HOW TO THINK LIKE A SCIENTIST

…AND EXPERIMENT YOUR WAY TO SUCCESS!

I’ve been in lots of discussions lately about thinking, how we think, why we think what we think, and how we can think better. I’ve been in these conversations more and more, most likely because it’s a fascinating topic for me. From my earliest memories and book choices I have been interested in our brains, how we think, why we act on the things we act on, and so forth. Recently, I read a book called, Think Again, by Adam Grant, and was absolutely fascinated by the information in it. While the book is filled with very interesting data and information, one line smacked me in the face early in the book and I still haven’t been able to get it out of my brain. The line was ‘the things that made us successful in the past may very well cause our demise in the future’. I’ll tell you why this line hit me so powerfully. I have often parroted an idea I believe originated with Einstein that we cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. I’m also a believer in the idea that the things that made us successful in the past may not help us become successful going forward. But that is vastly different than saying the things that made us successful before may cause our demise going forward! One small idea, one massive difference. This really got me thinking because it completely changed the success paradigm from one of, “oh, I just need to think at a higher level than before”, to, “if I don’t think differently than I did before, I may be dead!” Of course, he wasn’t necessarily referring to actually dying, although this idea can be applied there, but its more the thought that if I don’t really start thinking differently than before, my blind spots could very well be the reason I go out of business, lose a relationship, or miss some important signs on the path. 

We see this in lots of different areas of our life and business, and, for those of us in the appraisal business, we can reasonably say that our industry has a statistical over representation of what we can safely call, entrenched thinkers. I’ll talk about cognitive entrenchment a little later in the show, but rest assured that we all suffer from it in some area. What I hope to give you today is a variety of things to consider when it comes to how you think. As the title suggests, thinking like a scientist is the foundation of this mental framework so lets just chat briefly about what thinking like a scientist entails. The scientific method is pretty simple: it entails making some kind of observation, forming a hypothesis , testing that hypothesis, analyzing the results, and then either confirming your hypothesis or changing your hypothesis based on the results of your test. The thing about scientists, and the scientific method, is that true scientists committed to science are not looking for ways they can be right, they’re actually looking for ways that they might be wrong. In fact, part of the scientific process is peer review where you share your observations, hypotheses, your tests, and your results with your peers and they essentially are trying to rip your theories and results to shreds. This may seem a tad harsh on the surface, but scientists actually enjoy the process because every time they realize they’re wrong on something, they realize they’re that much less wrong and that much closer to finding better answers. In fact, its not even about being right, its about being less wrong in the moment and until better data comes along. Good scientists try to remain open at all times even when they’ve made an important discovery knowing full well that they may only be ‘right’ for a moment and until somebody else finds new information and new evidence. That’s a feature, not a bug in the process. 

So, lets talk first about the three modes that we may all find ourselves adopting from time to time, which essentially become signs that we’ve become entrenched in a particular way of thinking. I’ll then explain the 3 reasons why we tend to do that, and then we’ll talk about some things we can do to lessen the chances that we will and increase our chances of thinking better for greater opportunities and breakthroughs. The there modes that Adam Grant talks about in his book are the preacher, the prosecutor, and the politician modes. I wont go into too much detail on each one of them, but a brief overview is that, in preacher mode we’ve basically convinced ourselves of some truth and we’re going to proselytize that truth and spread it to anyone who will listen. In prosecutor mode we’re essentially trying to win an argument and prove our case.  The politician mode is when we’re trying to win the approval through the use of tactics like campaigning and lobbying for our way of thinking. When I read about each of these modes I found myself recalling instances where I most definitely engaged in them myself and was slightly embarrassed as I thought about the different situations where I was doing this. Once we become aware of something like that, we have a choice to either brush it off or make some kind of change. The problem with brushing it off is that all three of those modes of thinking and behaving stop us from thinking. We’re in defense mode because we’ve already decided that we’re right. This is similar to something we talked about in a previous episode on the seven habits of highly effective people. The habit of seeking first to understand, then be understood speaks strongly to this idea of remaining open. It speaks to the habit of listening to respond instead of listening to truly understand. The risk in doing so is that we might be proven wrong in some regard and, for most, that’s too much of a risk so we don’t take it. We dig in, we argue, we defend, and we resort to either preaching, prosecuting, or politicking to get our points across. 

