Adam M. Grant

The book varies greately in quality of information and non-fiction writing approach. At times it is journalism with stories of individuals leading the “truth” of a psychological idea, at ofhers a process involving the author to discover answers, and other still studies which are presented in summary form as given ground truth.

The book reveals some interesting ideas, some more original than others. The book also gives direction for a more “scientific” apporach involving reviewing ideas all the time to establish what is good knowledge.

But there is a big problem which underlies the whole text that stopped me from taking it seriously which is that some fundamentals of scientific method are not applies in the actual knowledge presented by the book. The author says we should be ready to update our ideas based on evidence but then presents views dogmatically, without trying to illustrate counter examples, without looking at the statistics underlying this knowledge, without trying to explain to what extent these ideas are true…

Ultimately the author assumes the reader is in a fairly narrow socio-cultural-economic space. The author is talking to big companies, successful people, working on problems that are quite niche. How would this translate to a broader world population I cannot see, and if it doesn’t could it be the basic of knowledge here is not set up correctly?

I found the book very useful as an example of how well meaning scientific knowledge is presented devoid of the tools that give science the power to actually create consensus.

Very likely all these problems were part of the process of the author’s engagement with publishers and their concers of how accessible the text would be. The end chapters give a picture of how invasive publishers can be.

… (plus d'informations)