|
Passages Of The Day |
|
| |
| Insight |
Archimedes leaps naked from his bath shouting 'Eureka'. Alexander Fleming suddenly sees the significance of the petri dish contaminated with the penicillin mould. Kekulè suddenly sees the benzene ring as a snake biting its own tail. The moment of insight, the eureka moment and the 'ah-ha' moment have been well documented by historians of creative achievement. Paradigm shifts, though somewhat slower, are also instances of insight. It is not a question of accumulation of a lot of new evidence. Somehow we get to see the same things differently
.
How can insight happen in a patterning system where things must flow along the established pattern? Surely a patterning system is the very opposite of what takes place with insight, in which we suddenly get a new pattern. The paradox is that it is precisely the nature of patterning systems that gives rise to the phenomenon of insight. Again there is a close resemblance to humour.
As we go along the main track we cannot get access to the side-track. But if somehow, on one occasion, we happen to start at some point along, or near, the side-track, in an instant we back-track and see if it makes sense. It may be a chance remark, a new piece of information, something unconnected in the environment which gets us to start at this new point. The proverbial apple falling on Newton's head (apparently untrue) would be just such an example.
Intuition and insight are not the same thing. Insight is a sudden realization like a mathematician or a computer programmer suddenly realizing that something can be done much more simply. Intuition is a gradual build-up of background patterns which often cannot be verbalized or even made conscious. Sometimes a key pattern falls into place and makes this whole network accessible and usable.
We can take the phenomenon of insight and try to bring it about artificially. How can we provide a new entry point? How can we substitute for the chance event or piece of information that provides access to the side-track? The answer is surprisingly easy and gives rise to creation of what must be the simplest possible lateral thinking technique. This is a technique that is much used by people involved in designing new products or in need of a stream of new ideas. We cannot choose a deliberate entry point (although even this is a useful process) because it is likely to be chosen by reference to our existing ideas in the matter. So we need a new entry point but cannot choose one. The answer is to obtain one by chance.
For convenience we use a word (preferably a noun) which is a package of functions and associations,. We obtain such a word by chance, for instance by opening a dictionary at any page, taking the fifth word down and proceeding to the first noun, then holding that word in juxtaposition to the focus area in which we want a new idea.
For example, the focus area is 'cigarette' and the random word was traffic-lights. Very quickly the idea arose of putting a broad red band round cigarettes some distance from the butt end. This would provide a 'danger zone', a ';guilt zone' and a 'decision zone' for smokers. If they stopped before the red band their smoking was somewhat safer, and they were gaining some decision control as well. The band could be placed progressively higher on the cigarette for those who wanted to cut down.
In a passive table-top system this absurdly simple technique would be utter nonsense, for by definition a random word has no connection with the focus area. The same word would do for any subject and any word would do for any subject at all. This must be nonsense in a passive system. But in a self-organising patterning system, the process is perfectly logical. As you come in from the periphery, from any starting-point, you are likely to hit tracks you would never have taken when moving out from the centre. This arises directly from the asymmetry of patterns.
In addition the random word sensitizes certain patterns (the word 'traffic-light' sensitizes such patterns as 'control', 'danger', 'stop') so that the flow of thought can visit certain patterns it might otherwise have passed by. The technique is extremely effective and very easy to use. This is yet another example of the practical value having a system model from which to work forwards and produce useful ideas. As I have said the random work technique could never have arisen from the table-top model.
The effectiveness of the random word technique in no way proves the correctness of the model, because there may be further models which might also generate practical thinking tools that can then be tried out directly. The purpose of any scientific model is to provide real value and not just another description. |
-----
Passage taken from: "I am Right, You are Wrong," by Edward de Bono, ISBN 0140126783 Copyright © Mica Management Resources Inc.,., 1990
|
|
|