The big problem with this ‘already decided’ mentality is that its lazy and it stops us from thinking again. You believe everyone else is wrong on this topic so all the work to be done is theirs, not yours. You just get to sit back and wait for everyone else to arrive at your conclusions. In essence, you stand still. So one of the first things recommended to combat this way of thinking is to adopt the attitude and belief that everything is merely a hypothesis. When you take the position that everything is just a hypothesis you remain open to input, observation, testing the theory, analyzing the results, and then changing your hypothesis if needed. With this first suggestion, you have to start to value humility over pride and curiosity over conviction. Humility is the state of accepting that you don’t know everything. Curiosity is the state of wonder and an openness to having new information change the way we see a particular topic or situation. There’s two phases to this process and it involves the past and the future. The past part is to get in the habit of asking yourself what ideas and methods you might be entrenched in. Start looking at how you do everything and asking yourself, why you do it that way, where did you get this idea or method, might there be a better way, and can you transform your beliefs into hypothesis that are open for more testing. The second phase is the future phase where, from this day forward, we simply adopt label all new ideas as hypotheses and then craft some experiments to test the hypothesis. 

In the world of investing there is something called ‘backtesting’. Backtesting is just a method of testing something ex post, or after the fact. So, we can take a theory, for example, of how a particular stock might behave under certain circumstances and then we can go back in time and test how our trades would have worked out under those circumstances. We form a hypothesis and then go back in time to find scenarios where that set of circumstances existed and then we backtest how we would have faired had we entered a trade at a certain time or exited at a certain time. We can use backtesting in life situations as well. We form some new idea or opinion, we call it a hypothesis, then we think back in time to a situation when something similar happened and we imagine how things would have gone had we come at that situation with the new information. Of course, with backtesting in situations where other people are involved, we’ll never really know how they would respond under different circumstances, but we can still learn. The real test is going forward. Testing out your hypotheses in all situations in your daily life. Its ok to stick to your values and be strong in your convictions, but flexible in your approach, in your experiments, in your vision, and in your strategy. True conviction is not blind conviction. True conviction is being open to having your mind changed with new evidence. Are you convicted to a particular outcome or a way of thinking? My suggestion is to make your convictions around ways of thinking, not around particular outcomes. When you are convicted around a particular outcome having to exist, you’ll block out all other information and ideas that might contradict your beliefs and convictions. 

Remember a minute ago I said I’d share the three reasons why people tend to get stuck or entrenched in their thinking and here they are. The first reason is something called social exclusion. Knowledge, information, and beliefs don’t come to us in a vacuum, they are typically acquired and formed as part of a social group. If, all of the sudden, we start to change our beliefs about something we risk being kicked out or shunned from our social groups for thinking differently. Since so much of our personal identity is tied to what groups we belong to and what those people think of us, the thought of being excluded from those social connections is too great for many to bear. Instead of facing the social exclusion, they choose to cling to beliefs and methods they may actually question. The most obvious example would be a religious one where somebody grows up in a church, or a particular belief system and then starts to question it. If all of your social groups have been built around those kinds of beliefs and activities, imagine what happens when you start to question and seek out different ideas and beliefs? Maybe you’ve experienced something like this. It happens in martial arts when somebody loses faith in a particular style, or maybe a teacher, and then starts to question other arts and teachers. Once they leave the fold, so to speak, they tend to sever many of their social connections with that prior group and that can be very unsettling for many. Social exclusion is a powerful factor in keeping us entrenched in a particular way of thinking. 

The second reason somebody stops thinking is actually called cognitive entrenchment. I’ve been using the word ‘entrenched’ for a reason and its because the word itself conjures up the image of being dug in, buried, peering out from a deep trench in a defensive position. Cognitive entrenchment is when somebody has accumulated a lot of knowledge over an extended period of time, think 20 or 30 year appraiser veteran, and becomes completely unaware of the need to question some of their assumptions. The author shares a story in the book of an experiment where they took veteran accountants and new accountants and they tested them using new tax codes and laws. The veteran accountants scored horribly low against the new accounts because they were entrenched in the old methods, laws, and tax codes. We see this in the medical field, the field of nutrition, the appraisal world, the accounting world, any field where somebody accumulates a lot of knowledge, and then that becomes a big part of who they are as a person. They so deeply identify with that body of knowledge as who they are that they become unwilling to see anything outside of that. They then choose of those three methods of arguing their points: preaching, prosecuting, or proselytizing. I can tell you with no hesitation that I have more faith in the new entrants to the appraisal field than I do the grizzled veterans, regardless of their vast body of knowledge. If your body of knowledge restricts your ability to see new ideas, new ways of thinking, new methodologies, new technology, and possibly completely rethinking how you see things, your old way of thinking may very well be the cause of your demise. 

