Talk:Lateral thinking/Archives/2013

Clearer definition
I think the definition would be clearer if the historical context for thinking was established.

Most traditional thinking, including analysis and critical thinking (de Bono cites Plato, Socrates, Aristotle) de Bono describes as thinking concerned with "what is".

"Lateral Thinking" is concerned with "what can be" or "possibility thinking". When new ideas are required this is a creative task. Analysis and other reductive modes of thinking rely on established patterns and logical patterns, but these techniques seldom suit creativity, because they do not disrupt the conventional thinking patterns and concepts. The idea of lateral thinking is that it relies on provocation (PO) to combine unlikely elements or concepts to initially produce an illogical intermediate state, which then moves the thinker towards new potentially useful ideas.

A simple example is to combine the usually unrelated concepts of (say) a rabbit and a broom. These concepts are familiar yet usually unrelated. Thus, they form a provocation. The thinking around this provocation might be:

- a rabbit lives in a hole. A broom might be designed to move into crevasses and under furniture (into holes) better. We could add a swivel or ball joint between the broom head and handle to move the broom more readily to places where it cannot usually reach.

- a rabbit can be skinned. A skin is like a covering. A broom might be designed to have a "skin" or "cover" over the head of the broom which would gather dust and the cover could be cleaned or laundered separately.

- a rabbit multiplies readily. This may suggest multiple configurations. A broom handle could be made as an extensible tube so that it operates as both a long handle broom and a short-handle dustbrush too.

- a rabbit is fluffy. A fluffy synthetic broom head could attract dust electrostatically.

- a rabbit leaves droppings. Perhaps a broom could somehow condense the dirt it collects into pellets which are convenient to discard or dispose of.

So from the unlikely combination of the rabbit and the broom, we can deliver some new ideas, some of which may be practical. Few of these ideas would be readily achieved by simply performing a functional analysis of an existing broom in the hope that creative ideas will arise.

The value of the ideas generated is variable, but the ability for lateral thinking and provocation to move to new ideas is based on unusual or unlikely or illogical combinations of elements.

StephenSmith (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some say
Some believe that lateral thinking is a powerful unifying process of thought, which remedies many of science's fragmented, 'detail obsessed' sects. The american Philosopher Phaedrus was reported by some to be a 'pathological lateral thinker', who 'nearly succeded' in unifying Eastern and Western Philosophies. The Metaphysics of Quality- his own field, is purportedly a fruit of his 'lateral drifting' between fields of psychology, sociology, evolution, logic and metaphysics.

Some say that the Metaphysics of Quality, once solved, will unify disparate fields of thought. Some say.

The american philosopher "Phaedrus" is actually a fictional character designed by Robert Pirsig in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. 212.23.23.154 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples
I removed the following examples, because I think they are trick problems, not examples of lateral thinking. -- Reinyday, 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How long would it take to dig half a hole?
 * You can't dig half a hole.


 * If one egg takes three minutes to boil, how long do two eggs need to cook?
 * About three minutes (the energy needed to get the eggs to cook is small in comparison to the energy needed to get the surrounding water to boil)


 * If a knot in a 5-foot rope takes five minutes to undo, how long would a knot in a 10-foot rope take to undo?
 * Also five minutes (the length of rope usually has nothing to do with the complexity of the knot, and at most more rope might need to be pulled through the knot, but this will not double the overall time).


 * Just because doubling the length of the rope doesn't double the time doesn't mean that it wouldn't increase it a little bit.

The article is too much 'how to 'do' lateral thinking. The topic requires a more biographic and historical treatment. E De Bono tends to spurn 'scholarly' analysis of his work, which makes this hard. But worth doing. The article would have to be seriously modified, but the topic is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.234.119 (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A standards note...
The example: The problem is that Tom won't come to the mountain, is non-standard acc2 international folklore - it should be: The problem is that *Muhammed* won't come to the mountain

... said Tom (rursus) (who didn't decide whether to come to the mountain, or not - which mountain BTW?)

A mess!
This article is a mess. I think that it should include a section about lateral puzzles. 80.55.2.254 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it so ?? Topu

Do you mean those questions where you have to find an explanation for a weird event? An example is "Why was a man in full scuba gear found dead in a forest?" --64.175.42.169 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples?
I think there should be more examples here to clarify the concept. Needs simplification with examples. Thanks. Topu

I've got lots of problems if you want to ask me for one. Email me at stelv123@hotmail.com

Men Digging A Hole
The examples are terrible. In the example about 2 men digging a hole, assuming that the relationship between men and speed of digging is linear is an unsubstantiated assumption, not a mathmatical relationship implied by the problem. There is not enough information to define a linear relationship. The "examples" of lateral thinking are merely explanations as to why the relationship probably isn't linear.

