# data[].attributes.body
Word "rethink"
Phrase "cognitive laziness"
Sentence "We hesitate at the very idea of rethinking."

We all find security in routine, and comfort in knowing over the unknown. Once we build schema, we live there. Rethinking not only involves reflection and self awareness, but the ability to acknowledge in the first place that a new way is not only possible, but potentially better. Moreover, rethinking is hard, but "we hesitate at the very idea of rethinking" to begin with, because it presents a threat to our structure. We see the disruption of routine, of what we know, of where we are comfortable, as an actual existential threat, and will often avoid the necessary vulnerability it takes to acknowledge a new way. Yet, as we see with the smoke jumpers example, a new way can often be the best way.

# data[].attributes.body
Phrase- A hallmark of wisdom is knowing when it's time to abandon some of your most treasured tools-and some of the most cherished parts of your identity.
Word-grappling
We often prefer the ease of hanging on to old views over the difficulty of grappling with new ones.

# data[].attributes.body
The question, "What if we were quicker to make amendments to our own mental constitutions" is a powerful analogy to the amendments to the U.S. constitution. Having to rethink our lives, ideas and ways of living can be complex to the average person. It is a process that will not happen over night.

# data[].attributes.body
Word: rethinking
Phrase: "...knowledge and opinions, we tend to stick to our guns."
Sentence: This book is an invitation to let go of knowledge and opinions that are no longer serving you well, and to anchor your sense of self in flexibility rather than consistency.

# data[].attributes.body
Cognitive laziness.
Re-think and Unlearn
Re-think situations faster.

# data[].attributes.body
Word:  RETHINKING

Phrase:  cognitive laziness

Sentence:  "Let go of knowledge and opinions that are no longer serving you well, and anchor your sense of self in flexibility rather than consistency." p. 12

# data[].attributes.body
"Alternative view: intelligence is the ability to rethink and unlearn"

# data[].attributes.body
Rethinking and mental fitness is something you have to work for. It does not come naturally. I make that effort every day. The older I get, the more I realize I have yet to learn. There is always more to learn and another side to the story.

# data[].attributes.body
Our ways of thinking become habits that can weigh us down, and we don't bother to question them until it's too late.

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting that rethinking can also cause a shift in our identity. Sometimes the reason we don't want to rethink something is because of that very thing.

# data[].attributes.body
Word- Flexibility

Change is constant and with change you have to be flexible enough to rethinking ways you do things or think about things in order to make best decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
Word: Refresh
Phrase: mental pliability
Sentence: Reconsidering something we believe deeply can threaten our identities, making it feel as if we're losing a part of ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Our ways of thinking become habits that weigh us down.

# data[].attributes.body
In the past two years, we have all had to flexible because of the pandemic. We've had to rethink ways of doing things and how we function in the world. It is sad that it took this to force us to generate new solutions to old problems.

# data[].attributes.body
Word--open minded
Phrase--Let's rethink
Sentence--The purpose of learning isn't to affirm our beliefs; it is to evolve oure beliefs!

# data[].attributes.body
Word: "grappling" (p.4)

This word stands out to me because it is a reminder that the work of rethinking is difficult and requires both struggle and effort.

Phrase: "flexibility rather than consistency" (p.12)

I think this is an integral component for rethinking the way we've always done things.

Sentence: "Thinking again can help you generate new solutions to old problems and revisit old solutions to new problems," (p.12).

I think this applies to so many aspects of education, our jobs, and the world at large right now.

# data[].attributes.body
Word: Rethinking
Phrase: My sense of self
Sentence:
Since I didn't know how to code, I didn't have the tools to build something more sophisticated. Launching a company wasn't part of my identify anyway. I saw myself as a college freshman, not a budding entrepreneur. (p. 9)

# data[].attributes.body
Word: generate
Phrase: generate new solutions
Sentence: "Thinking again can help you generate new solutions to old problems and revisit old solutions to new problems."
If I can "draw in" my teachers much like the magnet in the image, I stand a better chance of helping them generate new solutions and revisit old solutions. Once "drawn in" I can come alongside them to fill their carts and bags with tools that will equip them to draw their students in to generate new solutions and revisit old ones.

# data[].attributes.body
Word - Intelligence (p.2)
Phrase - Mental fitness (p. 2)
Sentence - "Even our great governing document, the U.S. Constitution, allows for amendments. What if we were quicker to make amendments to our own mental constitutions?" (p. 10)

My thoughts: I am rethinking this idea of 'mind over matter'. Mind over Matter as I know it denotes fortitude, strength, perseverance, consistency, etc. All great dispositions to have while facing a challenge. But, how much more useful it might have been to me in overcoming life's challenges if I had exercised more mental flexibility/pliability than mental fortitude in those moments? How much more efficient I could have been, had I thought about all the ways to take on the challenges and had the courage to do it?
"...the smokejumpers missed another opportunity to think again - and that one was right at their fingertips."

