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 Franis on -
Welcome to the fray, ViJay,
Very interesting suggestion, that not having any pattern at all is a beneficial pattern. That is quite an ideal! :o
However, I agree with you from my experience teaching Alexander Technique, which is a perception training technique. It teaches that people can merely remove routines, without specifying what it is that "should be" done to replace them. The result is an odd sensation of freedom from these limitations, along with enhanced sensory ability that allows new sensory observations and insights. Of course, the use of lateral and creative thinking tools works better once there are new observations.
This feature was pointed out by de Bono. Most people do not bother to use thinking skills unless their way forward is completely blocked. Then they must solve the problem, there is no other choice - and trying a new way is better than having nothing. They have nothing to lose.
What you and Edward de Bono suggest is that it is better to be pro-active on the front end. While you have a semi-functional means, it is better figure out ways to make things even better. The advantage could be huge! Or at least, a person cannot guess the percentage of improvement before the results has actually been experienced.
When you say "sub-conscious" do you mean the part of us that resists creativity and innovation from the need for self-preservation?
(BTW, none of the .pdf links in English work from your website.)
Vijay Todi said:It is certainly great to think "out of patterns" instead of "along the patterns". (This is possible only 2% of the times) But is it enough?
If we can cease to make new patterns and keep erasing the existing ones, it will lead us to GREAT results. In such case, we need not deliberately attempt to escape the patterns through creative thinking tools. We shall be able to think creative in absolutely natural course. Such creative thinking & actions would happen 98% of the times.
To do so, we need to train our subconscious mind. Please visit www.dhamma.com and let me have your views.
-
Permalink Reply by Vijay Todi on -
Great analysis of human thinking.
While in discussion my entire attention is on contents, in high-lighting my point/perception, in my vested interests, in proving my ability, in proving disability of others etc. Hence, can not lead to Creativity.
While attempting to practise the EdB tools there is a huge resistance from within. Because, when I try to become rational, think objective, I am challenging and attacking my vested interests, my ego, my perceptions & prejudices. This upsets me and make me return to my old silly thinking styles of impulsive thinking.
Thus, the problem is within; and the solution must also be within. Please advise.
-
Permalink Reply by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi on -
Understanding and use are mutually re inforcing and so go hand in hand. For example use of Six Thinking Hats would become more effective when the group is more at ease(through usase)at switching between Green hat and Black hat or even understands the role of Blue hat better. You are right that understanding the process is more important than understanding the outcome.
B.Joshi
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on -
In this society the main topic is "think", but I also want to add the effect of "learn (or understand)". In many cases, we cannot separate these two. For example, when we ask first grade pupils "how many ways of using pencil?", do they create a completely new idea (such as produce carbon nanotube), or just based on his/her previous learning and experience to give answers?
If a person cannot “use” a concept, is it because he/she did not “understand” or did not “think”?
For R&D, solving engineering issues, developing new businesses, before we can create something new, we need to learn first, including previous published papers and patents, competitor information, market information, etc. After learned, the next step is to find the possibilities, and then select one or a few most promising possibilities to test. So the overall process includes (a) learn, (b) find possibilities, (c) select the promising ones, and (d) prove the innovation.
When I deal with researchers, engineers and marketing staff of several years of working experience, I found the main problem is not having enough background information (not really understand) before making a suggestion. I need to ask them to check many obvious factors. After learned, I found they usually can provide possibilities when asked to do so, but they lack the ability to select the most promising ones.
Go back to this topic, my suggestion is that we need a tool to help people to measure the learning (how many the person understands), and a tool to help the selection of priorities from the possibilities.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Bachmann on -
Hello Raymond,
The way you describe learning and understanding makes me think of the White Hat in the Six Thinking Hats.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
A pair of more suitable words is "hypothesis" and "theory" for your comments. I copied the following from Wiki about concept:
A concept is a cognitive unit of meaning— an abstract idea or a mental symbol sometimes defined as a "unit of knowledge," built from other units which act as a concept's characteristics.
An example of using concept is "use renewable energy".
Teaching method 1: We can teach "use renewable energy" followed by current examples of renewable energy types.
Teaching method 2: We can teach "use solar energy", "use wind energy", "use energy from biomass".
The concept "use renewable energy" is an abstract. If a student accept this concept, he can link to all other renewable energy which may be developed in the future.
Graeme Allan said:A concept is a result of an ongoing, continuous synthesis. A concept is rarely the end point in that synthesis. In fact, a number of concepts contribute to 'knowledge'. That knowledge undergoes continuous change as a result of synthesis and conceptualisation.
If we acknowledge 'knowledge' is a construct, then we should not advise others to act on concepts.
A concept is not an invitation for action but a single building block in an on-going synthesis.
A person who does not 'use' a concept is certainly wise. Instead, they should be encouraged to use their knowledge, even that may be unique to them.
Raymund Kwok said:
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Yes. I agree. But I am not sure how to ensure the quality of the information (White Hat). If we can have a tool to check the quality of the each hat (I mean the quality after each session of hat), this may further improve the process. With my personal experience, I find the background information is very important for further discussion.
