We live in a world where conversations about complex issues, such as infectious disease and climate change, revolve around 280-character statements. Nuance is lost, and opinions rapidly radicalize. This makes the age-old problem of inflexible thinking — in which people have difficulty altering their beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence — particularly timely.

In “Think Again,” Grant, a psychology professor at Wharton and the author of “Originals” and “Give and Take,” urges us to constantly rethink our beliefs about politics, science, work and relationships. Grant believes we can simultaneously be confident in our ability to uncover the truth while acknowledging we may be wrong at present. We must convey our uncertainties and information gaps to others, he argues. To achieve such “confident humility,” Grant advises us to “seek out information that goes against our views” and “resist the temptation to preach, prosecute or politick.” We should, he suggests, “think like a scientist.”

To illustrate the scientific method of rethinking and revising, Grant describes a study in which he attempted to reduce animosity between Yankee and Red Sox fans. He began by encouraging the rivals to consider their commonalities. This strategy had worked in other contexts but failed in this case. “We both love baseball,” they agreed, but “they like the wrong team.” Attempts to humanize the competitors were also unsuccessful. The antagonism was finally lowered by highlighting the arbitrary nature of the animosity (team allegiance was due to random factors, such as place of birth). No single tool is guaranteed to always help us rethink our views, habits and preferences. This is why we need a diverse set of strategies, which is what Grant offers.   New York Times