Book Summary: Rethink by Steven Poole

It is not always necessary to come up with fresh ideas to be innovative. Sometimes all it takes is a new perspective on old concepts.

Our past can teach us a lot. Some concepts were conceived hundreds or thousands of years ago but were not suitable for implementation until recently.

And now they're returning. They're being rediscovered and improved upon. Innovators make things better by reviving and improving past ideas.

Yes, history is full of poor ideas and mistakes. It does, however, include some unexpected jewels that should not be overlooked.

Rethinking entails questioning our assumptions about authority, knowledge, and judgment. The same concept might be awful one moment and excellent the next, and the finest new ideas are frequently old ideas that need to be reconsidered.

Author Steven Poole examines the evolution of new ideas and how we may best benefit from them.

Part One

‍

There are several approaches to rethinking concepts.

The first is when new circumstances necessitate the application of old concepts.

Leeches, for example, have been used as a medicine since ancient Greece. In nineteenth-century Europe, leeches were thought to be the best cure for almost every ailment.

Science eventually triumphed, and the use of leeches as a therapy became obsolete. Then, in 1985, a dog in Boston chewed off a five-year-old boy's ear. The ear was sewn back on by a doctor; however, there were difficulties with his blood clotting.

The doctor remembered something he'd read about therapeutic leeches and put two in the boy's ear. The ear healed in minutes, and that doctor became the first to reattach a child's ear with microsurgery successfully.

Because they are effective at maintaining the patient's blood flowing in a damaged region, leeches are now commonly employed in reattachment procedures and plastic surgery.

In today's world, rethinking the usage of leeches is helpful.

The second sort of rethinking occurs when fresh knowledge makes an old concept relevant once again.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, for example, wondered how giraffes obtained their long necks many years ago. He believed that the giraffes extended their necks to reach the higher leaves and that this stretched neck was handed down to their progeny through time.

However, scientists disproved this notion. They discovered that genes are fixed at birth and that nothing that happens to an animal throughout its lifespan can change what it passes on to its offspring.

Then, in 2003, a research by French scientist Isabelle Mansuy looked at the offspring of mice subjected to stressful conditions that resulted in depression.

Even though their parents' depression was an acquired characteristic, the kids had greater rates of depression. Lamarck turned out to be correct after all.

The third type of innovation is when an old concept gets revived in a new setting.

Repositioning is a term used in the pharmaceutical business to describe this. Ritalin, for example, was developed as an antidepressant.

It was repurposed once it was discovered that it might be used to treat ADHD. A new context is all it takes to transform an old, poor idea into a powerful one.

The fourth method of rethinking ideas is to approach an old idea with a fresh perspective. The cultural, social, or economic system is not ready to welcome some ideas when they are initially offered.

However, as opinions shift, the concept may flourish.

In 1965, Herbert A. Gilbert invented a device that looked eerily similar to the current e-cigarette. His plan, however, was not well received at the time.

After forty years, the moment had come for e-cigarettes because society had changed its mind about the risks of regularly smoking cigarettes.

Although cultural attitudes shift slowly, rethinking can save lives when they do.

Part Two

‍

Many excellent ideas come from rethinking, but not every idea has been considered before; there is a new idea now and then.

Newton's idea of gravity, for example, was groundbreaking. Because of human knowledge and technology, he came up with his theories, yet the theory itself was unprecedented.

However, the notion that innovation must be unique is absurd. Usually, discovery is rediscovery.

One idea builds on another. An app that monitors heart rate, for example, may seem like a unique concept, but it is based on the concepts of other equipment that measure heart rate and other applications.

Many ideas feed off of one another. And some ideas keep coming back, even though it's conceivable they'll never be confirmed.

Philosophers make a lot of assertions, but it's hard to know if they're objectively correct. Even though confirmation is still a long way off, certain ideas gather a lot of traction.

Panpsychism, or the concept of awareness in objects, is an example of this.

Recently, philosophers such as Galen Strawson have argued that consciousness is a basic feature of matter. He claims that there is no proof that awareness isn't a component of the atoms' shimmering pattern.

And, although being mocked in the beginning, panpsychism has recently gained some respect.

Ideas like panpsychism have come back throughout history to nag at the limits of our understanding—though there's no way to confirm these ideas.

Some ideas come back even after they should have died. In 2016, rapper B.o.B., for example, argued on Twitter that the earth is still flat. And he's not the only one.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the flat-earth theory has resurfaced in recent years. This is an example of a zombie thought, which you can try to kill but won't go away.

These beliefs will survive if they benefit a powerful group of people or if individuals are too lazy to double-check the facts.

The concept that the human tongue has separate regions for different flavors is one example of a zombie thought commonly regarded as genuine (such as sweet, sour, and bitter).

That is not how the tongue works at all, even though many people assume it is.

Keep an open mind, and don't be scared to challenge ideas.

On the other hand, incorrect ideas might be beneficial in reminding us of what we don't know. We may lose out on startling facts if we don't explore topics that appear improbable. It's sometimes necessary to be incorrect initially to be right afterward.

It doesn't matter if certain ancient notions are accurate since they are so deeply ingrained in our thoughts and culture.

Take the concept of free will, for example. It makes no difference whether it is real or not; everyone will continue to live their lives as if they have free will. We don't have a choice. Therefore it may just be a placebo effect.

Even if someone claims that they do not have free will, they must continue to live their lives and make decisions as if they do. Aside from that, nothing will happen.

Part Three

‍

What ideas should the world focus on to make it a better place? One option that seems promising is universal basic income.

A universal basic income concept may be traced back to Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, which was published in 1796. It was rejected, but it has subsequently been brought up in a variety of contexts.

Over the ages, universal basic income has been suggested and rejected several times, primarily because people would simply lounge about and watch TV if they had enough money to eat.

However, pilot investigations have revealed that this is not always the case. On the other hand, many others believe that having a basic income will allow people to spend their time instead of thinking about and working on new ideas that will benefit society.

People also claim that the concept is too simplistic to fix all of the world's complex issues. However, experiments in Brazil, Uganda, and Kenya indicate that, despite its simplicity, "just giving people money" may be the most successful approach to tackle poverty.

We respect complicated and nuanced ideas, yet basic concepts are sometimes the best.

Some concepts appear to be morally correct or incorrect, yet they are dependent on the historical context. Moral perspectives have evolved often over time.

Our current moral beliefs will be rethought in the same way that previous moral views have been rethought. Pariah ideas, such as designer babies, are ones that a particular environment has unfairly polluted.

Would you give your three-year-old child a medication that would make them smarter? Is it that different from enrolling them in piano lessons and tutoring?

What if there was a medication that a pregnant woman could take that had the same impact on the unborn child? What is the distinction between pharmaceutical and genetic enhancement?

Eugenics has a poor name because of the tragedies that have occurred throughout its past. However, just because a concept has been used for evil does not indicate it will always be used for bad.

Positive eugenics would encourage "higher-quality" people to have more children rather than excluding "bad" ones from having children. Maybe it's time to rethink eugenics.

Evidence isn't a rock-solid, unchanging, and always trustworthy foundation. There is nothing about which we can be certain. Even if we have a lot of evidence to support a theory, we can never fully prove it since there might be just as much evidence to support the opposing view.

This summary has described a variety of new and ancient ways of thinking about concepts. And they're all predicated on a certain level of faith. Recognize that we don't know what we don't know and don't know what we do.

Our society pays scant attention to the major intellectual battles of the past. But the looping evolution of ideas implies that new approaches to many problems may lie in thinking about thoughts and argumentation that people have had before.

‍