Think! Page 8

  On a more technical level lateral thinking means moving 'laterally' across patterns rather than just moving along them. The term Lateral Thinking is now very widely in use and has its own entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

  It was necessary to create the term – 'lateral thinking' – for two reasons. There was a need to describe idea creativity and to distinguish it from artistic creativity. The word also indicates the logical basis for creativity by describing movement across asymmetric patterns in a self-organising information system (the human brain). On a more general level, 'lateral thinking' also implies that you cannot dig a hole in a different place just by digging the same hole deeper. It may be necessary to change the perceptions, concepts and approach rather than work harder with the existing perceptions, concepts and approach.

  There was an absolute need to create the new word 'po'. This signals that a provocation is to follow. Saying things like: 'cars should have square wheels' or 'planes should land upside down' would make no sense at all unless they were seen as provocations (from which interesting ideas arise using the operation of 'movement'). Self-organising systems, like the brain, reach a stable state or a local equilibrium. Mathematicians know that provocation is needed in order to move towards a more global equilibrium. So there is an absolute need for a provocative operation in language. This did not exist, so it was necessary to create one.

  JUDGEMENT AND BOXES

  Language is a judgement system. Things we perceive are put into boxes with a label on them. We see something that we recognise or judge to be a car.

  Immediately we see it as a car, the whole 'pattern' or file is opened and we have access to all we know about cars. The label or word is the connection between the external world and our stored knowledge. We probably could operate without words but it would be far less efficient.

  The word 'is' indicates a definite judgement – not a possibility. We do not have a practical word to indicate that something is possible. We really need a word to indicate that something is just possible or quite probable. We could do that with a whole sentence, as I have done here, or we could use the phrase 'may be'. A simple word would allow us to see the world in a more complex and subtle way.

  We have a word for 'friend' and a word for 'enemy'. Some people can be fitted into one of those two boxes. We do not really have a neutral word for someone who is neither a friend nor an enemy but with whom we have to deal. We could use the word 'acquaintance', but you would not call your tax inspector or your car mechanic an acquaintance. We certainly do not have a word for someone who is half friend and half enemy (or different proportions). There are many people who are friends but who, under difficult circumstances, or when placed under pressure, can become enemies.

  COMPLEX SITUATIONS

  Language is even more inadequate when dealing with complex situations. Such situations can usually be described in a sentence or even a paragraph. Such descriptions may be adequate but they do not place that situation in our perception range – it is difficult to recognise such a situation without a single word.

  Consider the following negotiating situation: 'Unless the benefits are laid out more clearly and unless you are prepared to give up on some of your fixed demands, we shall not make much progress. I would like you to lay out clearly what you see as the benefits for my side.'

  Such a description may adequately describe the situation but is cumbersome and even awkward to use.

  We do have a word like 'supermarket' to describe a quite complex operation in a succinct way. We do not, however, have a word for a conflict that cannot be solved because the leaders on each side do not want to solve the conflict (because they would instantly lose their importance).

  There is an absolute need for a new sort of language that allows us to perceive, recognise and communicate complex situations instantly. Our actions and behaviour would be greatly improved. We would no longer be forced into the very limited boxes offered by traditional language.

  LANGUAGE AND PERCEPTION

  So, while language is immensely valuable for thinking, there is also a downside. Language freezes perceptions into concepts and words. These words then determine our perceptions for ever into the future. Think how, as I mentioned, the word 'enemy' determines our perception of someone with whom we disagree. We do not have a word that indicates someone who is half good and half bad. The crudeness of language has a negative effect on perception and then on thinking.

  Some sort of 'coding' is inevitable in human progress. To overcome this language situation I have invented a coding system that allows us to describe complex situations instantly and launched it on the Internet. Of course, being a code, it cuts across all languages and can be used to communicate with someone speaking a different language.

  Some of the codes are arbitrary fixed codes. For example, we might say, 'We have a code 53 here.' That conveys the whole meaning given above. Others can be constructed from a basic matrix of nine key concepts. (See www.debonocode.org for the codes.)

  SUMMARY: LANGUAGE

  Language is an extremely valuable device and we could never have progressed far without it. But language is by no means as perfect or as complete as we may believe. A lot of further development is needed and this will not happen by chance.

  The code system mentioned above is necessary. Such a system also allows for international communication. You can use English to find the code but then people can understand your code in Chinese, Russian, German, Telugu or any language at all – provided there is a simple version of the code in that language.

  6 Democracy

  Winston Churchill once said: 'Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' Though democracy isn't perfect, it is better than all the other systems – such as dictatorship, tyranny, absolute monarchy, and so on.