Phil Bachmann said:Hello Raymond,
The way you describe learning and understanding makes me think of the White Hat in the Six Thinking Hats.
-
Permalink Reply by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi on
-
This is a fundamental truth that all pracitoners of creative thinking must realise. As long as anyone uses creative thinking consciously following steps logically he is not creative. It has to become his second nature and should come automatically from his subconscious.So practice the thinking skills till it becomes a habbit of the subconscious .Trust the power of subconscious mind and ureka ! good ideas come spontanneously. This is true of all arts including thinking. Thinking skills or methodolgy or technology is both science and art.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Sorry. Disagree.
Logic is needed for creative thinking. But I like Dr de Bono's phase "excellent, but not enough". Conscious and subconsciously are irrelevant. We think as a whole, both conscious and subconsciously. No need to separate these two. Sometimes, we may suddenly find a very remote memory to link to a new idea, but I do not know if it is suitable to call this subconsciously.
Creative thinking is not random thinking. But if work very hard (spend a lot of time)on random thinking, good ideas can also come. Let me give a real example. A team of my researchers generated reasonably good deliverables every year. But I realized that the team spent a lot of time in testing most of the possibilities. Most members of the team worked from 9am to 11pm everyday and some worked on Sundays. "This is an excellent team, but not enough." If they select only a few most promising ideas to test, their output will be more or they can spend more time with family.
Procedure for creative thinking is subjected to creative thinking. Anytime, if we find a better procedure that can help creative thinking, we can change the procedure.
Bhuvaneshwar Joshi said:This is a fundamental truth that all pracitoners of creative thinking must realise. As long as anyone uses creative thinking consciously following steps logically he is not creative. It has to become his second nature and should come automatically from his subconscious.So practice the thinking skills till it becomes a habbit of the subconscious .Trust the power of subconscious mind and ureka ! good ideas come spontanneously. This is true of all arts including thinking. Thinking skills or methodolgy or technology is both science and art.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Graeme, I found our definitions of words are very different. The word logic has its own definition. You can easily find it in Wiki or many other sources. In your example, using logic in this statement is incorrect. It is better to use the word "view". This will become "Vladimir Putin's view is that Russian teachers of History should re-evaluate Stalin's role as a leader". Or the word "strategy" may also be used here.
Example of logic. "A" is true. "B" is true. Then, "A" and "B" is true.
Creativity thinking cannot exclude logical thinking. I like Dr. de Bono's phase "logic is excellent, but not enough".
Graeme Allan said:So Vladimir Putin's logic is that Russian teachers of History should re-evaluate Stalin's role as a leader.
In contrast, the logic of Baltic educators about Stalin in the History classroom is utterly different.
Logic is a personal and a cultural construct - not a rule. My logic is my logic just as my 'truth' is my 'truth'.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
We can agree to disagree.
The definition of "logic" can be easily checked. This can be an objective discussion based on available facts.
You can find the quote in "Think, before it's too late", under the chapter on logic.
Graeme Allan said:I disagree, Raymund. One good thing about this site - we don't need to be sycophants.
Take care with your quotations. Your claimed "logic is excellent, but not enough.." is a fabrication. Kindly supply a reference and I will retract.
Thanks :-)
Raymund Kwok said:Graeme, I found our definitions of words are very different. The word logic has its own definition. You can easily find it in Wiki or many other sources. In your example, using logic in this statement is incorrect. It is better to use the word "view". This will become "Vladimir Putin's view is that Russian teachers of History should re-evaluate Stalin's role as a leader". Or the word "strategy" may also be used here.
Example of logic. "A" is true. "B" is true. Then, "A" and "B" is true.
Creativity thinking cannot exclude logical thinking. I like Dr. de Bono's phase "logic is excellent, but not enough".
Graeme Allan said:So Vladimir Putin's logic is that Russian teachers of History should re-evaluate Stalin's role as a leader.
In contrast, the logic of Baltic educators about Stalin in the History classroom is utterly different.
Logic is a personal and a cultural construct - not a rule. My logic is my logic just as my 'truth' is my 'truth'.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Random thinking vs structured thinking
I believe for thinking, we want to obtain some results. So, how to get the most effective results from the thinking process? I found that random thinking (such as generate a random word and think from the word) sometimes can get good ideas. But the possibilities of getting a good result is statistically less likely when compared to using a structured thinking process. A random thinking process is also open ended and I do not know if will get a better one when I insist to think another 5 min or generate another word.
I found there is a very interesting approach developed in ancient China. It is named "Yi" (You may get some information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Changes). Basically, it has 64 sets of situations that representing the human issues. "Yi" was studied by many Chinese scholars in the long history of China, and has a lot of meanings. So, for helping to find possibilities, we can pick one situation. Then try to link the current problem to the issues mentioned in the situation, and find some possibilities to deal with the current problem. If all the 64 situations are considered, we may claim the problem is being well "thought".
Will a structured thinking tool limited the possibilities? I guess yes. But if an excellent approach can be obtained quickly, this can be a good tool.
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
