Think! (15 page)

This is another very important point.

The belief is that all you need is knowledge and then you can do anything. The academic world has been concerned with description and understanding. If you can understand something then you will know what to do about it.

This is the 'road map' approach. You get a better and better road map. You fill in details and side roads. Once you have such a map, it is assumed you can get to wherever you want. All you need is a good road map – even if you have not learned to drive!

Schools and universities are all about knowledge. They always have been.

Computers have made it easier and easier to communicate and to store knowledge. The huge ability of computers to handle information means that the emphasis on information is getting even stronger. Marvellous search engines, such as Google and Yahoo!, mean that, for the first time in history, people can get direct and specific access to the information they need.

There is a downside to this. People start to believe that you do not have to think. We are coming to believe that the accumulation and analysis of knowledge will do all our practical thinking for us. All you need to do is to search on your computer and you will find the answer you need. I have found this to be the case with major corporations around the world. This lessens the thinking work for individuals and also removes all risk of being wrong – because the figures said so.

Information is essential, and there is no way that I would seek to diminish the key role of information. It is excellent, but not enough. We do need thinking as well.

We need thinking to look at the information in different ways. We need thinking to extract value from the information. We need thinking to put the information together in order to design the way forward.

If a fraction of the effort put into information was applied to thinking, the world would be a very different place.

Universities are obsessed with scholarship. This is hardly surprising. Universities were originally set up to make the wisdom of the past available to the world of today. That was a very important function. Universities have continued in exactly the same mode even though access to
information has changed dramatically in a digital age. Where universities have been concerned with thinking, it is of the traditional type: analysis and debate. This is not good enough. There also needs to be a faculty of thinking.

Bright and eager minds go to university to learn about thinking. They end up with the word games of philosophy and not much about practical operational thinking.

We have paid very little attention to operational thinking. How do you make a practical choice? How do you design a strategy? How do you create new ideas? How do you negotiate?

In my work I have been concerned with the operational side of thinking – with creating ideas, with exploring a subject, with improving perception, etc.

The role of universities needs to shift dramatically from being a provider of information to being a developer of skills. These would include, among others, information access skills and thinking skills.

The role of computers in making information available has been mentioned above. This is excellent as long as it does not give the impression that enough information makes thinking unnecessary.

There is another danger. Information is fed into computers, which then analyse the information. Within
corporations this information can determine decisions and set strategies. This is very dangerous, because you remain locked in the old concepts and perceptions. There is a real need to look at information in different ways.

Will computers ever learn to think? I believe so. We shall have to allow computers to do their own perceiving, because if we feed them our packaged perceptions they cannot really think. We may also have to move away from our 'digital' programming to 'field effect' programming, which more closely resembles the behaviour of the human brain.

Add up the following numbers: 246, 918, 492, 501.

This is a simple addition. There is one, and only one, right answer: 2,157.

School and education are all about the right answer. What is the date of the battle of Waterloo? What is the capital of Mongolia? What is the population of Nigeria?

In all cases there is a right answer and you are supposed to know the right answer.

Is this bad? No, it is excellent. We need to know the right answers and the right way to do things. The result, however, is that there is very little room for creativity and for possibilities. We need to do more in these areas.

Increased chances

If you sit down to add up a column of numbers, or get your computer to do it for you, you know that, at the end of your effort, there will be a definite correct and useful answer. If you set out to manufacture an object you know that at the end of the manufacturing process you will have the completed object.

With creativity you do not have that certainty of output. You may have a focus and then make a creative effort (even using a lateral thinking tool) but the outcome cannot be guaranteed. You may have no ideas at all. You may have a few rather feeble ideas. As your skill improves, you will get more and better ideas but there is no guarantee.

Experiments have shown that groups using deliberate lateral thinking tools generate between 10 and 20 times as many ideas as those not using such tools. This is not surprising. Even so, there is no guarantee of a great idea.

If you go fishing, you cannot be sure that you are going to catch anything. Certainly you may have much more chance of catching a fish than someone who does not go fishing – but you cannot guarantee this on every occasion.