  OTHER AND PRECEDING SYSTEMS

  The Phoenicians had a different system of government. There was an upper chamber made up of representatives of different sectors of society – merchants, farmers, priests, workers, etc. This was the governing chamber. If they agreed on something it became law. If there was disagreement in this chamber then the matter went to the second chamber, which was a people's assembly.

  The Venetians had a complex but successful system that lasted for a thousand years. In it, people were elected to a chamber. Then a number of people were selected by lot (chance) to go to a second chamber. The same process was repeated in different stages until a government was formed. So there was the people element – they were voted in – but also the chance element, but from an enriched group. This method successfully prevented factions, party formation and corruption, which wrecked so many medieval republics.

  Then there is the system with a monarch or sheikh and an assembly that can advise but does not have the final say.

  ADVANTAGES OF DEMOCRACY

  Democracy is a pretty good system. It is better for stability than for growth. The greatest advantage is that people cannot complain because they made the choice. Sometimes this is rather like a condemned man asked to choose the method of his execution. He makes the choice.

  There is also always the possibility of change at the next election. Many dictators have been in power for over 40 years; politicians have to be careful not to upset the people or they will not be elected next time round. The press, on behalf of the people, are ready to criticise the government. Democracy prevents tyranny, mistakes, excesses. Democracy is good at preserving stability. People see that they have made a choice themselves and are prepared to live with this (provided elections are seen as fair).

  LIMITATIONS OF DEMOCRACY

  Democracy was designed to prevent tyranny, not to facilitate progress. The emphasis is on attack, criticism and argument rather than the generation of new possibilities. It is much easier to be attacked for doing something than for doing nothing (even if existing systems may be deteriorating), so very little gets done.

  The talent and skill of the o
pposition is largely wasted while they are in opposition, where they are confined to attacking and being negative.

  The sharp division of the population into parties can create tensions and violence, as happened in 2008 in both Kenya and Pakistan. One group is set against another. Each feels it will be disadvantaged if the other group is in power – which is sometimes the case.

  Blocked by openness

  You are driving down the road and you come to a police barrier. You cannot proceed further.

  We all know about being blocked by a barrier or something in the way. But what about being blocked by openness? What about being blocked precisely because there is nothing in the way?

  You proceed down the open and familiar highway. This very openness of the road prevents, or blocks, you from taking a side road.

  There are concepts and ways of doing things that seem so excellent that we are prevented, or blocked, from seeking alternatives. Democracy as a form of government is one such example. Because it is rather better than other and preceding forms of government, we never think how it might be improved by creativity.

  Change

  Democracy is not beyond change, although any change will be strongly resisted by those who benefit from the present system and those who believe it is perfect. Below I make some suggestions. These are only possibilities.

  A very simple change is to have parliament use the Six Hats framework – at least on one day a week. The Speaker would announce that it was Yellow Hat time, and members would be expected to make positive comments. At Black Hat time they would be permitted their usual criticisms. At Green Hat time there would be an opportunity for creativity, suggestions and modifications of ideas. At the end of the day there might be Red Hat time, when members could insult each other at will. I discussed this idea with the prime minister of Mauritius. He liked it and might try it some time.

  Another suggestion is to create some new seats, equivalent in number to one-third of the seats in the parliament (this number is only a suggestion and might need to be reconsidered). There would be no one sitting in these seats. These seats would be counted as voted for by public opinion. If the opposition put forward an idea and a poll of public opinion was 70 per cent in favour of that idea, then 70 per cent of the seats would have voted for the idea. In this way there would be a continuous input from the public instead of having to wait for the next election. The opposition could also bring forward legislation instead of just being in a critical role. In this model, however, public opinion would only be one factor, and not the sole factor in deciding legislation.

  Another possibility is to have a National Council for New Ideas. This council would generate and collect new ideas. These would be tested in public opinion polls, pilot schemes, surveys, etc. If everyone liked the ideas, then the government could choose to use the ideas – but would not be compelled to do so. The government could also use the council to try out its own ideas (kiteflying, i.e. making visible an idea to judge reaction to that idea). This way the government could get the benefit from successful ideas without having to take responsibility for unsuccessful ideas if the public rejected them. I have set up such a Council in Serbia. It is currently very difficult for a democratic government to try out ideas in this way.

  Constructive thinking

  Someone who is charismatic on television or in the media stands a good chance of getting elected in a democratic system. Most people in democratic politics also tend to be lawyers, journalists and teachers. This is because architects, engineers, business executives, entrepreneurs and scientists cannot risk entering politics. If they are elected, they have to give up their current job. These jobs are in hierarchy organisations and depend on continuing public visibility. If you step out of a job in these careers you cannot go back to the same position so, if they are not elected next time, they cannot go back to their old job. The risk is not worthwhile.

