The value of creativity

Language is not bad at inventing and accepting new words for new things: helicopter, television, computer, etc. Language is not so good at inventing words for mental behaviour. There is a big need for new words to describe certain types of mental activity.

There is complacency about the adequacy of language. Because we believe we can express what we want to express we do not realise that what we want to express is itself limited by the language available to us. If we can only think in available language then what we want to express can indeed be expressed in the same language.

There is thesis and antithesis and the argument or fight between them. If you want to change something then you must prove that thing is wrong, inadequate or deficient in some way. Otherwise you should not ask for a change.

Sometimes, however, what needs changing is excellent. It is not wrong or faulty in any way. It is just not enough.

Ordinary language does not allow us to criticise something and at the same time to admit that it is excellent. We can do this with a whole phrase or sentence, but there is no simple way of doing it. That is why it is necessary to create a simple new word that carries out this function of saying: ‘That is excellent - but not enough’.

The new word I invented is ‘ebne’ (pronounced ‘ebbneh’) - Excellent But Not Enough.

Creative thinking has always been regarded as an inborn talent which some people had and others could only envy. The formal and deliberate tools of lateral thinking can be learned, practised and used as you might learn mathematics. As with any skill, not everyone is going to be equally excellent, but it is always possible to acquire a usable level of skill.

For 2,400 years we have been satisfied with argument as a way of exploring a subject. We use argument in parliament. We use it in the law courts. We use it in discussions and in negotiations. We seem very happy with it. Yet argument is primitive, crude and an inefficient way of exploring a situation.

There may be special occasions when argument is the right method to use. In general, however, a much better way of exploring a subject is through using the parallel thinking of the Six Hats method which I designed over 20 years ago. This reduces meeting times to a quarter or even a tenth of what they normally used to take. The outcome is more constructive.

Another deficiency of traditional thinking is that we rush to judgment. In a conflict situation we rush to judge who is at fault and then seek to put pressure on that party. Instead we should seek to ‘design a way forward’. That needs different thinking.

In order to make decisions we seek more and more information. We do need all the information we can get. That is excellent but not enough. We also need different ways of looking at the information and acting on it. Information is ebne.