Edward de Bono has had faculty appointments at the universities of Oxford,. London concept of lateral thinking and developed formal techniques for deliberate. Edward de Bono’s efforts as an advocate for lateral thinking and creative thinking as an essential skill for creativity and innovation have not gone without criticism. Robert Weisberg, a cognitive psychologist, argues that there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of. Dr Edward de Bono originated the concept of Lateral Thinking, defining it as a Complimenting the use of logical (vertical) thinking, Lateral Thinking can be.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Dr. Edward de Bono. ▫ Traditional Thinking. ▫ What is Parallel Thinking? ▫ Traditional Thinking vs. Parallel Thinking. ▫ What is Lateral Thinking? ▫ Introduction. See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www. sibacgamete.gq Creative and Lateral. EDWARD DE BONO'S LATERAL THINKING. 1. Edward de Bono's Edward de Bono is often considered the godfather of creative thinking. (Lewis,
As you have developed your thinking ideas, tools and scenarios, have you revised any of your early conclusions? Edward de Bono: The answer is no. I would equate the development of my thinking to entering a new universe, or a new country.
You look around you, there's a lot to see, but the basic things don't change. You could compare it to the Euclidean geometry which we use today, and which was designed more than 2, years ago. Fundamentals don't change. Your concepts of perceptual, parallel and lateral thinking have had wide-ranging applications ranging from early years education and the training of young offenders to business and management, and major international events and disaster organization.
What do you consider your most interesting or rewarding challenge to date? Edward de Bono: The applications certainly have been wide. In China five provinces are currently conducting a pilot project of our work in schools.
If they are pleased with the results, the work will be introduced into four million schools in China. In Venezuela every child has to learn my thinking techniques at school. The same goes for the Dominican Republic and a number of other countries.
In terms of challenges, these are more related to getting particular thinking work incorporated in education and this could be seen more as a political than an intellectual challenge. But this is what I regard as the biggest challenge because youngsters really benefit hugely from learning thinking. In Britain some research with the government's New Deal programme found that when unemployed young people were taught thinking for just five hours, their employment rate increased fivefold.
When violent youngsters at Hungerford Guidance Centre were taught thinking, the level of criminal conviction dropped to less than 10 per cent of what it had been. So this is the challenge — to get things which we know and have shown to work better known and better used. Your thinking methods promote behavioural change and there have been some remarkable recorded impacts on time management, conflict resolution, bottom-line performance and creativity in many different environments.
Techniques such as Six Hats thinking appear deceptively simple yet require the discipline of constant practice to promote systematic thinking. How is ongoing progress monitored and performance evaluated? Edward de Bono: There are thousands of schools and organizations using my techniques and it would be impossible to monitor all these programmes.
However, we do receive feedback both from many of the organizations themselves, and from formal research in schools.
A company in Finland reported that, as a result of using Six Hats training, time spent in multinational project discussions was cut from what used to be thirty days to just two.
At the time of the tsunami in Sri Lanka, when aid agencies failed to agree between themselves a common approach, the government invited my trainers to Singapore and, following Six Hats training, they were able to draw up a plan of action in just two days. The Sri Lankan government has now stipulated that all aid agencies must learn this method.
Formal research in schools in the UK conducted for the Atkey Organization showed that teaching thinking specifically as a subject increased performance in every other subject by between 30 and per cent.
While you have won plaudits for your work from many eminent people and organizations, in the UK praise has sometimes been more muted and your ideas have attracted some criticism. Can you suggest why, and do cultural differences play a role? Edward de Bono: Well, I would have to say that there are two words to explain that: jealousy and stupidity. Unfortunately stupidity is the dominant one. Some people simply don't understand my work.
They haven't read the books. They haven't been to a seminar. Meanwhile top mathematicians, physicists, Nobel Prize winners, not only accept it, they like it. What is needed is an attitude of open-mindedness. Some time ago the coach of the Australian cricket team, John Buchanan, invited me to give a lateral thinking seminar to his team and his management.
Since then they have been winning. The same thing occurred in Australian-rules football. The West Coast Eagles asked me to give them a training session last year, following which they won the championship for the first time in many, many years. Again there is that attitude that they should listen; that they might learn something; that there might be something to explore - and that is important.
In Europe, Spain is the country which has taken up my work most enthusiastically — and this is reflected in Spanish-speaking countries in South America.
Elsewhere in Europe, there has been notable interest in Italy and in Russia. You have also asked about potential problems coming from differences in language, culture and so on. The reality is the very opposite of what you might think.
Take parallel or Six Hats thinking, for instance.
