Think! Page 11

  Examples of the basic tools

  The PMI tool: Asks the thinker to direct his or attention first to the Plus aspects of the matter. Then attention is directed to the Minus aspects and finally to the Interesting aspects.

  A class of thirty 12-year-old boys in Australia were asked to consider the suggestion that youngsters should be paid for going to school. In groups of four they discussed the idea. At the end, all 30 of them agreed that it would be a great idea: they could buy comics, sweets, chewing gum, movie tickets, and so on.

  Then the PMI was explained to them. Again in groups of four they went systematically through the different attention directions: Plus, Minus and Interesting. At the end of this exercise, 29 out of the 30 had changed their minds and decided that it was not a good idea to pay youngsters for going to school.

  The Plus points were as they had been before. But now there were Minus points. The bigger boys might bully the younger boys for the money. The school might raise the charge for lunch in response. Parents would be less inclined to give presents. They asked where the money would be coming from and suggested there might be a greater need elsewhere in education. There were also some Interesting points. They wondered whether the amount would be varied as a sort of punishment. Or if older students would get more.

  The important point is that there was no teacher intervention at all. The teacher simply laid out the PMI framework that the youngsters used. As a result of using the framework they got a broader perception and changed their minds. This is precisely what the teaching of thinking should be about: providing tools that can be used to make a difference.

  The C&S tool: I was once giving a seminar to a group of very senior female executives in Canada. I asked them to consider the suggestion that women should be paid 15 per cent more than men for doing the same job. They discussed the idea in small groups and decided that it made sense because women had more responsibilities (family, for example). Eighty-six per cent declared themselves in favour of the idea.

  I then asked them to use another attention-directing tool called the C&S. This stands for Consequences and Sequels. It directs attention to the immediate consequences, the short-term consequences, the medium-term consequences and the long-term consequences. They went through the exercise. At the end, with whatever reasons they had come up with, the 86 per cent in favour of the idea had fallen to just 15 per cent in favour.

  The important point about this example is that if you had asked any of those women executives if they looked at consequences, they would have replied that in their role as senior executives they spent most of their time looking at consequences. Yet doing it deliberately with the C&S tool made a huge difference.

  The APC tool: Asks for attention to be directed to Alternatives, Possibilities and Choices. Down's syndrome youngsters are able to use these tools very effectively. It may be that in this condition there is a difficulty in one part of the brain giving instructions to another part. So they make a hand sign for the tool they want to use. These hand signs were developed in the mines in South Africa, where the noise makes talk difficult.

  So the youngster might make the hand sign for APC and then he reacts to his own hand sign and carries out an APC. By exteriorising the instruction, the Down's syndrome youngster can overcome any difficulty with internal instruction.

  These things are so simple and so obvious that everyone claims to do them all the time. Time and again, experiments like those mentioned above show that directing attention deliberately with these simple tools makes a huge difference.

  Attitude is not the same as using a formal tool. Most people would claim to have a balanced attitude and to look for both the positive and the negative aspects of a situation. In fact we do this in a very perfunctory way. And we do not do it at all when we like or dislike the situation immediately. How often have you made an effort to find the Plus points of someone you dislike?

  As I mentioned earlier, an educator once said that these tools were so simple they could not possibly work. But they do work, and very powerfully. You need to understand how the brain operates in order to see why they should work.

  Many people have said that the tools simply give acronyms to aspects of normal behaviour. Others like the methods but object to the acronyms.

  The acronyms are essential as acronyms are stored in the brain. Attitudes have no location in the brain. They are like an itinerary put together by a travel agent. You cannot switch on an attitude at will.

  The acronyms have a place in the brain just as names of things have a place in the brain. A man had a stroke, and the only effect was that he could not remember the names of vegetables. The stroke had damaged that area of the brain where the names of vegetables were stored. In the same way, acronyms are stored and can be called into action, just like a computer programme.

  Perceptual maps

  The Flowscape

  In my book Water Logic I describe the Flowscape, which is a way of mapping out or displaying perceptions.

  If you are travelling down the river on a boat, town A is followed by town B. Town C might come next. Town A does not 'cause' town B. One simply follows the other.

  A 'neural state' in the brain is stable for a while, and then the 'tiring factor' takes effect and the next stable state (of sensitised neurones) takes over. So there is a movement from one state to another. It is not necessarily to do with causation or inclusion; as with the river, one thing follows another.

  With a Flowscape you simply list a number of elements that you see in the total situation (not necessarily at any one moment in time).

  Then, for each point on that list, you see to which other point on the list your mind would most readily move. Every point must have one, and only one, arrow leading to another point. A point may receive many arrows but can only emit one arrow.

  Then you map it out. You may find that points you thought were central are actually peripheral. You may find points that reinforce each other. You get a visual display that allows you to look at the elements in your perception.

