons of both sides There is a 46% chance that the two people will reach a consensus when they discuss it later. Then do another set of experiments Allow subjects to see articles that present diverse perspectives rather than black and white The result was that 100% of the subjects reached a consensus during the discussion Subject's conversations were recorded Play it to them after the experiment is over turn out Dialogues that reach consensus and are productive There will be more diverse emotions Like anger, curiosity, anxiety During the conversation, you will constantly revise your feelings. In comparison Unproductive conversations tend to be very one-dimensional Because the discussions are all fixed on the original thinking This experiment revealed We thought we were going to get out of the stratosphere Just listen to different opinions But this approach It will probably only strengthen your original thoughts. Think the other person is stupid Binary BiasBinary
Bias It is to simplify complex issues into only the pros and cons. Human Psychology To facilitate understanding of issues Binary bias naturally occurs To avoid this bias, we must restore the original complexity of the issue. For example, a 2020 survey found 54% of Americans believe the climate crisis is a threat But 18% of Americans don’t believe there is a climate crisis The media has a habit of dividing people into two groups Climate change acknowledgments and climate change deniers But there are actually 6 species in the United States alone Climate skeptics are not the same as climate change deniers They will read scientific information And then said he doubted these results Believe that doubt is the spirit of scientific research But the voices of these skeptics are often ignored Climate scientists would classify them as deniers It is unscientific to say that they are all the same. This prevents real dialogue And on the other end of the spectrum Although most climate scientists acknowledge the climate crisis But these people look the same In fact, the solutions they proposed are also very different. So if the 6 positions on the spectrum are faithfully presented In fact, it will increase the complexity of the discussion. This is not conducive to media coverage So the media can only simplify them into two groups: those who support and those who oppose climate science. Another example is in the world of psychology Daniel Goleman proposed the term emotional intelligence EQ Emotional intelligence refers to
how well we handle ourselves and our relationships. Self-awareness. Knowing
what we're feeling, why we're feeling it, which is a basis of
, for example, good intuition, good decision-making. suddenly became very popular Many companies have begun to believe that EQ is more important than IQ when recruiting employees. Later in 2016 Another psychologist, Jordan Peterson, wrote an article rebutting Said there is no such thing as EQ This is just a self-marketing scam by psychologists The psychology community has not yet decided how to measure EQ. This is just a false concept conceived by psychologists who want to make companies care more about their voices You always hear that emotional intelligence is needed to succeed in the workplace, right? 
You know how you always hear you need emotional intelligence to thrive in a workplace? In fact, it's exactly the other way around.
Turns out that it's exactly backwards. Disagreeable people do better as managers
in the workplace. So it's actually
if you lack EQ you're more likely to be an effective manager . So who is right and who is wrong in this debate? the author thinks In fact the situation is more complicated The psychology community recognizes the existence of EQ EQ is a predictive factor in experiments But this does not mean that the other school’s view is correct. EQ is not really more important than IQ It depends on the nature of the work Jobs such as service industry and business running EQ will be more important than IQ So this debate Both sides got some things right, and both sides got some things wrong. Restore the complexity of things to their original appearance To break the cycle of overconfidence inspire people to rethink Finally, let’s collectively rethink A culture of collective learning must be established This usually starts with leaders Like many university professors teaching the same subject every year The syllabus also follows last year’s The teacher himself didn’t even think about it again. How can we ask students to rethink? Robert Nozick, a philosopher at Harvard University in the United States, insists on teaching a new course every year He has taught various classes Truth, Neuroscience, Socrates, and the Russian Revolution to him Open a class that you haven’t taught before It’s an opportunity to study with students The author himself is a professor of psychology He will be on course planning I intentionally left the last lesson blank. Have students discuss in groups and put forward their own ideas See what you want to take in the last class This requires students to rethink What do you want to get from this course? Don’t passively receive the teacher’s knowledge But take the initiative to learn The author also served as an advisor to the Bill Gates Foundation to help their organizations build psychological safety Because although there are professionals in various fields in the team, But everyone is afraid that if they say the wrong thing, they will offend Bill Gates. lead people in the team They don’t dare to come up with bold ideas The author did an experiment Let the management of Group A proactively ask employees How you can improve your company This can improve psychological safety in the short term But there is no way to last Because there are always some supervisors who don’t like to hear criticism Supervisors in Group B were asked to share with employees that the team had benefited from employees’ criticism. Publicly acknowledge that there are areas where the company can improve This is equivalent to showing employees Supervisors can take criticism In other words, showing weakness is normalized. When superiors are willing to show their weaknesses The team’s psychological safety will actually increase Because they feel their superiors make mistakes too Progress is also needed Later, the author was inspired by Jimmy Kimmel's talk show There is a segment where artists are asked to read out tweets criticizing them on Twitter. Elizabeth Olsen has super weird fingers It’s true, I have weird hands Has anyone noticed that Samuel Jackson looks like a snapping turtle? No offense, but why does Anderson Cooper make me think of dinosaurs? It’s your fault The author also uses this trick in organizational management Employees can write down what they dislike about the company on the card The supervisor takes the initiative to read it out and admit where he can improve This ritual helps reduce the superior's sense of authority This is when leaders take the lead themselves Lead the team to rethink Today's video We introduce the psychology of disruptive thinking The first is individual rethinking Remember, your opinions do not define your self-identity Beware of the Dak Effect Overconfidence in yourself may reflect your ignorance It’s good to find mistakes and correct them Just the opportunity to correct my thinking Let’s get into the rethinking of interpersonal relationships Find common ground behind differences of opinion Instead of using multiple arguments Why not use a main argument to discuss it? Don’t spend time convincing the other person to believe you Instead, practice listening to each other better. Use questions to get the other person to rethink Finally, a collective rethink Give a complex look to controversial topics Instead of choosing one from the black and white right or wrong questions Create a culture of active learning Leaders themselves must be able to accept doubts and challenges Only then can we lead the group to create a sense of psychological safety. Lead the entire team to rethink If you want to know more about the psychology of subversive thinking Then read this book "Reverse Thinking" together Let you break the rules and reflect boldly

Transcript for:逆向思考的心理学与实践

Transcript for:
逆向思考的心理学与实践