The third reason someone may be unable to open their mind and change how they think is simply a lack of motivation. Thinking is hard work friends! In fact, one of the most difficult things we have to do on a daily basis. Most of us get comfortable in our patterns and, especially, in our ways of thinking. Most people get comfortable with the familiar and have no interest in changing how they think or how they do things. They don’t want to have to rethink what they know. In their minds, it’s gotten them this far, why change it. A subcategory of the lack of motivation aspect is the ego attachment. Its difficult for any of us to admit we may have been wrong. We feel stupid when we have to do that so we close the door on doing so. It takes less energy and embarrassment to just defend our positions than to admit we were wrong and are now on the search for new information, even if that latter is more intellectually honest. The most impressive people I’ve met in my time on this planet have been those who were honest in their ‘not knowingness’. It takes a strong individual to say, “I don’t know”, or, “I was wrong and have since been corrected.” I’ve met a fair amount of what I would call ‘hyper-intelligent’ people on my journey and almost every one of them turned out to be cognitively entrenched in some way. They all exposed themselves as completely unable to entertain a new idea or way of seeing something because they thought themselves already intelligent enough in one area or another. The irony of cognitive entrenchment and a lack of motivation to rethink things is that they tend not to recognize that character trait in themselves. People often acknowledge their fear of social exclusion when they start to question ideas and beliefs, but the cognitively entrenched and the unmotivated often think they’re the smartest in the room and have no responsibility whatsoever to do any rethinking work. Sadly, they tend to stay this way until their last breath because they simply dismiss those who try to point it out to them. The author, Bob Sutton, refers to those who are open as having an ‘attitude of wisdom’, which he describes as ‘acting on the best information you have while simultaneously doubting what you know.’ 

Which one are you? Do you think you know? Or are you willing to doubt what you know and open yourself to new information? To take it to the next level, are you actively on the search for new information that could prove you wrong? That is the scientific method, by the way. Not looking for ways that you are right, but seeking how you might be wrong. It’s the Socratic method, a method of asking questions, and then asking questions about the questions to uncover contradictions in thinking and it takes a level of mature honesty and strength of character to be able to do it. We see this character strength quite often in our coaching members, especially our black belt coaching teams. They engage in this method of thinking every single week as they expose themselves to the constant scrutiny of their ideas and goals by their team mates. They question their assumptions and sometimes have to admit they were wrong in a certain area. I really respect this intellectual and emotional honesty because it leads to the greatest growth, the greatest profitability, and the greatest breakthroughs for those willing to be open to that level of thinking and accountability. There is a paradox that exists in this new way of thinking and it’s the paradox of being wrong. The paradox of being wrong says that the quicker we recognize when we’re wrong, the less wrong we become. The faster you can admit that you don’t know, or that you might be wrong, the faster you open the door to new information that makes you a little less wrong. This is similar to the paradox of self defense, which says the more capable you become in your own self awareness and ability to protect yourself, the less likely you are to have to use that capability. The more you train in some martial art, the more likely you’ll be to start carrying yourself differently, the more your awareness expands, and the less likely you are to have to use your martial art. The more you train with your pistol and think through all of the different scenarios one might encounter out in the world, the less likely you are to encounter them. Why? Because you are acutely aware them now and carry yourself differently. You’ll tend to avoid places and people that represent danger. You’ll expand your awareness and see things unfolding before they affect you. All of this comes, however, from being open to not knowing and questioning what it is you actually know. 

So, being aware of the three modes we can slip into trying to defend our points of view is the first method of growth. The second is adopting an attitude of wisdom and valuing humility over pride, and curiosity over conviction. The next suggestion comes right from Adam Grant and its to become what is called a ‘super-forecaster’. Super forecasters use statistics and data analysis to formulate forecasts about a variety of things. There are actual competitions where people make predictions and then get scored on how accurate their predictions end up being. What separates average predictors from super forecasters is that the super forecasters come up with a set of ‘if-thens’ that are attached to their predictions. These if-thens are a set of circumstances that, if revealed, will cause the forecaster to change his or her forecast. They simply come up with a list of things that would make them change their mind on any of their predictions and then they are constantly on they lookout for any of those things. They don’t become so identified with their prediction that they risk missing new information. They remain open to changing their predictions as new information comes in, or if any of their ‘if thens ‘ presents itself. They essentially buy themselves freedom to be wrong around every corner by simply saying, ‘if this, this, or this happens, I reserve the right to change my prediction.’ You see, friends, its not about what, or how much you know, its about how you think and the quality of your thinking process. Are you open to being wrong? And do you have a list of things that, if revealed or presented, could change your mind. On a side note, this is one of the things I teach on the topic of rhetoric and positive discussion. Instead of slipping into one of the three modes or arguing or politicking your beliefs to somebody, one of the most valuable questions to ask somebody in a discussion on a topic where you might disagree is, “what would make you change your mind?” “What would have to occur or be true for you to be open to seeing things differently on this topic?” This is a massive time saver, by the way! If somebody answers, ‘nothing”, you know there is no discussion to be had. They are entrenched and no amount of your pandering, preaching, politicking, or prosecuting will get them to change their mind. 