This is very widely used in China and Japan and many other countries where western argument is totally unacceptable. In other words, my work is more easily accepted in some of these countries than are other forms of thinking because these cultures tend not to have arguments — they think it is extremely rude to disagree and attack people and so on.
This means that my programmes actually cut across cultures far more than other methods of thinking do. The adversarial approach to discussion or negotiation, the idea that you focus your whole intelligence in trying to prove the other fellow wrong, is just stupid. Let me give you a very interesting example.
In the USA one of my colleagues has been doing research with juries in courts. The development of an inquiring society in Australia edited book View project All content following this page was uploaded by Gilbert Burgh on 19 June Edward de Bono Contributors: Gilbert Burgh Edited by: Phillips Book Title: Edward de Bono" Pub.
June 18, Publishing Company: All Rights Reserved. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference [Page iv] Edward de Bono is renowned for his criticism of logical, linear, and critical thinking and for his range of thinking techniques to facilitate potential creative abilities that emphasize thinking as a learnable skill and deliberate act.
He originated the concepts of lateral thinking literally sideways thinking and parallel thinking to distinguish the many techniques for deliberative creative thinking that he has developed from what he considers to be normal perceptions regarding creativity and innovation.
De Bono draws attention to traditional critical thinking as a judgmental and adversarial process and compares it with parallel thinking, which he claims emphasizes cooperative and coordinated thinking. In practice, each interlocutor takes a different position and points out contradictions to attack the other position in order to prove the other side wrong and, consequently, force a judgment.
He does not deny a place for the Socratic method but rather argues that it has deep-seated inadequacies no longer able to deal with the kind of radical change that has become a feature of the modern world.
It is not so much the search for truth that is required for the increasing complexity of contemporary societies but the development of creative and more effective approaches to problem solving. His most notable technique, lateral thinking, aims at restructuring thought patterns from which new combinations can arise.
De Bono assumes that lateral thinking is the basis of insight and creativity because it is for changing concepts and perceptions and, therefore, is most effective prior to the use of traditional methods of vertical or logical thinking. Its value lies especially in problem solving since it generates alternatives, challenges previously held assumptions, and develops innovative thinking.
He argues that thinking can be more effective through direct teaching of thinking as a skill rather than through resisting habitual thinking patterns. In doing so, de Bono makes a distinction between thinking and intelligence and places emphasis on the development of metacognitive thinking skills. The latter can function only when there is something to react against; it does nothing to produce proposals.
Deliberate creative thinking, on the other hand, focuses attention on what he calls mapmaking—a type of thinking that requires a certain detachment.
It uses strategies, called attention-directing tools or devices for generating ideas, to direct the attention of students to aspects of situations that might have otherwise been neglected before they make decisions. Some of the techniques used in CoRT are as follows: The main aim of the CoRT thinking lessons is to improve planning and decision making. By employing the attention-directing tools of CoRT, students apply the skill of operacy, a term coined by de Bono to describe action thinking, which he maintains ranks alongside literacy and numeracy.
Another use of attention-directing tools is the Six Thinking Hats that de Bono designed for teaching structured parallel thinking with groups of participants. The Six Hats supposedly represent every basic type of thinking. Each hat has a different color that provides the name for the hat as well as its related function. The white hat suggests neutrality and objectivity.
The red hat deals with emotional views, feelings, hunches, and intuitions. The yellow hat covers hope and positive thinking. The green hat expresses creativity and new ideas. The blue hat is concerned with thinking about thinking, the organization of the thinking process, and the use of the other hats. Throughout the discussion, hats are used and exchanged, although it is not necessary that people always consciously use one hat or another.
The purpose of the Six Hats is to provide a tangible way of translating intention into performance by simplifying and unscrambling thinking so that the thinker can deal with one mode at a time. It was also designed to allow a switch in modes of thinking by deliberately putting on a particular metaphorical hat depending on which mode of thinking is required.
De Bono contends that the artificiality of the thinking hats provides a formality and a convenience for requesting a certain type of thinking either by oneself or by others. Each thinker follows exclusively the mode of thinking indicated by the hat that is being used. The metaphorical use of the thinking hats also establishes rules for the game of thinking, and anyone involved in the game will be aware of these rules. The Six Thinking Hats framework, therefore, provides a process that can be self-monitoring.
Robert Weisberg, a cognitive psychologist, argues that there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of lateral thinking and that the creative process is better described as a process of logical thinking, trial and error, feedback, and reflection.
Another criticism is that his description of traditional Western thinking overemphasizes the more extreme forms of adversarial argument apparent in some traditional methods of classroom practice, assuming that all Western philosophical thinking is necessarily adversarial.