  Flowscape points:

  THINKING EDUCATION

  CHURCH LOGIC

  EDUCATION LOGIC

  ARGUMENT LOGIC

  LOGIC GOEDEL

  GOEDEL PERCEPTION

  PERCEPTION POSSIBILITY

  POSSIBILITY CREATIVITY

  CREATIVITY POSSIBILITY

  DESIGN CREATIVITY

  The mapped-out Flowscape is shown overleaf. It is easy to see two groupings. In one of them, Logic is central. In the other, Possibility is central. The movement from one grouping to another is via Goedel's Theorem (that logic can never be enough).

  SUMMARY: PERCEPTION

  Logic is not enough. Perception is very important. Indeed, in daily life perception is more important than logic. Yet we have done nothing about perception.

  In this chapter I have sought to show that we can do something about perception. It is astonishing that we have had to wait 2,400 years for this.

  For a final example, in an experiment, students were shown still photographs of two candidates who had run against each other in some election. No names or party affiliations were given. The students were asked to guess which of the two had won the election. The students were correct 70 per cent of the time. What are the implications of this?

  Perhaps the perceptions of the students were so good that they could see confidence, ability and responsibility just from the still picture of a face.

  Perhaps the students persuaded themselves that they could see these things but in the end chose what they thought the voters would have chosen.

  Perhaps democracy has reached a point where physical appearance matters more than experience and ability.

  11 Critical Thinking and Criticism

  This section overlaps in part with other sections, such as argument and democracy. The subject is, however, important enough to deserve a chapter of its own.

  Many of those teaching thinking today are focused on teaching 'critical thinking'.
There are two aspects to consider here.

  Some of those teaching critical thinking claim that it covers all types of thinking, including creativity. They claim that the word 'critical' simply means 'important', in the sense of a critical issue or a critical area. This is a dangerous and misleading use of the word. The word 'critical' comes from the Greek kritikos, which means 'judge'. So critical thinking is judgement thinking, and that is the usual meaning of the word. Private meanings have no validity.

  The other aspect is that critical thinking takes us right back to where we started and what this book is about. The judgement thinking of the Greek Gang of Three (GG3) is excellent – but not enough. For the Church at the Renaissance critical thinking was enough because you simply judged whether something fitted standard doctrines or not.

  In the real world, critical thinking is simply not enough. You may be so brilliant at critical thinking that you can destroy any silly idea, and even good ones. But no amount of critical thinking can produce new ideas in the first place. Where are new ideas to come from?

  The repeated emphasis on critical thinking simply shuts the door on possibilities, new ideas and progress. There may be many people who will use their excellent critical thinking on the contents of this book – but can they design something better? The need is there.

  We need perceptual thinking. We need design thinking. We need creative thinking. No amount of excellence at critical thinking will supply this need.

  A motor car has brakes. These are essential. Without brakes you would be crashing all the time. But brakes are not enough. A motor car obviously needs an engine as well as brakes. The only time brakes might be enough would be if you were rolling down a hill on a very wide road. So critical thinking may be enough if we are in a state of decline – but not if we want to make progress.

  CRITICISM AND COMPLAINT

  Criticism and complaint are a necessary part of society. They are essential to prevent aberrations and to keep control.

  Most people find complaint rather easy; they can even develop an indulgent habit of complaint.

  Consumer groups brought together to help design new products and services are very good at pointing out the things that could be corrected or removed. At the same time the groups are not much good at suggesting new ideas, new products and new services.

  While acknowledging the great importance of criticism and complaint, we need to make it very clear that this thinking is inferior to design thinking, creative thinking or discovery thinking. This needs to be made clear at school and at universities. The development of the 'critical mind' is simply not enough. It is even worse than that. Many excellent minds that might have been creative and able to contribute to society in that way are trapped and channelled into being excellent critical minds. This is largely the case with the media, where the critical mode often seems to be the only one used.

  Nothing I have written here is intended to diminish the importance of critical thinking. It is excellent, but it is not enough. We need to be able to produce new ideas. Just waiting for chance to produce new ideas is much too slow.

  If creative and design thinking had been part of our education over the last few centuries, the world might be in a much more advanced state than it is.

  PROBLEM-SOLVING

  The term 'problem-solving' has done as much damage to the teaching of thinking as the term 'critical thinking' – and for the same reason. Both are excellent and essential – but they are not enough. They block development in other directions.

  You are driving a car and it breaks down. That provides you with two problems. The first is how to get to where you need to go, and the second is how to fix the broken-down car.

  The boat has a leak. That is a problem and you have to fix it.

  This new drug for arthritis seems to increase the risk of heart attack. That is a problem that has to be fixed.

