Think Again

THE STRENGTH OF WEAK OPINIONS
When we hit a brick wall in a debate, we don’t have to stop talking
altogether. “Let’s agree to disagree” shouldn’t end a discussion. It should
start a new conversation, with a focus on understanding and learning rather
than arguing and persuading. That’s what we’d do in scientist mode: take
the long view and ask how we could have handled the debate more
effectively. Doing so might land us in a better position to make the same
case to a different person—or to make a different case to the same person
on a different day.
When I asked one of the Wall Street executives for advice on how to
approach debates differently in the future, he suggested expressing less
conviction. I could easily have countered that I was uncertain about which
of my twenty-six recommendations might be relevant. I could also have
conceded that although money didn’t usually solve the problem, I’d never
seen anyone test the effect of million-dollar retention bonuses. That would
be a fun experiment to run, don’t you think?
A few years ago, I argued in my book Originals that if we want to fight
groupthink, it helps to have “strong opinions, weakly held.” Since then I’ve
changed my mind—I now believe that’s a mistake. If we hold an opinion
weakly, expressing it strongly can backfire. Communicating it with some

---

uncertainty signals confident humility, invites curiosity, and leads to a more
nuanced discussion. Research shows that in courtrooms, expert witnesses
and deliberating jurors are more credible and more persuasive when they
express moderate confidence, rather than high or low confidence.
*
 And
these principles aren’t limited to debates—they apply in a wide range of
situations where we’re advocating for our beliefs or even for ourselves.
In 2014, a young woman named Michele Hansen came across a job
opening for a product manager at an investment company. She was excited
about the position but she wasn’t qualified for it: she had no background in
finance and lacked the required number of years of experience. If you were
in her shoes and you decided to go for it, what would you say in your cover
letter?
The natural starting point would be to emphasize your strengths and
downplay your weaknesses. As Michael Scott deadpanned on The Office, “I
work too hard, I care too much, and sometimes I can be too invested in my
job.” But Michele Hansen did the opposite, taking a page out of the George
Costanza playbook on Seinfeld: “My name is George. I’m unemployed and
I live with my parents.” Rather than trying to hide her shortcomings,

---

Michele opened with them. “I’m probably not the candidate you’ve been
envisioning,” her cover letter began. “I don’t have a decade of experience as
a Product Manager nor am I a Certified Financial Planner.” After
establishing the drawbacks of her case, she emphasized a few reasons to
hire her anyway:
But what I do have are skills that can’t be taught. I take
ownership of projects far beyond my pay grade and what is in my
defined scope of responsibilities. I don’t wait for people to tell me
what to do and go seek for myself what needs to be done. I invest
myself deeply in my projects and it shows in everything I do, from
my projects at work to my projects that I undertake on my own
time at night. I’m entrepreneurial, I get things done, and I know I
would make an excellent right hand for the co-founder leading this
project. I love breaking new ground and starting with a blank slate.
(And any of my previous bosses would be able to attest to these
traits.)
A week later a recruiter contacted her for a phone screen, and then she
had another phone screen with the team. On the calls, she asked about
experiments they’d run recently that had surprised them. The question itself
surprised the team—they ended up talking about times when they were sure
they were right but were later proven wrong. Michele got the job, thrived,
and was promoted to lead product development. This success isn’t unique to
her: there’s evidence that people are more interested in hiring candidates
who acknowledge legitimate weaknesses as opposed to bragging or
humblebragging.
Even after recognizing that she was fighting an uphill battle, Michele
didn’t go on defense or offense. She didn’t preach her qualifications or
prosecute the problems with the job description. By agreeing with the
argument against her in her cover letter, she preempted knee-jerk rejection,
demonstrating that she was self-aware enough to discern her shortcomings
and secure enough to admit them.
An informed audience is going to spot the holes in our case anyway.
We might as well get credit for having the humility to look for them, the
foresight to spot them, and the integrity to acknowledge them. By

---

emphasizing a small number of core strengths, Michele avoided argument
dilution, focusing attention on her strongest points. And by showing
curiosity about times the team had been wrong, she may have motivated
them to rethink their criteria. They realized that they weren’t looking for a
set of skills and credentials—they were looking to hire a human being with
the motivation and ability to learn. Michele knew what she didn’t know and
had the confidence to admit it, which sent a clear signal that she could learn
what she needed to know.
By asking questions rather than thinking for the audience, we invite
them to join us as a partner and think for themselves. If we approach an
argument as a war, there will be winners and losers. If we see it more as a
dance, we can begin to choreograph a way forward. By considering the
strongest version of an opponent’s perspective and limiting our responses to
our few best steps, we have a better chance of finding a rhythm.

---

O