Thinking Tools/Frameworks vs.Discussion
Thinking tools/frameworks improve thinking skill much more than discussion does. One reason is that in discussion it's very difficult to pay attention to the thinking process rather than the content (because the content is interesting).
Understanding vs Use (of the thinking tools)
Understanding will never lead to use. Use can only come from habit and habit can only come from practice.
Understanding vs Use (of the thinking tools)
Understanding will never lead to use. Use can only come from habit and habit can only come from practice.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on -
Graeme, thanks for the information about blue hat. It seems to me that the roles are similar to those for the instructor for case based teaching.
About 6 hats, the thinking process can be opened ended. That means we may (1) spend too much time to find possibilities, and (2) get too many possibilities but could not select the promising ones for testing.
About "Yi (you called Ching)", I want to use it as a tool to limit the possibilities and give possibilities with higher quality. "Yi" tried to use 64 situations to cover all human activities. If I assume it can cover >95% of human activities, we can use it as a tool to guide the thinking for high quality output of possibilities.
Graeme Allan said:Hi Raymund,
I don't believe a 'structured thinking tool' limits the variety of possibilities or outcomes. On the contrary, it is capable of doing the opposite.
I am reminded of a recent post to my Six Hat site where I describe the variety of uses of the Blue Hat. I find this hat causes confusion among teachers in particular. They prefer to engage in 'metacognition' - the exploration of one's own thinking. The real advantage of the Blue Hat is that it encourages exploration of our own thinking and the thinking of others. This is one of the number of rules that determine the full use of that hat. I have itemised these in the mindmap I have attached for your reading, if you wish to download the two files.
As for the Book of Changes - I Ching: I see it as cryptic and I don't believe any philosophical conclusion can be drawn from it directly except that it represents the well-ordered and dynamic universe. This is a different stance to Kant who presumed the universe was disordered. In my reading of the I Ching, I see a dynamic universe which fits Edward de Bono's New Millennium world. THis universe is not to be feared. The element of hope in the I Ching reflects the writing of Mencius who believed that humanity is essentially good. The I Ching also reflects that optimism.
I particularly like the concept that Man and Nature are interlinked. This strikes a strong resonance in Lithuania where "The Nature" is close to a rationalistic perception of Heaven. In fact, there is real value in the belief that 'Heaven' is with us now and some 'state' we do not need to anticipate.
So, if the Universe and everything in it is in a state of perpetual activity, this for me is reality and undeniable. The Book of Changes reminds me of that truth.
Above all, Raymund, I regard I Ching as the greatest of the Confucian Classics - a major admission from a Westerner and a long-time student of Confucianism, the basis of my humanism and support for Edward de Bono who may object to be labeled in that way.
Cheers from Kaunas and thanks for the comments.
-
Permalink Reply by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi on -
I have an obseration to make in passong. It amazes me why creative thinking people should still follow critical thinking mode. I am sure there are other foras in which the cultuure of of 'I am right and you are wrong' can be persued.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on -
There is nothing wrong with critical thinking mode. It is sanctioned under the Black Hat which permits use of the Logical Negative.
We merely have to be aware that there is a tendency for some people to wear this hat and this hat only. Whether creative or not, such people are lopsided in their thinking and unlikely to get "the big picture".
Bhuvaneshwar Joshi said:I have an obseration to make in passong. It amazes me why creative thinking people should still follow critical thinking mode. I am sure there are other foras in which the cultuure of of 'I am right and you are wrong' can be persued.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Creative thinking helps to get possibilities. When we need to select which possibilities are more promising, we still need critical thinking to find the weakness of each possibilities.
Bhuvaneshwar Joshi said:I have an obseration to make in passong. It amazes me why creative thinking people should still follow critical thinking mode. I am sure there are other foras in which the cultuure of of 'I am right and you are wrong' can be persued.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Chadwick on -
Isn't it a little silly to think of it as one vs the other? Instead of saying:
Understanding Vs Use
Should we not be saying:
Understanding and Use
The way I see it, use will be much better when you also understand why.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
I agree. I found most people once "understood", he/she can then "use". But here in China, I encountered many people (usually recently university graduates) can well describe a concept, but cannot use them in actual work. For example, the person can show you the complete procedure in using a statistical tool in Six Sigma for comparing two sets of data. But when he/she encountered a real problem such as in the production line, he simply compares two sets of data using average values. Here, I would like to use a term "remember" instead of "learn" or "understand".
So, we need trainings to change "remember" to "understand".
Ryan Chadwick said:Isn't it a little silly to think of it as one vs the other? Instead of saying:
Understanding Vs Use
Should we not be saying:
Understanding and Use
The way I see it, use will be much better when you also understand why.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
But understanding never does lead to use (in the applicable context which is de Bono Thinking Skills (dBT).
I may be able to prove conclusively that I am a world expert at de Bono. What would this mean? That I can reel off from memory what he wrote on page 116 of "Parallel Thinking" and that I can recall from memory what the title of chapter 7 of "The Mechanism of Mind" is etc? That I am aware that a long-running dispute about the originator of the Six Hat framework exists between de Bono and another teacher of thinking skills? That Edward de Bono long ago suggested a possible solution to the Middle East conflict which involves the shipping of jars of Vegemite to Israel and Palestine?