--64.175.42.169 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing, if they stopped early then they wouldn't have been digging for the whole two hours like the problem said.


 * It's the same hole, same size. BonniePrinceCharlie 15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

More Queries
If u need to Add more querries u can do here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.56.243.162 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

A Total Wreck
This article needs citations, and is in desperate need of clean up in order to meet Wikipedia standards. It hardly flows like an informative encyclopedic article. Mizunori 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One starting point might be http://home.um.edu.mt/create/publications.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.234.119 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

From a (UK) database de Bono, E., (1973) Think Tank : A new tool for the mind, Scarborough, Ont: Think Tank Corp de Bono, E., (1985) Six thinking hats, London: Penguin

de Bono, E., (1990) I Am Right You Are Wrong, London: Viking

de Bono, E., (1991) Lateral and vertical thinking, In J.Henry, (Ed.), Creative Management, London: Sage, pp16-23

de Bono, E., (1992) Serious creativity: Using the power of Lateral Thinking to create new ideas, London: Harper Collins  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.234.119 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral article
It seems to me that this article seriously lacks any perspective. I don't think that "lateral thinking" is a scientific theory. It appears much closer to be one of a multitude of "systems" appealing more to PR people or business executives. One would at the very least need to have a section on how de Bono's views were received by, say, psychologists, philosophers, behavioural scientists, etc -- that is, if there was any reaction.62.203.29.111 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Example 3 is a load of rubbish
I completely dispute example 3 is anything about lateral thinking.

"When he gets there, the surgeon says"

The only noise here is that people associate 'when he gets there' with 'the surgeon', as is written immediately after, thus a cue that the surgeon is male - not, as the article suggests, since all people assume surgeons are male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArlenCuss (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The "he" in this case is referring to the surgeon. -- Klasanov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.56.255 (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the detail that the question at the end, "How is this possible?", suggests in itself that the situation described is in some way impossible. Is this an example of lateral thinking, or an example of a trick question? --194.187.213.95 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "notability": DeBono is the epicenter of the Creative Problem Solving pop lit; this article deserves lots more work!
Yo, fellow DeBono wonks (I hope):

Over the past few years of graduate study I've read dozens of popular books on "creative problem solving" and hundreds of relevant research journal articles, and am convinced that DeBono is in a collective sense the Nathan Bedford Forrest of the field -- he got there "fust with the most" of a viable combination of foundational theory and research (not as a rule attributed to the originators) and imaginative application. His star rose when he replaced his original and highly unmemorable term of art with "lateral", but his contribution to a critically important and still scandalously under-implemented domain of education goes well beyond buzzword coinages. His central work, in my opinion -- "Serious Creativity" -- abounds with originality of both conception and exposition.

Is the present article, which to measure up to Wiki standards should do total justice to DeBono's pre-eminent role as integrator/popularizer of the creativity-problem solving domain, "notable"? On strict accounting, I'll admit it may well be marginal. Academic researchers have been loathe to credit DeBono in the few cases I've run into where they probably should have (at best they criticize details but don't acknowledge originality), and DeBono's worst shortcoming is arguably his reticence to cite his major theory and research sources. Furthermore, I understand that brief though key references to him in numbers of other popular books -- and renamed rehashes of many of his ideas in considerably more -- might not be academically mainstream enough to make this article definitively "notable".

Yet the fact is that throwing this buzzword/topic out would leave one of the biggest holes in an important combined theory and practice domain that I can think of. Considering how much pop culture uber-fluff manages to survive in the Wikipedia, it would be a significant violation of balance and perspective if a genuinely pioneering interdisciplinarian didn't get his due -- not just a bio note but a full appreciation and exposition of his contribution, as "original synthesis" at the very least.

I'm hoping that someone familiar with the DeBono oeuvre and related research and technologies can make the necessary connections without having to do so much translation and interpretation as to constitute "original research". As a Gruberian "image of wide scope", Lateral Thinking has no real peer in its domain (perhaps closest is Adams' "conceptual blockbusting", which covers just a subset of DeBono's turf, though it does it well). Let's give DeBono's term (with the definition and as much other material as advisable taken from his own work, for starters) a chance of anchoring a nice chunk of Wiki content in this vital interdisciplinary area, some way or the other....

