Out-of-the-box thinking
May 1st, 2010 admin Posted in Family, Philosophy | No Comments »
At the beginning of the previous post I had included a set of slides which propose the 4 squares problem and teach us that we should always be ready to think of a simple solution whenever possible. This theme caused a flurry of emails among some of my family members, and I would like to present some of the interesting ideas that arose in that discussion.
Dr. K. Ramamurthy (my dad’s uncle) wrote the following in response to this issue.
Questions 1 and 2 are just easy. Question 3 was one I had in my high school and solved then itself. Question 4 reminds me of a problem I was posing in my management classes titled: Educated Incompetence. A child in its innocence poses questions and answers too in a weird and simplistic way because it is not afraid of making a mistake�since it does not really know ‘What is right�or what it is wrong’. The more educated we are, we become trapped in the incompetent syndrome.�First, we’re�afraid of making a mistake and feel embarrassed. We, therefore, tend to make sure of the correct solution and more often than not,�avoid such a situation.
Innovative thinking is of this genre and to be incorporated into the general education. This is “Thinking Out of the Box!”
I’ve tried this interactive method of ‘Problem Solving’�with small and big groups, as well as with the educated and working classes. It works. Simple solutions emanate in the process, more often than not by the uneducated. Qualified people such as engineers� opt for complicated solutions as they’re conditioned by education and precise thinking. I’ve read of�large companies inviting home-makers, maids, etc., to solve many-a-corporate problem using common sense and native intelligence, not constrained by pre-knowledge.
Based on this behavioral pattern, brain storming was developed. Here a problem is posed and a group of people (who may know nothing of the problem or problem area)�are assembled to find a solution through group interaction. The rules of the game are: think wildly, randomly and instantly. No logic or reason should be allowed to play a role and�waste time. None in the group is allowed to�object to what another says. Ideas should flow at a fast speed without any kind of interruption. All ideas/points are noted on a sheet of paper, blackboard, or these days on a computer screen big enough to be seen by all. If there are 10 persons in the group, we should get over 100 ideas in a span of say 30 minutes. Once the flow of ideas�slows down considerably, stop the game. Now is the time to analyze the ideas and do what we may say, a realistic check. Discard outlandish ideas, look for practical solution(s) by�combining or fusing ideas and finally, develop an acceptable, practical, and usable solution.
This gave rise to some thoughts which� I present here.
I agree that educated incompetence is a real phenomenon. I see it at work, at school, and even within our family. Typically, it manifests itself as a minor irritant with small repercussions; however, on occasion, it can bloat into a dangerous phenomenon, affecting life-changing decisions we make.
The people who think that they know (or, more accurately, who have been conditioned to think they ought to know) feel this pressure to pretend that they know. They may not know, but their ego does not let them accept or project their ignorance.
Now, take the case of a person who is formally uneducated. That person may not have any degrees, but may have sufficient common sense and, indeed, an abundant supply of humility. Unfortunately, lack of formal education, brings lack of confidence in addition to the abundance of humility. Abundance of formal education brings abundance of confidence (over-confidence, in most cases) and a lack of humility. The best kind of education encourages the right amount of confidence, and the right amount of humility.
That begs the question, “What is the fundamental problem with formal education?”.
Formal educational arrangements often cannot give one-on-one attention that is necessary to truly explore the limits of an individual’s potential. The result of this fundamental clash between individual potentials and group educational-arrangements is a lowering of the education bar. Further, in order to smoothly impart knowledge to a group, and then to smoothly measure the efficiency of that process, a common canonical framework (the box) must be constructed. All formal education builds within the confines of this framework. This explains why, in exams, typically, all questions have a reasonably fixed answer. Mathematical problems, typically, only provide precisely the data necessary to solve the problem. No unnecessary data is provided. In Chemistry lab, only the reagents and equipment necessary to prove the workings of a certain reaction are provided. To me it is not at all surprising that relying only on formal education as a means to educating yourself is bound to teach you a canonical view of the world and its problems. It teaches you to construct the boundaries of your sandbox of thoughts before trying to solve a problem. It teaches you that when you have a problem you just need to use the resources readily visible within this sandbox. It does not, typically, teach you where to look for resources to solve a problem. It does not teach you how to get rid of the sandbox. And most significantly it does not teach you how to look *for* problems. Problems are assumed to be handed to you, with your job being restricted to looking for solutions. This is a fundamental problem with all forms of formal education. And, if you think about it, this formal educational structure is a direct result of the simplifications that *must* be made for any, large-scale, practical, hand-off of human understanding from one generation to the next. That is, I am not blaming the formal education. I am saying it is doing exactly what it was meant to do. To identify and solve real-life problems, it helps to know how to solve a canonical, artificially-created, abstract versions of the real-life problem. Formal education signed up to distill real-life problems into canonical problems and teach us how to proceed from that point further. It did not sign up for more.