That I have done some research and discovered that de Bono favours socks whose colour matches the background of the forum in which he is speaking or the background of the photo he is appearing in?
(check out the photo of him at: http://www.debonosociety.com/profiles/blogs/the-happiness-conference
That I am deadly accurate in showing how the To Lo So Po Go framework clarifies unstructured thinking and focuses it like a laser beam?
etc.
I would contend that even if I were to be awarded a PhD based on my peer-reviewed and demonstrated understanding of Edward de Bono, NONE OF IT would be worth a fig unless I can demonstrate how I have used de Bono Thinking in MY LIFE somehow and showed how my life became better as a result.
The trouble is, people love to trumpet their understanding of something. In other words, they let it go at the understanding because there is this tradition that those who "know stuff" are admirable.
De Bono is more about those who can "change the world by doing stuff" which means many things as outlined in his copious writings. So, to settle the minor differences a little in this discussion, I would say that understanding helps to create the perception that de Bono Thinking works. Once this perception is locked into place there may arise the emotional desire to see this happen for oneself. Then you would attempt to use dBT.
There is however no guarantee that everything you understand will somehow materialise as action in your life.
I may understand everything about the mechanics of how music works, but does that make me a great composer? There is reason to believe that a good many "great composers" have little idea about the mechanics of music. They just speak this language. The way they get to speak this language is by habit of use.
You can understand music but understandfing music has rarely led to the composition of a great work of music. If that were the case then music critics could all have secondary careers as composers. Don't know of any because they know that just around the corner is another music critic waiting to criticise them!
-
Permalink Reply by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi on
-
We should promote creative thinking choice of words when making a point and in this regard I am in agreement with Chadwick that understanding and use are two different aspects.One may lead to another. Should not worry about causality.Just as Science and Technology, S leads to T but sometimes even T leads to S,so also use may lead to better understanding
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Chadwick on
-
It seems to me that a common chain of thought is that understanding doesn't lead to use. But I wasn't trying to say this. I was just saying both are important. You can't use effectively if you don't understand as well (maybe you can but it will be luck).
In typical brainstorming fashion we need to look at different perspectives. Why cannot use lead to understanding? Especially if use is combined with questioning and reflection.
For instance I like to end a lot of my brainstorming sessions with a discussion of the method we used and how it affected the meeting.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
You don't have to understand even a single principle behind the working of a combustion engine to learn how to drive a car effectively.
Anyone who can vamp away at a learnt chord progression on a guitar or a piano can be said to be 'doing music' even though they have not the slightest inkling of the theory of harmony or musical mechanics.
Creating a habit of mind is simply that. Do it and do it often. Use it repeatedly. It becomes a pattern of recognition. So my point is that you can use effectively if you don't understand. It is not luck that I came to know how to read and play music. I practised and practised and practised.
There are many other examples of things people excel at without even the slightest understanding of what they do. School kids become adept at flipping a pen or pencil over their knuckles back and forth without dropping it to the table. They sit in class doing it distractedly and become amazingly quick at it. They become experts at something simply through force of use. Ask them what they are doing and they cannot tell you.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Chadwick on
-
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
* but if want to be a race driver you do need a reasonable understanding of how an engine works in order to get the most out of it.
* but if you want to be a great musician you do need to understand harmony etc.
Yes you can do these things without an understanding but if you want to progress then you do need an understanding.
Kim Jones said:You don't have to understand even a single principle behind the working of a combustion engine to learn how to drive a car effectively.
Anyone who can vamp away at a learnt chord progression on a guitar or a piano can be said to be 'doing music' even though they have not the slightest inkling of the theory of harmony or musical mechanics.
Creating a habit of mind is simply that. Do it and do it often. Use it repeatedly. It becomes a pattern of recognition. So my point is that you can use effectively if you don't understand. It is not luck that I came to know how to read and play music. I practised and practised and practised.
There are many other examples of things people excel at without even the slightest understanding of what they do. School kids become adept at flipping a pen or pencil over their knuckles back and forth without dropping it to the table. They sit in class doing it distractedly and become amazingly quick at it. They become experts at something simply through force of use. Ask them what they are doing and they cannot tell you.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Let's use a little bit basic logic here for the discussion. We need causality to describe "what to understand" --> "what to use". For example, we need to understand the effect of the wheel to the car before we can use the wheel to drive. It is possible to list many items showing no linkage between "understand" and "use". But I always can give an item for "understand" before the person can "use". Another example is that if the person does not understand "6 hats", he cannot teach "6 hats" well. One more example, the person needs to understand "chord progression" in a guitar before "doing music" well.
In the statement "Understanding will never lead to use", the word never is not suitable. As understanding can sometimes (or often) lead to use.
I believe the following may be easier for showing the meaning of the statements: Understanding of the thinking tools can not guarantee effective use and implementation. We need practice the thinking tools to become our thinking habit, before we can guarantee the effective use and implementation.
Here, it includes the processes: learning (or remembering) the tools, understanding the tools, practicing to use the tools, becoming a thinking habits in using the tools. For example, we need first to remember each of the hats in 6 hats, then understand it, then practicing it, then use it as habits.
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