I’ll give you two more ideas and suggestions on how to think differently. The next one is to simply experiment out loud. What do I mean by this? This one takes some guts and some maturity. This is where you openly admit what you’re not so good at and what you’re working on. This is where you say to those you’re in discussion with, “I’m not as educated on that topic, but would love to learn more.” “I have some ideas about this but I am open to having those ideas changed with new information.” “I know one of my triggers is X, and I’m working on recognizing when that happens so I can get better.” My good friend, Mark Skapinetz, decided to do this experiment on his own by reaching out to 10 people in his close network and asked them 2 questions: what am I good at, and what am I bad at? He asked for their belief about his top 5 strengths and his top 5 weaknesses. I was one of those people and I gladly answered based on how well I know him. He asked family members and close friends. As you can imagine, the answers you’ll get back from this kind of experiment are almost guaranteed to be a gut punch! Who wants to have somebody else tell them what their weaknesses are from the other person’s view? Why won’t most people ask that? Because the answers are going to lead to one of two choices: work or apathy. Either you’re going to accept your weakness and get to work on them, or you’re going to have to deliberately ignore them and discard the input. I’m extremely proud of him for having the guts to do that and I would challenge all of you to do the same.

Which leads to the last suggestion on thinking differently and that is to develop a challenge network. What’s a challenge network? Its exactly as it sounds. It’s a network of people willing to challenge you and tell you when you’re wrong. There is a certain type of character trait you’re looking for to be in your challenge network and it’s what we refer to as a ‘disagreeable giver’. There is a set of personality traits that we all have to some degree and its that we are either agreeable or disagreeable in some way or on some topic. Agreeableness is often characterized by being warm, friendly, polite, and, of course, agreeable. Jordan Peterson talks about this when he discusses the topic of men and women in the workplace and why females are so underrepresented at the highest levels of the Fortune 500 companies. Although there are a variety of statistics on this topic, like women being less willing to give up on having a family, or the hours and travel often required by those roles and how much it cuts into family time, one of the big reasons cited in the data is the personality trait of agreeableness. What the data shows is that men are far more willing to be disagreeable to get to the top of an industry, where far fewer females are, or have to the capacity to be as disagreeable as the males. Love him or hate him, don’t crucify me, I’m just sharing that data and his explanation of it with you. Within the two categories or agreeableness and disagreeableness, there are agreeable givers disagreeable givers. Disagreeableness, by the way, is characterized by being critical, stubborn, skeptical, and challenging. Know anybody or any industry like this? I do. 

What we’re looking for from a good challenge network is the trait of a disagreeable giver. This is somebody who knows how to temper their inner and outer asshole a bit, while still being critical and challenging. Their willing to listen, take in information freely and willingly, but they are also willing to give critical feedback that you may not want to hear. These are people willing to play devils advocate and force you to listen to skeptical inquiry of your ideas and plans regardless of how attached you might be to them. Again, they aren’t just downright nasty folks, they’re givers that are not in any need of your approval. I would say that I often play this role, as do many of our black belt coaching members within their coaching teams. Nobody is blowing smoke up your rear and telling you how special you are because we all know how that limits growth. I’ve talked about this topic a bunch of times in past episodes but I referred to it simply as an accountability group. Without accountability, growth and expanded thinking is limited. You’ve got to have a group of outsiders that are willing to tell you you’re wrong from time to time. If you’re ready to be part of an awesome challenge network, we’re always putting new coaching teams together so reach out to me and see if it would be a good fit, but if you want to do this on your own I fully support that effort to. Just make sure you aren’t stacking your challenge network with a bunch of your employees and underlings who fear telling you the truth or pointing out your faults. A good challenge network must consist of people you respect and can take some criticism from. 

There you have it my friends, a primer on how to think differently going forward. Again, I challenge you to start, and keep doubting what you know. Don’t just trust your gut on everything, your intuition is often made up of lots of subconscious pattern recognition and could be wrong. Question everything all the time. Take pleasure in being wrong because it means you’re that much less wrong going forward. Develop what we call ‘confident humility’, which is being secure enough in your strengths to be upfront and honest about your weaknesses. Experiment with everything and treat everything from this day forward as merely a hypothesis. Become aware of when you’re pandering, preaching, prosecuting, and proselytizing. Catch yourself deciding instead of questioning. To decide comes from the Latin root, ‘decidere’, which literally means to ‘cut off’. When you decide, you cut off all other options. There are obvious times when deciding is absolutely the thing that needs to be done. Like when its time to make the decision to cut off all other options and get involved with a good coach and a powerful challenge network. But then there are times when cutting yourself off from new information is the wrong path. And, finally, start to think like a scientist! Make the scientific method your new way of thinking. Observe, hypothesize, test, analyze, retest, re-hypothesize, and then never stop being that way! To take this a step further, when it comes to other people, assess not whether you think they are right or wrong, but on the quality of their thinking process. You may just learn something. 

In honor and memory of all of those who sacrificed, and all of our brothers and sisters who never made it back, have a safe and blessed memorial day my friends. Until next, I’m out….