# data[].attributes.body
I think that one of the most prominent thoughts I gained from the prologue is that of "Dropping your Tools".  It means I need to step away from the comfortable, the familiar. To quote the author, "You have to rethink your goal in your job — and your role in life... Dropping ones tools creates an existential crisis. Without my tools, who am I?"

# data[].attributes.body
Word: "amendments"
Phrase: mental flexibility...pliability
Sentence: "I close by reflecting on the importance of reconsidering our best laid plans."

# data[].attributes.body
Word/Phrase: Mental Flexibility
Sentence: We favor the comfort of conviction over the discomfort of doubt, and we let our beliefs get brittle long before our bones.

# data[].attributes.body
Word: unlearn
Phrase: Mentally fit (p.2)
Sentence: "I can't think of a more vital time for rethinking." (p.9)

# data[].attributes.body
Word: WISDOM - I like the idea of "wise" as being able to identify when you need to change your thinking about something. (p.12)

Phrase: "amendments to our own mental constitutions" - I am a good proofreader and can almost always spot a typo - in *someone else's* work. I like the idea of successfully "amending" my own ideas (even though that is likely much harder than telling other people how they should amend theirs. 😉 ) (p. 10)

Sentence: "...let go of knowledge and opinions that are no longer serving you well, and anchor your sense of self in flexibility rather than consistency." (p.12)

# data[].attributes.body
Word: "automatic" (p. 5)
Phrase: "cognitive laziness" (p. 4)
Sentence: "We listen to views that make us feel good, instead of ideas that make us think hard." (p. 4)

This paragraph from the sentence above on page 4 reminds me of an MSNBC article during the first year of the pandemic about how steadfastness to an opinion is really valued in several circles, even when new evidence has been presented:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/23/why-scientists-change-their-mind-and-disagree.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you've tuned into the daily news cycle during the coronavirus pandemic, you've probably noticed circumstances where scientists seemed reluctant to share information, debated the latest research on social media or downright changed their views.

In our culture, we often hold politicians, corporate executives and other leaders accountable for the consistency of their positions. In political debates, candidates will often point out on the debate stage that a rival swung to the left or right over a controversial issue. It suggests a lack of authenticity, or even careerism, and indicates that they can't be trusted to do what's right for their constituents.

In the scientific world, it's expected that even the highest-ranking academics will evolve their thinking - and many have done so during this Covid-19 pandemic.

But some scientists fear that the public doesn't understand this, and is losing faith in scientists who change their minds. And that's having real consequences on the front lines.

Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician who works at the Rhode Island Hospital, said some patients are coming into her emergency department refusing to wear masks. When she prompted them to wear one, they often told her that public health authorities like the World Health Organization and the CDC initially advised against wearing masks, saying there was little evidence that it would help prevent people from getting sick.

That recommendation later changed, as studies began to show evidence that people with no symptoms might be spreading the disease. Now, the CDC encourages all people in public to wear masks where social distancing measures cannot be maintained, including cloth-based coverings, to prevent the disease from spreading -- exactly what citizens in some countries, like Hong Kong and Japan, had guessed during the early days of the pandemic based on past experiences. As of the time of publication, The World Health Organization recommends masks for sick people or anyone caring for them, but has no guidance on masks for healthy people.

But as Ranney pointed out in an interview with CNBC, it's "part of the process" that leading public health authorities would adapt their thinking based on new information.

Carl Bergstrom, a biology professor of the University of Washington and an author of a book about misinformation, explained that very little was known about the virus back in January and February. So infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists had to do their best without much data at their fingertips.

Even today, notes Dr. Bergstrom, there isn't always a clear answer on important metrics like the case fatality rate (Dr. Bergstrom provided a range, when asked about that, and not an exact percentage). Sometimes the only response is "it depends," or the even less satisfying "we're still figuring that out." That can be difficult to hear when the public is searching for answers, and policymakers are looking for clear advice to pass on to their constituents.

"When you take a completely novel virus, you are starting out from a position of by default knowing nothing," Dr. Bergstrom explained. "You can at best make guesses based on what you know about previous coronaviruses and prior outbreaks of other respiratory viruses."

As a pandemic progresses, scientists will get more data as more cases occur. "That gives us more time to do basic investigation into the molecular biology of the virus and the interaction between the virus and host," he explained. "You get more opportunity to watch how transmission works. And you come up with new conclusions based on more evidence, and then you make those public because it's the best of what you know."

Others in the community say that it's even a badge of honor for a scientist to update their thinking when confronted with new evidence. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said that best scientists are "continually re-evaluating themselves to see what we got right and what we got wrong."