  In their training, lawyers, journalists and teachers are good at talking and arguing; they are more used to criticising than to creative and constructive thinking. Since they outnumber more creative and constructive thinkers, this is a serious structural problem with democracy.

  There is a great need for creativity to challenge ideas with which we are perfectly happy. Such ideas may be blocking the path to better ideas.

  Perhaps there could be a way of allowing constructive people to participate in government without giving up their current job. Perhaps the endless debates in the legislative chamber are no longer so essential. Perhaps it could all be done by e-mail!

  In today's age of new technologies, we do not have to be restricted to the methods available to the ancient Greeks, who created democracy. There could even be an ongoing assessment of each member of parliament by their constituents, and their vote in the chamber would reflect this assessment. So if someone got a 50 per cent rating, he would have half a vote in the chamber. A 20 per cent rating would mean only a fifth of the vote. Technically this is possible today.

  SUMMARY: DEMOCRACY

  Creativity is not only involved in changing ideas and processes that are in use, such as democracy. Creativity can be involved in designing completely new things that take advantage of changes in technology, etc. With Facebook, YouTube, eBay, etc., the Internet has given some people the opportunity to design new programmes.

  So creativity in design may involve getting rid of problems and inconveniences. Creativity in design may reduce price or increase longevity of the product.

  And creativity in design may involve putting together familiar ingredients in a new way – just like creating a new dish from traditional ingredients.

  Democracy is designed to keep society stable and to protect it from tyranny. It is not designed for progress. More thinking is needed.

  7 Universities

  As I mentioned before, I have been to a number of universities (Malta, Oxford, London, Cambridge, Harvard) as an undergraduate, a postgraduate and in a teaching post. I also have a collection of degrees (BSc, MD, MA, DPhil, PhD, DDes, LLD). Four of these were earned, and the others were honoris causa.

  I have a great respect for universities, but the theme of much of this book applies to them as well: 'Excellent but not enough.' In other words, universities are excellent at the game they have come to play, but this game is not enough. Being blocked by excellence is always the danger.

  TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE AND SCHOLARSHIP

  An obsession with the truth can hardly be criticised as wrong. But this obsession can prevent development of the mentally important role of speculation and possibility. When the world was full of speculation and fantasy, this obsession with the truth served society very well. Today the world is not so full of fantasy, and attention to possibility has become rather more important.

  The original purpose of universities was to bring the wisdom of ages and make it available to students of the present. That role of scholarship is still performed very well. It is, however, not enough.

  When as an undergraduate I was reading psychology at Oxford, I found that it was all about the history of psychology. There was very little consideration of current concerns, speculations, problems or practical points. It was enough to know that someone had proposed an idea in 1850, and then in 1922 there was another theory, and so on.

  At Harvard I was interested in the control of blood pressure in the human body. I found it more useful to discuss matters with the Professor of Aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), because he was interested in systems behaviour, whereas Harvard had this scholarship attitude to historic events and ideas.

  I had had an operation and was unable to attend an international conference on thinking. So I had a long conversation on the telephone with a friend of mine, Professor David Perkins of Harvard University, and this was broadcast to the participants.

  I remember his frequent emphasis on 'understanding'. If we have knowledge we have understanding, and from that we can proceed to action. Of course, I agree with this. But understanding is no
t itself enough. We also need frameworks of possibility in order to make progress.

  I admit that it is not easy to keep an ultimate concern with the truth and yet to open up creativity and possibility as well, but it is necessary.

  THINKING

  Because of the concern with the truth, universities have had to concentrate on critical thinking. Once again this is excellent but not enough. Creative thinking, design thinking and perceptual thinking should also be included.

  Truth may prevent stupid and nasty things from happening, but truth in itself does not make things happen. For that we need design thinking.

  I would suggest that every university course has a foundation year with two main subjects. The first of these would be thinking. This would include my thinking (practical creativity) and any other approach that is operational rather than descriptive.

  The second subject would be the state of the world and society. It is not enough for anyone to know a particular subject in great depth while remaining ignorant of the world around them.

  DESIGN

  Analysis is wonderful but it is not enough. Knowledge and analysis may give us the road map but then we have to design our journey. Where do we want to go?

  Design means putting together what we have in order to deliver the values we want. Design is all about the real world. Design is all about the world outside schools and universities. How do you design your career? How do you design your life? How do you design a car park? How do you design a political manifesto?

  Right from the beginning, students should be set simple design exercises. These need not be relevant to the subjects they are studying. The purpose of these exercises is to develop the thinking skills of design. The exercises may include designing a bus; designing a holiday resort; designing a sport for old people; designing a café; designing a car park; designing a new type of examination.