Challenging the Provocation Schematic

In several of Edward de Bono's works, the following schematic appears.

This picture is designed to show the normal thinking process. By using ordinary thinking, one moves from A to B in a routine fashion and is unable to generate "out of the box" thinking. Next a new schematic is drawn. The idea of this schematic is to illustrate that by using a provocation, the thinker can cut across the normal patterns of his thinking to generate new, creative ideas. All that has to be done is to disturb the normal pattern of thinking. Edward de Bono invented the word PO (meaning provocative operation) to represent an idea or suggestion that can lead to a new pattern of thinking. I have to admit that I like the picture very much in its abstract form. When I draw this in front of groups, people nod and act as if they get it.

As much as I like this picture in its abstract form, when I look at the picture concretely, and try to attach meaning to the symbols, I have to conclude that it is drawn incorrectly. This is best illustrated with an example.

Consider Mr. Jones, who is a door to door vacuum salesman. His starting point, what Edward de Bono would call his purpose focus, is to increase his sales of vacuum cleaners. This would be point A on the schematic. He knows that he sells one vacuum cleaner for every ten people he sees, so he focuses all his thinking on how he can see more people. He considers starting earlier in the day, reducing the time he spends with prospects that don't buy and decreasing his time between customers. He is moving from point A to point B and his thinking is focused only on increasing his sales by seeing more people.

At this point he expresses his frustration to his wife who says wistfully, "Honey, I wish everyone you saw bought ten vacuum cleaners."

Her statement catches him totally by surprise and he realizes that he has been approaching the problem way too narrowly. What if he were to focus on people who buy multiple vacuum cleaners such as hotel chains? Or what if he only called on people who had expressed an interest in his product such as people who had returned a mail solicitation saying they would like a demonstration? Wouldn't his closing ratio go way up? His wife's wistful suggestion is actually an arising provocation (or the PO) that led him to new ideas that are represented by point C.

But this is where I think the graphic falls apart. If point A is "how to sell more vacuum cleaners" and point B is "see more people" then why does the arrow from point C lead back to the path to B? Isn't point B the place where we got stuck in the first place? I suggest that the picture be drawn this way

If you draw it this way you can see that the PO led to a new path that ultimately led to a new ideas. This graphic seems much easier to understand.

The example of Mr. Jones, the vacuum salesperson, may sound overly simplistic, but I don't think it is. From 1985 though about the middle of the next decade, the entire securities industry was dominated by the idea of prospecting through telephone cold calling. Expressions such as "dialing for dollars" and "it a numbers game" were common place. Many people were gripped by the example of the infamous "Cold Call Cowboy" who had generated a million dollars in commissions in only his second year in the business exclusively by cold calling. It was only much later that many in the securities business came to believe that calling people repeatedly at home might cause more damage to firms reputations than the benefit they received from the occasional new account and found better ways (the path to point C) to generate new clients.

0 members like this

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The Edward de Bono Society to add comments!

Join The Edward de Bono Society

Comment by William Jack Jordan on December 5, 2012 at 11:44: I have a different POV re the original diagram than the op,
Using the vacumn cleaner example,
A = start of thinking process (How to make money selling cleaners?)
B = end result (making the most money selling cleaners)
A->B represents the current thinking (the most explored route)
A->C is an undiscovered connection.
B->PO generates C
A->C->B is logical in hindsight and represents a new viable connection.
The original diagram makes perfect sense to me, if you consider the end result is the same.

It makes more sense if you think of A->B as being made of steps
A->A1->A2->A3->B etc. and there are alternative known routes.

The second diagram is useful when a PO leads to a *different* conclusion.

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 15, 2011 at 12:13: Luis,
Thanks for mapping out some traits of logical reasoning, each of them worth to challenge!

For now I would suggest to leave that on a Virtual Parking, and to focus on `how people reason logically to the same conclusion, by different ways`. F.e. it is possible to reason that the earth is spherical and spins around the sun, without have seen it happen. It is possible to put forward logical reasons for the existence of a physical particle, long before scientists are able to demonstrate their existence. Could it be that Arabic or Chinese scientist have another reasoning system yet arrive at the same conclusion?

We have now three leads for further exploration:

1. The article you sent addresses the problems non-western students encounter when they have to write essays. He identifies some patterns in how in aan essay the authors come to a conclusion. The hyPOthesis here is that writing reflects thinking. Notwithstanding differences in reasoning humans can come to the same conclusion.

2. Some languages, as Arabic, write and read from right to left. As such, the right part of the brain is engaged which has different properties than the left brain, which is used by writers/speakers

in English.

The hyPOthesis is that right to left writers/readers can come to the same conclusion as left-to-right readeres/writers, notwithstanding they uses different kind of logic (linear versus holistic)

3. There are languages which use images as the Chinese do. Image thinking is mainly located in the right brain.
The hyPOthesis is that visual thinkers can come to the a same conclusion about what is true and untrue, despite that they use a different part of the brain as concept-thinkers.

