Lateral Thinking on Lateral Thinking
I think there is need for this thinkers Society to do some lateral thinking on lateral thinking as well;it would be good for its grouth. There exist several concepts,such as Disruptive Thinking,Heuristic Thinking, out of the Box thinking,Innovative Thinking or Computational Thinking; which are in the neighbourhood of Lateral thinking. May be in terms of Cybernetic Thinking they can be interfaced to form a larger concept..
Tags: Bulb
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on -
Perhaps you could give us an outline of what these various terms mean that you have mentioned? Perhaps a link to each of them?
Many of us are not familiar with how these various terms are different from Lateral Thinking. The list of descriptions are regional or localized.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on -
Well - go on. Use Lateral Thinking on Lateral Thinking and see what happens. Report back to us over this. You have asserted that we need to do this for our "growth". Do we need to grow this society? I tend to feel by now that we need to chuck out some dead wood!!
How would using LT on LT improve the use of LT?????
Lateral Thinking is a tool. It is completely and utterly artificial - just as a hammer is, and can be turned to many specific purposes (as can a hammer).
Do you ever need a hammer to get better use out of a hammer? Please explain how you can get better use out of a tool by turning the use of the tool on itself. Is this even possible? It certainly doesn't appear logical, but then I am the first to admit that logic doesn't play an enormous role in LT.
When there are so few people in the world who have even heard of LT let alone know how it might be used, I suggest that to do what you are suggesting might be tantamount to getting a little ahead of ourselves at this time.
Nevertheless, you may well be on to something interesting, so even though I sound a little negative here, you have my encouragement. Go on a little about what you have termed "computational thinking". I may well be able to share some interesting thoughts with you on that.
-
Permalink Reply by Asa Jomard on -
Kim,
I might have misunderstood all this, but I separate lateral thinking from lateral thinking tools. This means that I can consider the possibility of lateral thinking on lateral thinking. In fact, that is a very interesting and important question. In my mind, lateral thinking has been used for years. The tools developed may be artificial but they may only be the first step.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
Asa
you may well be right. I am leaving the door wide open on this. From time to time, people do come up with this suggestion, and of course it makes linguistic sense. But why would you do it?
The artificiality of the tools is precisely why they work. A catheter is completely artificial but can save your life. I'm not sure what we gain by saying "a catheter is an example of surgical technology" - consideration of examples of surgical technology won't save your life but an actual catheter correctly inserted may well do so.
Similarly, distinguishing Lateral Thinking from the tools of Lateral Thinking seems a little academic (to me.) Without people actually using the tools of Lateral Thinking and changing the reality around them, I cannot see that LT exists at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Asa Jomard on
-
Kim,
In this case I would do it because it moves the discussion forward!
(And of course, I am an optimist who believes that LT would exist without the tools, although, the tools makes it easier).
-
Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on -
Q What does an Australian have in his toolbox?
A A hammer and a bigger hammer.
Little hammer doesn't work, just use the big one!!! It can do anything!
Logical in hindsight, NOT.
Bit of a silly joke. Couldn't resist it.
actually you CAN turn a tool on itself.
Use the magic word.
PO You can turn a tool on itself.
and see if it that leads to new ideas.
PO Getting a little a head of ourselves.
PO Random phrase
"Your mother wears army boots" (Bugs Bunny)
PO People think better while laughing.
PO Its easier to come up with ideas when you are not too serious.
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Stevens on -
PO Random phrase
"Your mother wears army boots" (Bugs Bunny)
- accentuate operacy - what comes after using thinking tools - 6 action shoes is an example, more needed
- its a funny image - can we have more humour tools - canned concepts (similar to Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies)
- startling assertion to someone who doesn't know what PO means - suggests listing ways to introduce thinking tools into a deliberation where the others are not aware of the tools.
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Stevens on
-
Ok, concepts..Need to apply thinking focus on areas that don't need it. Often we don't use the thinking tools because there is no call to do so. Can we design a tool to fire up thinking when not needed?
Often reason for rejecting thinking is because of the cost in time. This is sometimes justified but treated as always justified. Can we design tools to identify when lateral thinking time is "not justified", giving us permission to do lateral thinking, design thinking the rest of the time?
