Comments on: Thinking You Need to Accept It? That’s So Conventional.

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:34:56 +0000

Ernest, that's another great example — glass half-empty/half-full —
it's an either/or statement wrapped around a optimism/pessimism
analogy. It's flawed as you can see things both ways, optimistic and
pessimistic, and areas in-between. We are not set in stone. We have a
choice.

By: Ernest Pang

Ernest Pang — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:53:28 +0000

The either/or thinking reminds me of the “Glass is half-empty/half-full” example. Recognize both sides of the coin and you can better choose to top up the glass or enjoy every last drop. To requote you, It’s about what can be, not what is.

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:31:38 +0000

"The only constraints placed on the design are (1) that it be
technologically feasible, to preclude science fiction, and (2) that it
be operationally viable, capable of surviving the current environment
‘If’ it were brought into existence."

I like that description of why something isn't possible. Everything
else, in my mind, is fair game.

By: HERO

HERO — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:38 +0000

Tara, - I will try to answer your question.In the next beefy stuff you may well find an answer to your endless curiosity!?
It struck me that it was all about types of problems we tend to run into and problem treatments in particular. In my modest opinion there is no such thing as a marketing, production, financial, personnel, or distribution problem. Such modifiers in front of the world “problem” tell us absolutely nothing about its nature, but they do tell us something –Just be the Hero and things will sort themselves out. Browsing through the table summaries does not seem to tell us what kind of problem was this – medical, economic, emotional, or architectural? Actually maybe none of these. It was just a problem.
The adjectives are indicative only of the point of view, the mind-set, of the person looking at the problem. Wherever problems appear they should be looked at from as many different points of view as possible before a way of attacking them is selected. The best place to solve a problem is not necessary where it appears.
There are four ways of treating problems: Absolution, resolution, solution, and dissolution. To absolve a problem is to ignore it and hope it will go away or solve itself.
To resolve a problem is to do something that yields an outcome that is good enough, that satisfies. Problem resolvers take a clinical approach to problems; they rely heavily on experience, trial and error, qualitative judgments, and common sense. They try to identify the cause of a problem, remove or suppress it, and thereby return to a previous state. To solve a problem is to do something that yields the best possible outcome, that optimizes. Problem solvers take a research approach to problems. They rely heavily on experimentation and quantitative analysis. To dissolve a problem is to eliminate by redesigning the system that has it. Problem dissolvers try to idealize, to approximate an ideal system and thereby do better in the future than the best that can be done now. To problem dissolvers problems are opportunities, not threats. By redesigning the systems with problems, a better performance than the best currently possible can be obtained. This involves creativity also. Everyone would like to be creative, but what is creativity? It is my belief and the school of thought that I represent that it is the ability to identify self-imposed constraints, remove them, and explore the consequences. Unfortunately, knowing what creativity is does not help much in any effort to capture it. The principal difficulty lies in identifying self- imposed constraints; we are generally unaware of them. There are many ways of raising them to consciousness or avoiding them even without raising them to copiousness. Among them are lateral thinking, brain storming, synectics, conceptual block-bursting, and idealized design, the last of which, I believe is the most effective.
An idealized redesign is one prepared on the assumption that the system was destroyed last night but its environment remains intact. It is this assumption that removes most self-imposed constraints. The product of idealized redesign is a design of a system with which the designers would now replace the system assumed to have been destroyed; that is, if they were completely free to do so. The only constraints placed on the design are (1) that it be technologically feasible, to preclude science fiction, and (2) that it be operationally viable, capable of surviving the current environment ‘If’ it were brought into existence. However, the design need not be capable of being brought into existence. Nevertheless, the designers are always surprised at how closely their design can be approximated. The reason is that the idealized design process clearly reveals that that many constraints thought to be externally imposed are actually self - imposed. The above reasoning can be easily backed up with many practical examples.
To idealize is to think without constraints. To think without constraints is to think creatively.
Not all ideas presented to management are good. Defenses against the bad are necessary, but they tend to be applied to the good ones as well. This makes it difficult to innovate in many organizations. I will very briefly identify some of the most commonly used defenses:
- Has this idea ever been applied successfully?
-The idea is a good one but it doesn’t apply to our kind of business or in our kind of environment.
-Have any applications of your idea failed?
-This is nothing but…
-We tried it a long time ago and it didn’t work then, why should it now?
- (Such and such a ) company tried this idea and it didn’t work there. Why should it here?
Lastly I would like to cover problematic proclivities. There are too many of these traits to start treating here , so I’ll focus on the seven (covered in detail in the Hunt and Gilovich books and in other scientific literature) that I believe have the greatest adverse effects on our ability to analyze problems:
-There is an emotional dimension to almost every thought we have and every decision we make.
-Mental shortcuts our unconscious minds take influence our conscious thinking.
-We are driven to view the world around us in terms of patterns.
-We instinctively rely on, and are susceptible to, biases and assumptions.
-We feel the need to find explanations for everything, regardless of whether the explanations are accurate.
- humans have a penchant to seek out and put stock in evidence that supports their beliefs and judgments while eschewing and d evaluating evidence that does not.
- We tend to cling to untrue beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:04:56 +0000

Awesome, Hilary. I am so glad I could be of help in inspiring you to
make the decision that is “right” for you, and you alone.

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:00:38 +0000

Thanks, Shell. It's always great to meet a fellow shit disturber;)

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:59:37 +0000

Thank you for that, Mike. There is so much helpful information in your comment. I was especially taking note of the perfectionism toxins as I often like to poison my Self with perfectionist thoughts.

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:49:22 +0000

Thank you, Lostintranslation. I've always been wary of those who honestly think they have all the answers… it is almost as soon as I hear someone call them self an expert in something, I lose trust in their abilities. What I have found to be true is the more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing and the more open you become to the not-so-obvious. Humility is a great tool to aid in learning and growth, I think.

By: Tara Joyce

Tara Joyce — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:15:45 +0000

Michael,

Wow. I have to requote you for the proof is in your pudding:

"That day she learned the artist’s secret; what you perceive depends
on who you are. Analytical thinkers have generally assumed that we
perceive reality as it is; they then use a process of abstract
reasoning to interpret the perception. O’Keeffe realized that the
perception is the interpretation. It rests on the internal reality
that governs the meaning we find in our sensations.

The internal reality Bolles speaks of is, in fact, controlled by the
mental traits I and many others have been discussing and talking
about. Thus, it is these hidden traits that determine the meaning we
find in the information our senses pick up and transmit to the brain.
This is an alarming phenomena because we have no direct awareness of,
or conscious control over these traits."

My question to you is this -- if we are seeking balance in thought, as
systems thinking requires, is the truth of perception and reality
somewhere in between the creative thinker and the analytical thinker
views? For example, it is important to know what you perceive depends
on who you are but it is also important to develop your ability to
interpret your perception (perhaps develop your awareness of the
traits you hold that dictate your meaning) and understand that they do
not dictate the world in a larger sense? Does that make any sense?

By: Shell

Shell — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:00:36 +0000

I love this. I'm up for breaking rules and creating new avenues for creativity. So your post really spoke to me.