There is a need to shift the 'fishing' mind set. If you make a deliberate creative effort, you have an increased chance of having new ideas than if you make no such effort.

There is also a disinclination to have new ideas because a new idea means disruption, risk, hassle and bother. It
seems better to continue with the existing routine until forced to change by circumstances or competitors.

To overcome this reluctance, it is necessary to make the acceptance, trial and use of new ideas easier. It should also be remembered that one of the main uses for creativity is to simplify operations. This is of direct benefit to those carrying out the operation.

It is always worth investing in creativity even if the outcome cannot be guaranteed. There is the increased chance that it will be. The benefits of new ideas can be huge. All that is required is some deliberate creative effort.

Schools are all about information. Nothing else would fill the time allocated to education. This is grand baby-sitting with a more prestigious title.

We do need some of this information, but by no means all of it.

We are very happy with our thinking habits. We look at our scientific achievements and feel proud. This information is excellent – but it is not enough.

Education is a self-satisfying system. Schools teach what they want and then set their own examinations to assess how well the students have learned the material. There is no assessment as to whether what has been taught
traditionally has any relevance in the modern world. There is no assessment of very important things (like thinking) that are not being taught.

Research by the Atkey organisation has shown that teaching my thinking as a separate subject improves performance in every other subject by between 30 and 100 per cent. There are thousands of schools around the world now doing this.

Far too little time is spent directly and deliberately on teaching thinking. Encouraging the asking of questions, helping with analysis and setting up debates are good but only teach one aspect of thinking. Thinking can be taught directly and deliberately as a skill and not just as a way of teaching another subject.

Art plays an important role in developing perceptions and insights. People are encouraged to look at things in different ways and to see what they may not have seen before.

The down side of art is that it sometimes gives the impression that real life is all about emotions, feelings and, usually, anguish and negativity. These are, indeed, an important part of life – but only because we have never emphasised other aspects.

Art could do much more to encourage thinking.

With the exception of a few countries, such as Venezuela, Malaysia and Singapore, leaders have been very negligent in encouraging thinking. This may be partly because they do not know what to do. It may also be due to their traditional advisers, who reject any new ideas.

With regards to education, the population is very badly served by its elected leaders. These leaders should be investigating what can be done to teach thinking. In my experience, they have shown no interest in doing so. As a result, students and others are deprived of the opportunity to develop their thinking skills.

There is also leadership at another level. World bodies like the UN need much better thinking. By definition, representative bodies are not going to be very good at thinking because they can only represent the traditional thinking of their own country. I did try for a while to set up a New Thinking Group at the UN but it was like dancing in treacle. I have instead set up a World Centre for New Thinking and a World Council for New Thinking (which includes several Nobel laureates). These bodies have been relatively inactive so far – but that will change.

This is another of the key points. People teaching in teacher training colleges want to teach what they themselves have been taught. The examination systems have a strong continuity and dictate what should be taught. There are so many strands of continuity in education that change is very difficult and depends on individual teachers and school principals. To be fair, part of this neglect is caused by innocence and ignorance. Many people simply do not know that thinking can be taught directly and deliberately as a skill. They do not know that there are formal techniques of idea creativity and new frameworks for exploring subjects. All they may know may come from a possibly one-sided piece written in one of the newspapers. Parents should be much more vigorous and vocal in demanding that things should happen. On behalf of their children, they are the 'consumers' of education, and consumers need to have a voice.

In one of my books I invented the term 'proto-truth'. This describes something we hold to be true – providing we are trying to change it. This can be seen as applying to all truths or only some of them. It is the 'absolute' nature of truth that locks us into arrogance and complacency and
prevents us doing any further thinking. There is no greater block to creativity than the belief that we already have the true answer.

In the same way we dismiss something that is obviously wrong. What could we get from something that is wrong? When we learn the mental operation of 'movement', then we can use this instead of judgement. From wrong ideas used as formal provocations we can get very useful ideas. The crazy suggestion that aeroplanes should land upside down leads to an interesting idea for supplying planes with a means of generating instant lift.

