When a trio of psychologists conducted a comprehensive review of thirty-three studies, they found that in every one, the majority of answer revisions were from wrong to right. This phenomenon is known as the first-instinct fallacy. (Location 112)

In one demonstration, psychologists counted eraser marks on the exams of more than 1,500 students in Illinois. Only a quarter of the changes were from right to wrong, while half were from wrong to right. (Location 113)

But recent studies point to a different explanation: it’s not so much changing your answer that improves your score as considering whether you should change it. (Location 118)

We question the judgment of experts whenever we seek out a second opinion on a medical diagnosis. Unfortunately, when it comes to our own knowledge and opinions, we often favor feeling right over being right. (Location 294)

Two decades ago my colleague Phil Tetlock discovered something peculiar. As we think and talk, we often slip into the mindsets of three different professions: preachers, prosecutors, and politicians. (Location 305)

We go into preacher mode when our sacred beliefs are in jeopardy: we deliver sermons to protect and promote our ideals. (Location 307)

We enter prosecutor mode when we recognize flaws in other people’s reasoning: we marshal arguments to prove them wrong and win our case. (Location 307)

We shift into politician mode when we’re seeking to win over an audience: we campaign and lobby for the approval of our constituents. (Location 308)

The risk is that we become so wrapped up in preaching that we’re right, prosecuting others who are wrong, and politicking for support that we don’t bother to rethink our own views. (Location 310)

If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession. You’re paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. You’re expected to doubt what you know, be curious about what you don’t know, and update your views based on new data. (Location 322)

Note: Fourth identity: scientist