Palette, painters palette, can we make a master list of all the thinking tools, like the areas that appear in deBono's thinking packs? Include logic, critical thinking, lateral thinking, scientific method, parallel thinking, directed attention thinking tools, analysis etc.
Thinking without success is off-putting. Can we use harvesting to reinforce the sense of success in thinking even when lateral thinking was not used? Can harvesting be a useful way to look at news reports to identify things that may not be obvious? In confrontational situations can you harvest your opponents thinking to show that you understand their position?
Just off the top of my head. I could probably concept fan from this to come up with more if I had time but its 12:30am and I think I will come back later and contribute.
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Stevens on
-
More on the palette idea. Create a little set of cards for the tools you use most often. Add to this one tool you feel you neglect and work at using it more often. After a while either put it in the "I don't use this" pile or the "Used often" wallet and start work on another one.
Occasionally revisit the I don't use this pile.
The cards could take check marks each time you use a technique, like a pilots log. Maybe you can have others sign-off on the use leading to some kind of peer level.
That leads me to consider Thinking Skill peer review of some form. Could that be done with the software used here or would it need better internet tools?
-
Permalink Reply by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi on -
Yes there are ways to focus on the unidentifiedareas of research.Please see on the Net 'Science Frontiers;onlilne : Directed Mutation,Issue No. 64 Jul-Aug 1989 and also see ' Directed Creaticity website. Some of these tools have been systematically been arranged by Pelck in his website Directed Creativity.
As for designing a system one needs to build future scenarios using various creative thinking tools and then identify what knowledge/technologies are required.Next go ahead with specific tools as considered appropriate by the researcher. I doubt if any model can be designed to indicate cost justifications. These are complex judjements and best left to thsion making body to give weights between present vs. future requirements. Although models have been made,e.g. see Value Innovations Inc prodcats
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
Danny Boy wrote:
can we make a master list of all the thinking tools, like the areas that appear in deBono's thinking packs?
Another Aussie, Ken Bopp had launched into precisely that project before you signed on. He was compiling a database of all the tools and I gave the project the nickname:
"The Toolshed" - the place you go to find the right tool for the job.
People started talking about copyright infringement and the whole thing died in the bum just as I was suggesting we get "Design Notation 2" from New Thinking for the New Millenium up as our major work flow notation. I had the idea that we could learn to read this nottion just as a musician reads music, then we wouldn't have to get RSI in the index fingers from typing out all of these bloody words.
KEN!!!!!
YOU STILL THERE?????
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on
-
Yes, I tried to point out during those very respectful (scaredy-cats!) declarations of all those reasons that project should be abandoned...that there are ways to proceed that clearly indicate copyrights are continuing to be respected. These have to do with proper citations, endorsements and the ability of the work to be corrected/edited so that it doesn't mislead.
Of course, out of respect nobody wants to step on anyone's toes. The worst things often happen once people start to be afraid what "other people" will think. It did not help that there were rumors around that time how Amanda Mobbs was delivering vague threats (even to thinkers who had been trained!) about legal repercussions if these people did "something objectionable." Nobody wants a legal battle, so it brought all discretionary contributions to a halt.
Obviously, the solution is to proceed ahead until there is a clear question to ask. In this situation, there is nothing lost from asking. But until there is something real to be presented and asked about, what is there to ask? Endorsing what is not yet there can't happen when the endorsement must depend on exactly what that is.
One solution was merely to make the building of the "Tool Shed" private, then present it for endorsement when ready - then edit and integrate solutions to any objections that emerged at that point. I do not see anything wrong with "untrained" doing the bulk of the outlining in a scholarly fashion because results can be edited. But apparently, most people here did not dare to cross the King's possible displeasure, why was that? Was it the possible penalty of losing some part of the benefits of their considerable investment that a project such as this might take? I think it was out of "respect" to de Bono about not messing with copyright issues...which is an area of specialization and to most people - a "can of worms" that they were not willing to open.
Perhaps the whole thing was dropped like a hot potato because it quickly mushroomed into a much bigger project, with legal issues. Scholarly education/review is provided for by laws without betraying copyrights, and this is exactly what would be necessary. Evidently adhering to those strictures seemed like too much work?
I'm willing...
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