So we have possibilities that can develop into useful ideas. We also have 'wrong ideas' that can be treated as provocation and used for their 'movement value'.

The sharp judgement of right and wrong locks us into the past and into our existing frameworks and concepts. We need to dissolve this need to split things into right and wrong and unblock our creativity.

These are the 23 reasons why world thinking is so poor and some ideas of what needs to be done to change that. You can probably add some more reasons of your own.

They could all be summarised in the word 'complacency'. We are so smug and satisfied with our existing thinking that we cannot see how poorly it serves us in the area of
human affairs, creativity and design. More and more argument will not produce better ideas.

There is a phrase that I have used repeatedly in this book. The phrase is: 'Excellent – but not enough.' We are blocked and blinded by excellence. Our logic is excellent; our obsession with information is excellent – but these are not enough.

Unfortunately, our traditional thinking system demands that you show something to be bad before you can ask for change. That is not always possible. Our existing thinking is not bad. It is merely seriously inadequate. There is no mystery about what can be done to add additional methods of thinking.

Somewhere, somehow I am going to set up a magnificent Palace of Thinking. I may be able to do it from my own resources or may have to rely on a particular country or individual to make it happen.

I shall be looking for an iconic and impressive building to give 'thinking' the importance and dignity it merits. It is no use having a back office on the fifteenth floor of a skyscraper.

This ambition symbolises the substance and purpose of this book. We take our thinking for granted. We are far too complacent about our thinking methods, which are in fact very limited. I have designed some additional software for thinking (for example, lateral thinking, the Six Hats and Septines), but there is much more to do.

The purpose of the Palace is to symbolise the importance of human thinking. It is also to emphasise the points I have made throughout this book: existing institutions
are not interested in developing human thinking further because they are too satisfied with what we have now got. We need an institution that does.

The Palace will be a place for meetings. From time to time announcements will emanate from the Palace. There might even be a weekly report on 'World Thinking'.

It is precisely because there is no faculty or categorisation of 'thinking' that something like the Palace is needed to indicate that thinking is a skill that we should not take for granted.

The Palace of Thinking would have a number of functions:

1. To Generate Ideas

Periodic meetings would be held to focus on world issues and problems. Creative thinkers would be invited to participate in such meetings. The Palace would also have its own staff to generate ideas.

2. To Collect Ideas

To collect new ideas from any source. To act as a collection point for new ideas from any source. To ask for ideas from the public. The Internet will be a useful medium in this regard.

3. To Publish and Publicise New Ideas

The Palace would periodically publish new ideas. If the matter was urgent the ideas would be communicated
via a press release to interested media. Interested media should ask to be on the distribution list for new ideas.

4. To Teach the Methods of Deliberate Creative Thinking

This is a secondary function of the Palace but will be available if there is sufficient demand for it.

5. To Symbolise the Importance of New Ideas

This may be the most important role for the Palace. To indicate that the analysis of information is not sufficient.

Youth

Someone once described to me the youth of today as being:

Sound-sodden sillies
Sports-sodden sillies
Sellebrity-sodden sillies (from celebrities used to sell)

While I do not agree with this, I can see the point. Youngsters are into distraction provided by the things listed.

Yet youth also wants
achievement. The two things that matter to youngsters (and adults) are achievement and significance. Society has no method of providing youngsters with these possibilities. That is why some youngsters turn to
crime: there is instant achievement and even a sense of importance (in a gang).

There are no easy remedies. The Boy Scouts at one time were a valuable initiative, but their appeal is no longer as wide as it should be. This is just one of the areas the Palace of Thinking would look into. Youngsters might be encouraged to use their minds instead of just watching and listening.

The famous French philosopher René Descartes had a well-known saying:
Cogito, ergo sum.
This means 'I think, therefore I am'.

I have put together another saying:
Ago, ergo erigo.
This means 'I act, therefore I construct'.

The emphasis is on action not just on contemplation.