NPOV: standard general reference works (Collins English Dictionary and the New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, to name but two I have to hand) have "Lateral thinking" as a headword. This puts notability beyond dispute, in my view.ARAJ (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree very much with these points. The topic must be preserved. But the article needs to do it more justice.

Preview. A well-documented article on Lateral thinking is close to publication in what will be a very reputable source by a distinguished author. Unfortunately it can't yet be quoted for a a few months. Manybe a good addition to this topic. http://www.researchmethodsarena.com/books/The-Routledge-Companion-To-Creativity-isbn9780415773171

(I'm sorry for not being totally familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, but) this article has disputed notability since January 2008. If someone is familiar with de Bono's works in an academic context, then it's quite difficult to consider him unnotable, just because the usefulness of his ideas etc might be questionable. --JoelLimberg (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fun Answer #2
The question says there is nothing to cushion or slow his fall (to the ground), but the answer states that he could've had a balcony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.249.234 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Refine/delete puzzles and questions; other ideas
The problems, questions, and puzzles seem to take away from the quality of the entry in their current format. This entry definitely needs better examples, and the puzzles at the end of the entry should be eradicated altogether.

If might be a good idea to cross-reference this article with another encyclopedic entry when formatting it.

Summerlee727 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do ways of thinking lend themselves to spatial analogies? I guess not.
When I hear (or read) of human thinking being categorised as directional, I usually recall a certain sentence of Íslendingabók (Libellus Islandorum or Book of the Icelanders) written in the eleventh or twelfth century. My quotation is abridged for clarity:

“According to […] my uncle Þorkell Gellisson, who remembered far forward [my emphasis], Iceland was […] settled […] at the time when Saint Eadmund, King of England, was slain […]”

I know full well that Wikisource renders this “far back”, but that rendition is only for the convenience of a modern reader. The original words can only be literally rendered “far forward”. This is an example of what one might call horizontal directionality. English, and probably all other languages, also contain examples of directionality in relation to thought, however very inconsistent. We are descended (meaning that we have stepped down vertically), from our ancestors (i.e. those who go before us horizontally; in Germanic English “forefathers”). Now, maybe as a result of the conquests made by material science, we have come to embrace the view that evolution, or time itself, progresses forward, or, in Latin English, advances. We probably no longer think of ourselves as having crawled down a heap on which our oldest “ancestor” or “forefather” sits at the top. We are more likely to think of ourselves as kings of the hill, tops of the heap. In English we may call “retrogression” what in my native language is called öfugþróun, i.e. “mis-evolution” or, as the terms “regression” or “retrogression” in fact also signify, “a trend going in the opposite (implying “wrong”) direction”.

I acknowledge that these examples all relate to time in one way or another. But to me they suggest that characterizing human thinking as oriented in a particular direction, whether it be up/down or left/right, or at all oriented in a manner permitting spatial analogies, is merely a product of a particular frame of mind. A person who wants to think freely must beware of any particular frame of mind. He or she must consciously search for frames of mind in order to avoid them personally, and in order to understand those who do not. References to the static three-dimensional material world do not suffice to categorize thought; they merely confine it. Gedanken sind by definition frei. If Gedanken ain’t frei, they can hardly be called proper Gedanken. Dimensions are mathematical phenomena and it should be possible to add other dimensions, not only the relatively familiar fourth one. Curiously, it seems that of all the world’s dimensions only two, namely the lateral and vertical, have been invoked to categorize thought. What about thinking that goes right from your forehead hitting the screen perpendicularly and proceeding to hit what is beyond – which is the third dimension – or a thought coming from there hitting your forehead – what sort of thought is that?

I do not desire to be charged with mockery of honest endeavour, and as layman in the field of psychology I can of course not deny that spatial analogies in relation to thought may have some value in some situations. I merely wish to draw attention to what I think is a fact, namely that the actual value of such analogies is contingent upon preconceptions, and preconceptions are fetters of thought. However, frames of mind, or preconceptions if you will, are interesting in themselves, and may provide an insight into ways of thinking that characterize cultures in different times and places. But there is, I believe, nothing inherently true about them.

Togifex; 10 June, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.52.161 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)