Now, the responsibility of the second half of education – the ability to identify a real-life problem (before it is handed over to you on a platter), the ability to whittle down a real-life problem into a canonical form, the ability to identify parameters that affect the solution to this problem from a much larger selection than you are used to dealing with – lies with the individual. Even if we could, in a perfect society, provide one-on-one attention to each student, human brains are not very good at communication of complex thought. The only brain that can efficiently sift through the deluge of complex thoughts that arise inside it, it the very same brain where these thoughts arise. This ability to learn by looking inwards has been called meditation, self-awareness, reflection, wisdom, and, common sense. This is an ability that cannot be taught by formal educational tools. It is, therefore, a resource available to the educated and the uneducated in equal measure. The uneducated person, probably enjoys it in purer, undiluted proportions. The formally educated person may, unfortunately, end up suspicious of such free-ranging thoughts arising in his or her mind and proceed to quell them. This may explain why educated people often appear to be unimaginative and conforming – thinking “inside-the-box” out of habit.
Maybe this makes a case for a statutory warning to be legally enforced on all formal educational fora – FORMAL EDUCATION, HOWEVER ADVANCED, IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A SMALL FRACTION OF YOUR OVERALL EDUCATION
(PS: By the way, be careful not to interpret this to mean that everything your maid-servant says is wise.)
I read some more interesting insights form Dr. Ramamurthy a few emails down the chain.
In our earlier discussion on the topic, we referred to education and upbringing�from childhood through adolescence�from mother to teacher to playmates and colleagues, to�shape one’s outlook and ways of looking at a problem. What’s important in this process is the ability of the individual to develop ‘logic-based’ or ‘reason-based’ thinking in resolving problems faced rather than�be guided merely by copying or imitating others, by following tradition (even if�you find it�illogical), or mutely following others in authority. In these instances, ‘grooved thinking’ overtakes everyother consideration. If from childhood one is encouraged to think independently and even to question established authority (of parents or elders) – what I’d call “free-lance thinking” – then out-of-box thinking becomes part of one’s psyche or�reason-based thinking. This is what I was alluding to in my previous discussion on the topic.
Now a word on ‘Experience.’ Experience is not mere passsage of time (or what we many-a-time allude to as Seniority. Experience in my opinion is one that�expands or enhances the�knowlege (acquired formally or otherwise) during working period. This means ability to ‘apply’ knowledge one has��to a variety of situations, difficulties, ups & downs in tackling problems confronted by him. This enlarges his vision, gives a practical edge in assessing problems, evaluates differing�options available before making a decision. Internally�at your sub-conscious level you’re in fact going a process of ‘brain-storming’ before coming to a conclusion. This process of internal (to oneself) evalaution or introspection�makes you think out of the trodden path of rules/regulations and precedents. That’s out of box thinking. Education and upbringing should nurture this attitude and approach�from young age.
And here is my response:
In fact, rational thinking is a necessary condition to allow out of the box thinking. It is not a sufficient condition though. A bit of inspired (some may even call it non-rational, creative or artistic) thinking becomes necessary as well. This is that spark of subconscious creativity that conscious rational thinking can then give form to.
All this talk of rational vs creative, boxed-in vs out-of-the box thinking reminds me of the following incident which happened recently.
"No, K. The problem is not that I use only my left brain. The problem is that I can only use the brain that is left."
Leave a Reply