There are remarkably few references to thinking in the Bible. There are many references to 'the wise man does...'. Although thinking is clearly the most important human skill, thinking is very rarely taught explicitly in education at either school or university level. Why is this?
It could be that we still believe that thinking is a matter of intelligence. If you are highly intelligent then you will be a good thinker. If you are of modest intelligence then you will be a modest thinker. In this view thinking is no more than 'intelligence in action'.
There is a very widespread belief among educators that thinking cannot exist on its own, just as a shape is always a shape of something. So thinking becomes a way of dealing with a particular content. We do not teach thinking because it cannot be taught. As for talking about thinking, we can only talk about mistakes in thinking. All the above views are totally wrong and very much out of date.
Intelligence is a potential - possibly determined genetically. Thinking is a skill that can be learned and developed. There are highly intelligent people who are bad thinkers. There are less intelligent people who are good thinkers. The notion that thinking does not exist on its own, but only as a way of dealing with a specific subject, is particularly dangerous because it holds back any development of the software of thinking. Thinking is a set of specific methods, processes and direct techniques which can be applied to any subject. We can develop general thinking methods and learn, practise and use such methods.
We do not talk much about thinking precisely because we have not developed much methodology for thinking. So we are limited to commenting on mistakes or to general exhortations to 'think about it'.
METHODS
Through the APTT network there are now hundreds of certified trainers around the world teaching my methods. In the education world there are thousands of schools also teaching my methods to youngsters. What I am concerned with here is neither the substance of the methods nor their effects, but with the provision of a common language for thinking.
The effects can be remarkable. I was recently told that in the Karee platinum mine in South Africa the teaching of thinking at a very basic level has reduced the number of grievances from seven a day to four a month. There are three broad methodologies that are being taught at the moment. I shall deal with each of these approaches in turn.
SIX THINKING HATS
This methodology is now very much in use. It is used by senior executives in some of the world's largest corporations (Siemens, IBM, Prudential); by four-year-olds in school (Clayfield College, Brisbane); by Khmer villagers, etc. The Six Hats provide an alternative to traditional Western argument. Argument is intended to find 'what is'. Argument is directed to finding the truth. Argument was never intended to be constructive and to design 'what can be'. In the Six Hats methods, instead of adversarial thinking there is 'parallel thinking'. At any one moment everyone is looking and thinking in the same direction. There are different directions and each direction is indicated by the colour of a hat.
For example, the 'white hat' means that everyone focuses on information: what information is available; what information is needed; how can the needed information be obtained, etc. The 'green hat' indicates creative thinking. When the green hat is in use everyone is looking for new ideas, fresh alternatives, possibilities, etc.
The method makes thinking much more constructive. Meeting times are reduced by three-quarters (or even 90%). The ego is removed from thinking, etc. Even when the Six Hats method is not explicitly in use, the terminology provides a 'common language' for thinking.
'Let's have some green hat thinking here.'
'That's excellent black hat thinking, now let's try the yellow hat.'
'Wearing my red hat, this is what I feel.'
'We do not have enough white hat here.'
In each of the above cases it would be possible to express the same desire using ordinary language. But the expression would be much weaker, more personal and less specific. Because the 'six hats' are neutral and artificial they create a much more defined request.
In Japan it is very bad manners to criticise a superior: but using the hats system someone might say: 'Mr Shinto, I want to do some black hat thinking here.' That is now totally acceptable. In Australia, one CEO told me that his six-year-old daughter was learning the system at school. Whenever he got angry with his daughter she would say: 'Dad, take off your red hat'.
ATTENTION-DIRECTING
Ninety per cent of the mistakes in thinking are mistakes of perception. Yet we continue to put all the emphasis on logic. If your perception is faulty, the outcome of your thinking will also be faulty - no matter how excellent the logic.
If you are looking in the wrong direction, it does not matter how good your vision may be; you will not see what you need to see. In order to improve our perception we need some 'attention-directing frameworks'. An explorer visiting a new island may be asked to look North, then East, then West, etc. NSEW is a simple attention-directing framework.
The CoRT programme that is so widely used in schools and the DATT programme for business both put forward simple attention-directing tools. For example, the OPV tool asks thinkers to direct their attention to the thinking of another party (Other People's Views). The C&S tool urges the thinker to look systematically at the consequences of an action or choice (Consequences and Sequel).
The PMI (or PNI) directs the thinker to look for the Plus, Minus and Interesting points. On one occasion thirty out of thirty youngsters reckoned it would be a good idea for all students to be paid for going to school. After doing a PMI scan, twenty-nine out of thirty changed their minds.
In order to exist in perception the tools have special abbreviations or names. Without this there would be merely exhortation and attitude - which are very weak.
The tools quickly become part of a common language for thinking. Members of a work team can ask the others to 'do a C&S' on the outcome of an action. This leads to safety improvements. A supervisor can ask a worker to 'do an APC' (Alternatives, Possibilities, Choices).
It is precisely this common language for thinking that is so important with the DATT programme. Thinking can be aligned so that everyone is being cooperative. Thinking can be requested. Thinking can be strategised. All this is very different from muddling along in a discussion and just being ready to pounce on someone with whom you disagree.
I have always thought it extraordinary that we should be satisfied with thinking systems that are primitive and inadequate. The reason may be that thinking which may be fine for contemplative academics has little practical value. But it is these academics who set the ground rules for thinking.
LATERAL THINKING
Creativity is not just a matter of being liberated and messing around in the hope that a new idea may happen. This is a very old-fashioned view of creativity which a surprising number of people still hold.
Based on an understanding of the brain as a self-organising information system which forms asymmetric patterns, we can design specific and formal tools for creative thinking. These include such methods as provocation and random entry. Such methods can be learned, practised and used deliberately.
To some extent such processes as 'challenge', 'concept fan' and 'random entry' can be asked for and used. The word 'po' was invented by me many years ago and indicates a provocation. There is nothing in ordinary language which allows us to make a statement such as 'po you die before you die'. We know it is impossible and illogical and we know the listener knows that too.
There is a need for a word like 'po' to signal a deliberate provocation. We now know that there is a mathematical need for provocation in any self-organising information system.
PERSONAL USE AND COMMUNICATION USE
While the methodologies listed here can all be used by individuals, the 'common language' value is very high. Indeed, many organisations which have requested training from the APTT organisation in these methodologies have done so precisely because of the common language benefit.
Even those who doubt whether personal thinking can ever be improved (believing it to be merely a matter of innate intelligence) see the value of a common language for thinking. Such a common language permits the more powerful and effective use of whatever thinking abilities are present. If a work team can be made to work together there is a huge benefit - even if the thinking of the individuals is not much changed.
(For information on APTT fax USA 515 278 5570.)
read all 70 gurus with one feed read all Read all media