As he put it: "It's a high mark to be able to say, 'I'm going to change my mind'."

With the situation moving so quickly, scientists are rushing to publish papers before they're peer-reviewed. Those papers are increasingly getting picked apart on social media by communities of their peers -- a process that previously would have happened behind closed doors.

The so-called " preprint servers" like bioRxiv and medRxiv feature research that is disseminated far more rapidly than the usual peer-review process, which can take weeks or months. Consumers are now witness to these discussions and occasional fiery disagreements.

One particularly noteworthy debate during this pandemic concerned a group of academics, including Dr. John Ioannides, at Stanford University, who have consistently argued there's a lack of evidence to support shelter-in-place orders. That same group published research via one of these preprint servers indicating that the virus might be more prevalent than initially believed, and therefore potentially less deadly.

It was pilloried by other scientists on Twitter and other social media platforms and picked apart for the problematic methodologies.

"These discussions used to take place over email or by phone," Bergstrom said. "Sometimes there are just different groups working on the same problem, but with a different hypothesis or a different theoretical framework," he added. "So if you see scientists arguing, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is a bad actor."

Prasad believes that scientists are right to point out flaws in data or methodology, particularly if the paper has been published in a preprint server or the conclusions that the public are jumping to might be dangerous. But he takes exception with the personal attacks he's seen on social media.

For consumers without scientific training, he notes, it can be extremely challenging to determine the true experts in a field, especially when a person's credentials appear to be solid. He suggests looking a researcher's publication history, but recognizes that not everyone has time to do that.

If you spot scientists disagreeing, he notes, recognize that it's somewhat normal - especially given that the stakes are so high right now.

"The more eyeballs on the paper, the more likely it is to get critiqued," he said. "Because of Covid-19, someone has turned up speed on factory line and it's not pretty sometimes."

"Science is under pressure and you're seeing how the sausage is made," agreed Bergstrom.

When the worst of the crisis is over, there will certainly be an opportunity to look back and reflect on some of the mistakes that were made along the way.

Dr. Prasad said that the scientific community will likely engage in a process of its own to do just that.

"When the dust settles and we're a couple of years out, I think it will be a useful exercise to evaluate what we got right. Were they the best policy decisions for the evidence that was available at the time? I don't think you get off the hook for views that are totally wrong," he said.

Timothy Caulfield, the Canadian professor of law at the University of Alberta, differentiates between cases where a scientist changes their mind based on new data, and circumstances where someone misrepresented their work, or falsified data.

If it's an inadvertent error, he explained, the research should be retracted with an explanation of the issue, and that should be recirculated to the public. "With so much pressure to move quickly, mistakes seem likely to happen - particularly in preprints. So the scientific community and the media need to take great care in how all of this is reported," he said.

Caulfield notes that policy-decisions are changing, but that doesn't mean that public health shouldn't be trusted.

He describes the the policy around masks specifically as a "profound communication challenge."

"Public health sometimes need to adopt positions, even if the evidence isn't robust," he said. "And from a policy perspective, those positions need to be championed."

"But that doesn't mean that the scientific community should stop talking about the evidence," he added. "You don't want to discourage open, honest debate."
Correction: As of the time of publication, The World Health Organization recommends masks for sick people or anyone caring for them, but has no guidance on masks for healthy people. That stance has remained consistent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why scientists are changing their minds and disagreeing during the coronavirus pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you've tuned into the daily news cycle during the coronavirus pandemic, you've probably noticed circumstances where scientists seemed reluctant to share information, debated the latest research on social media or downright changed their views. In our culture, we often hold politicians, corporate executives and other leaders accountable for the consistency of their positions.

# data[].attributes.body
word = "re-think"
phrase = "let go of knowledge and opinions that are no longer serving you well" (pg. 12)
sentence = "[Rethinking] requires us to admit that the facts may have changed, that what was once right may now be wrong." (pg. 4)

# data[].attributes.body
A set of cognitive skills that matters more: the ability to rethink and unlearn!

# data[].attributes.body
WORD: "invitation" (12)
PHRASE: "rigor of evidence" (3)
SENTENCE: "Yet in a turbulent world, there's another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn" (2).

# data[].attributes.body
Word - Mental pliability

Synonymous with mental agility, this has been critical to develop as I transitioned to my role at the ESC.  I quickly began supervising, leading, and thinking around complex challenges where I had no background or context.

Sentence - "In the past year, we have all had to put our mental pliability to the test."

In short, this text is about rethinking assumptions and long-held beliefs that become limiting and self-imposed. The world is forever different now, and those that refuse to adapt are going to be at a distinct disadvantage economically from others willing to rethink assumptions.