ジャンル: サイエンス・ロジック
英語難易度: ★★☆
オススメ度: ★★☆☆☆
すごく分かりやすくストレートな英語で、英語の勉強にはもってこいの材料です。 ただ、TEDトークを通じてこの著者には割と興味を持っていたのですが、残念ながら読後感としてはあまり心に深く刺さりませんでした。単に私との相性なのかもしれませんが。
グラフや表が多く載っているのですが、詳細なデータに基づいているように見えて、実は著者のアイデアをイラストにまとめただけのものであるところも少し物足りなく思います。心理学者である著者は「Re-Thinking するためには、Scientist の心を持て」と何度も主張されていますが、データの扱い方とその表現の手法はScientist と称するには隔たりを感じました。 取り扱う題材やエピソードはそれなりに面白かったのですけどねー。
(2021年発刊)
メモポイント
⚫︎ IQの高い人々ほどステレオタイプで、自身の過去の意見に固執しがち。
Mental horsepower doesn’t guarantee mental dexterity. No matter how much brainpower you have, if you lack the motivation to change your mind, you’ll miss many occasions to think again. Research reveals that the higher you score on an IQ test, the more likely you are to fall for stereotypes, because you’re faster at recognizing patterns. And recent experiments suggest that the smarter you are, the more you might struggle to update your beliefs.
⚫︎ 米国大統領となった人々の共通点とは。 積極的な人もいれば消極的な人もいる。庶民派、あるいは権謀術数派もいる。その性格はまったくバラバラだった。 唯一の共通点は、新しい意見に興味を持ち、必要となれば自分の古い意見を修正できるという特性だった。
We can even see it in the Oval Office. Experts assessed American presidents on a long list of personality traits and compared them to rankings by independent historians and political scientists. Only one trait consistently predicted presidential greatness after controlling for factors like years in office, wars, and scandals. It wasn’t whether presidents were ambitious or forceful, friendly or Machiavellian; it wasn’t whether they were attractive, witty, poised, or polished.
What set great presidents apart was their intellectual curiosity and openness. They read widely and were as eager to learn about developments in biology, philosophy, architecture, and music as in domestic and foreign affairs. They were interested in hearing new views and revising their old ones. They saw many of their policies as experiments to run, not points to score. Although they might have been politicians by profession, they often solved problems like scientists.
⚫︎ 将来の事象について最も的確に予想ができる人とは？ 知能が高い人でも熱心さを持つ人でもない。 それは最も頻繁に自身の判断の見直しができる人だった。
My colleague Phil Tetlock finds that forecasting skill is less a matter of what we know than of how we think. When he and his collaborators studied a host of factors that predict excellence in forecasting, grit and ambition didn’t rise to the top. Neither did intelligence, which came in second. There was another factor that had roughly triple the predictive power of brainpower.
The single most important driver of forecasters’ success was how often they updated their beliefs. The best forecasters went through more rethinking cycles.
⚫︎ 医療現場での心理的安全性の話。心理的に安全であると感じられる職場の方が医療事故を誘発するエラーの発生件数が多かった。当初は緊張感が足りないからだろう、と考えたがでも本当にそうなのか？ 覆面調査を行ったところ、実は心理的安全性を保証されない職場では、単にエラー報告を上げてペナルティを受けることを恐れていただけであった。実際のエラーの発生頻度は、安全性を保証された職場の方がむしろ低かった。 エラー結果を共有することが次のエラーを防ぐ手立てとなっていたのだ。
she collected data on the number of medical errors each team made, tracking serious outcomes like potentially fatal doses of the wrong medication. She was surprised to find that the more psychological safety a team felt, the higher its error rates.
It appeared that psychological safety could breed complacency. When trust runs deep in a team, people might not feel the need to question their colleagues or double-check their own work.
But Edmondson soon recognized a major limitation of the data: the errors were all self-reported. To get an unbiased measure of mistakes, she sent a covert observer into the units. When she analyzed those data, the results flipped: psychologically safe teams reported more errors, but they actually made fewer errors. By freely admitting their mistakes, they were then able to learn what had caused them and eliminate them moving forward. In psychologically unsafe teams, people hid their mishaps to avoid penalties, which made it difficult for anyone to diagnose the root causes and prevent future problems. They kept repeating the same mistakes.
心理的安全性とは、評価を甘くして、居心地を良くしろ、と言うわけでは無い。率直に意見を述べても、攻撃や報復されないという事なのだ。
Edmondson is quick to point out that psychological safety is not a matter of relaxing standards, making people comfortable, being nice and agreeable, or giving unconditional praise. It’s fostering a climate of respect, trust, and openness in which people can raise concerns and suggestions without fear of reprisal. It’s the foundation of a learning culture.
⚫︎ Grit 努力。成功の源泉の最有力候補の特性であるのが努力、それは情熱と忍耐で形作られている。しかしその特性にも欠点がある。努力することが必ずしも良い結果を生むとは限らない。 誤ったルートに陥っても軌道修正せずに、「忍耐強く」推し進めるきらいがある。
Ironically, it can be fueled by one of the most celebrated engines of success: grit. Grit is the combination of passion and perseverance, and research shows that it can play an important role in motivating us to accomplish long-term goals. When it comes to rethinking, though, grit may have a dark side. Experiments show that gritty people are more likely to keep playing beyond their planned limits in roulette and more willing to stay the course in tasks at which they’re failing and success is impossible. Researchers have even suggested that gritty mountaineers are more likely to die on expeditions, because they’re determined to do whatever it takes to reach the summit.
本書後半部分は、なんだか自己啓発本みたいになってきました… Rethinking に関する巻末の30個のヒントは参考になるかと思ったが、ちょっと刺さりません。 同じ材料を使っても、マルコム・グラッドウェルならもう少し美味しく料理するだろうな、などと考えてしまいました。