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 15, 2011 at 9:22: I found a text about Check-list Current Thinking, see page 3

I will soon comment on your interesting posting

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 14, 2011 at 14:21: Luis, what do you mean with " doing a API" ?

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 14, 2011 at 14:20: I did some thinking about logical reasoning with help of the Check list Current Thinking.

It is assumed that the ability of critical thinking is about personal traits, as f.i. openness and accuracy. It is more or less naturally inborn but could be implicitly developed by -mainly academic- education. If it is formally taught as some law faculties do, mathematical logic theory is used.

The dominant idea behind logical reasoning is that the process is the same for any human, that the process is basically linear -straight forward- and physically based in the brain.
The ability of logical reasoning - independent thinking from administrators, experts, journalists, etc- is highly valued in democratic societies.

Speculations has to be avoided at all times.

Logical reasoning is limited to proving a statement to be true or false. It does not produce alternatives or new ideas and concepts.

Logical reasoning is about an issue and an opinion or statement about that issue, supported by reasons for and against. The reasons must be proven by facts. Essential in logical reasoning is to be explicit about factual and normative (value based) assumptions.

A statement is either true or untrue. It is not possible that a statement or conclusion is a little bit true or untrue. Logical reasoning is the opposite of sophism.

Any additions?

Next I will challenge the concept of logic, by using some techniques of movement on the PO 'as an effect of the writing system that is used (Chinese, Arabic, Western) different brain areas are involved, what could be cause different ways of making sense or meaning' .

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 11, 2011 at 11:06

Luis wrote `I, being somewhat of a collector of such 'stuff' due to my work in Intercultural Communication and Cross-Cultural Education, have added two new elements to the mix."

Your `stuff`` could be very interested. It is known that it is very difficult for humans to transfer knowledge from one domain to another. I am not sure that experts on "logic" (philosophers, lawyers, mathematicians?) are introduced to the domain of Communication and Cross -Cultural Education. (Once I facilitated a creative thinking session with shipbuilders how to lift a sunk ship. The only way they could think of was hoisting, and that by attaching a cable mechanically. They were unable to envisage a solution with electromagnets. Once they did, a quick Google search learned that heavy electromagnets are used in the waste industry for separation of metals).

Luis" he reason for his being that Mr. Calkoen has specifically addressed an interest in how the 'logic' is formed`.

To be more precise, I am (at this moment) not so much interested in how logic is formed as a result of values or perceptions.

I am interested in the POssibility that, as an effect of the writing system that is used (Chinese, Arabic, Western) different brain areas are used, what could be cause different ways of making sense or meaning.

Could it be that by reading/writing from left to right produces a different "logic" than for readers/writers who read from left to right just because they are using different brain areas? (Arabic languages)
Could it be that by using letters Western readers/writers activate different brain areas than someone who is using f.e. Chinese characters? And that that fact produces different logic ( the way how to conclude something is true or not true)?

Comment by Franis on July 8, 2011 at 14:56: Thanks Luis - for this:
http://db.tt/wVZOCsy
Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-cultural Education. by Robert B. Kaplan.
Shamir and I had a thread going here where we were talking about how there are different styles of thinking strategies that people tend to favor. Many of these favored thinking strategies are cultural assumptions.

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 8, 2011 at 14:19

Edgaro, I am interested in the hyPOthesis that the way people prove what is true or untrue (what we call logic) could be different in different cultures. So, I have a general interest in the topic.

I have some reasons.

Recently I posted on the World Foresight Forum (LinkedIn) " Libya, yet another failure of military and political strategists? ...Could the reason may be located in a lack of basic thinking skills?. The fact that nobody answered raised my interest. (In my opinion the underlying assumption of Western policies to chase away dictators is 1) economic boycott and 2) threatening with violence. It is a recurring pattern of reaction of the Western world against dictators. However, dictators have gained their position by being more ruthless than their rivals, and never to give in whatever the personal costs (life). It seems that the logic of the Western policymakers and military strategists differ from that of an Arabic dictator, or dictators in general. Replace Khadafi for any dictator in recent history ( f.e Sadam Hoessein, Tito, Milosevic, Kim) or further history (Franco) and you will see the pattern.)
Most governments,universities and companies offer courses in writing skills. The presumption is that the quality of the thinking of students, civil agents, employees are very well. Only the way how it is written down is to be improved. I have detected that in most cases it is the other way around: bad or confused thinking causes bad writing. For most people that is quite offending. However, I am convinced that writing reflects thinking.
I think it would be very interesting topic to incorporate in the book Exploring the Thinking Hats members of the Bono Society are currently writing

Comment by Asa Jomard on July 7, 2011 at 9:08: Article in Science Daily about reading Arabic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518080109.htm

Comment by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on July 7, 2011 at 8:36: Reply to Edgardo ,

thank you so much, I can open the file and will read it soon!

I will look for a book, I think it is from Pink ` A whole new brain` in which he tells that Arabic people read from left to right. That would imply that they are using the right brain dominantly, while Western people read from left to right, using the left brain dominantly. Right brain and left brain thinking differs.