  There is a problem child who will not do as he is told. How do you fix that problem?

  A problem is a deviation from the normal or a deviation from the expected. Thinking to solve problems is very important – but it is not enough.

  You have a task to carry out. How do you do it? That is not itself a problem, although there may be problems along the way.

  You want to improve something? That is not a problem.

  Those who claim that the term 'problem-solving' covers everything suggest that 'anything you want to do' forms a problem. So any intended mental activity is a problem.

  This is misleading and dangerous. It is misleading because it suggests that the only sort of thinking is problem-solving. It is dangerous because it excludes all the other sorts of thinking: design, creative, perceptual, and so on.

  Business schools in the USA (and elsewhere) focus exclusively on problem-solving. This excludes the design of strategies and the creativity needed for things such as new alliances and new marketing concepts.

  It is no use claiming, as is done for critical thinking, that the term problem-solving covers all sorts of thinking. It does not and it should not.

  One of the major uses of creativity is simplicity. Over time procedures and operations get ever more complex. While there is a natural tendency to ever more complexity, there is no natural tendency towards simplicity.

  I suggested in my book Simplicity some years ago that the British government should abolish passport control on leaving the UK. At the time, if someone was found to have overstayed their visa, they were arrested, taken to court, then deported. Why not just allow them to leave and wave goodbye in the first instance? Three months after the publication of the book, passport control on leaving the UK was abolished.

  When I came up with this idea, I was not seeking to solve a problem. The system worked as it stood.

  Improvement and simplification is not problem-solving. Simplicity saves time, money, hassle and stress. Using creativity to simplify something deliberately is one of the most important practical uses of creativity.

  The real danger of treating thinking as problem-solving is that we only focus our attention on problems and deficiencies. What is not a 'problem' does not get our thinking attention.

  DEFECTS

  I was invited to talk at a large education meeting in Italy. There were about 10,000 teachers present. Almost the whole meeting was about teaching difficult or disadvantaged students (with conditions such as autism). It was assumed that everything else in education was perfect and did not need thinking about. I told them that our thinking was far from perfect and needed a great deal of attention.

  It is the same with foundations. If I went to a large foundation, such as the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, or the Rockefeller Foundation, to ask for funds for dealing with AIDS in Africa, I might possibly get a grant. If I went and asked for funds to continue my work to improve the apparent best of human thinking, I doubt if I would be successful.

  The habit of looking only at problems means that we stagnate. As discussed earlier democracy could do with a lot of improvement, but you could not call it a 'problem'.

  SUMMARY: CRITICAL THINKING AND CRITICISM

  This very dangerous habit of calling all human thinking 'problem-solving' severely limits our attention to thinking and our use of thinking. Psychologists are among the worst offenders here – perhaps because they do not operate in the real world where a great deal of other thinking is needed. Problem-solving, like critical thinking, is excellent – but it is not enough.

  Excellent but not enough is the theme in many sections of this book. It is not only that there are other things that need doing. The danger is that all other activity is blocked by our reverence for these things. At the same time I am not going to attack them and say that these things are wrong. They are not – they are excellent. But they drain attention and energy from other areas that need energy and attention.

  12 Art and Thinking

  The best-known statue of a thinker is that by Rodin. This statue is heavy, gloomy and boring. I would like to run an international com
petition for a statue of a thinker that showed excitement, achievement and hope. Thinking is not boring, tedious and heavy.

  Art has done very little to encourage thinking. This is because art seems to believe that the true essence of human beings is emotion. Literature and theatre is usually about emotion, because that is where the drama lies. There is very little thinking and very little happiness.

  I once suggested in Hollywood (through a page in Variety magazine) that a 'Happiness' rating be given to films. A very happy film would get HHHH, a less happy one HHH, then HH and finally one H. So when you were deciding which movie to go to, this rating could help your choice. I quickly got the impression that the movie industry did not like this idea at all. That may be because most films are anguished or full of fighting. It is probably because they realised that 'happy' films are not easy to make. Just as the press cannot escape from the easy option of negativity, so the movie-makers find it difficult to escape from the easy option of anguish and violence.

  NEGATIVE IS REAL

  There is a false belief that anguish and tragedy are the real essence of life. All else is superficial and distraction. This may indeed be true in terms of audience interest, but at the same time it is a powerful con trick that is not related to daily life. The tragedy element in most people's lives is tiny compared to the boredom element.

  Being depressed sinks you into more depression. You need to think your way out of depression and also out of boredom.

  DIFFERENT

  Too many creative people believe that creativity is being different for the sake of being different. This applies very strongly to the area of painting. You do not want to paint as people did in the past, possibly because you would not do it as well. So you paint in a very different, even bizarre, fashion. You then persuade people of the value of your work – if they learn to look at it in the right way.