In this trailblazing book, Edward de Bono shows why our most crucial problems cannot be solved by traditional Western thought with its rigid insistence on facts. Genuinely revolutionary--a synthesis of neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy--this work is bound to change the way we think.
Edward de Bono was a Maltese physician, author, inventor, and consultant. He is best known as the originator of the term lateral thinking (structured creativity) and the leading proponent of the deliberate teaching of thinking in schools.
This was published in 1990 and hence its views are a little dated. The author’s views on lateral thinking are well known. He lays down the approach to the New Renaissance as he calls it that require changes to our understanding of perception and frameworks surrounding the same.
This will pave the way for us to do more critical thinking. He is opinionated and defines his views with some great examples. One of his prescriptions - which I see as a malady - is to think only of the short term as it is impossible to think beyond. In contrast he says all scholars become scholarly by studying the past when actually they should be thinking about the future - and designing for it.
In many ways “ rules are already written” for our futures except that we probably don’t have a way to fathom them. This is where he says the intellect in the universities should concentrate and focus on making education more practical. As I said this book is over three decades old and some of these are being recognized and addressed.
After I read this book, I changed from being constantly argumentative to constantly resolving argument, and stopped placing so much importance on ceaselessly being right. Life-changing!
Revolution is often associated with violence, emotion, and the collapse of great monuments. It's difficult to recognize how a new mode of thought could be revolutionary, yet De Bono demonstrates this thesis in IARYAW.
With patience, the reader realizes De Bono's insights could help people to think better, see more clearly, be more creative, and live in a more just, equitable, and Utopian world as a result.
De Bono's basic idea is that modern thinking, including critical thinking and analysis built on the foundation of Western logic, is insufficient and incomplete. The status quo mode of thinking, which De Bono refers to as "Rock Logic" falls prey to the brain's need for order and patterns. Consequently, we focus too much on what is or what has been. We argue, analyze, and criticize to explain, and we draw hard lines into the sand where there may in reality be none. This way of thinking, De Bono, suggests, holds us back.
His solution: with greater awareness of the operational biases of the mind, we can transcend these limits and balance out the critical, analytical, binary thinking of the western tradition with a more exploratory, generative, design and future-oriented thinking. De Bono calls this "perceptual thinking" or "water logic."
If we applied gender stereotypes to the contrasting modes of thinking, it would be easy to assign rock logic as masculine and water logic as feminine. Interesting to note that, for the millenia that rock logic has been in the ascendant, patriarchy has been the dominant social force. Without explicitly doing so, it seems De Bono is calling for a sexual revolution of the Western mind.
De Bono's ideas are not difficult or complex ideas to grasp, but the implications are profound, and the author spends the great part of the book illustrating how a revolution in thinking could transform every aspect of society, from language to education to the economy.
IARYAW is curiously written. It's repetitive, it comes in bite-size ponderable chapters rather than extended prose. It's at times stridently misinformed, like when De Bono suggests we have a better understanding of the brain than gravity (58) -- while we understand certain cognitive processes of the brain, the hard problem of consciousness is still a profound mystery. It also dances around the thesis, approaching it brusquely from many oblique angles rather than directly and deeply exploring it. I often felt the author spent too much time pointing out flaws with the current way of thinking instead of developing a substantial alternate program. We have to wait until the appendix of the book, for example, to discover a few hints about what De Bono means by his system of "water logic" -- and yet, according to the title, this is supposed to be the book's focus.
Despite the quirks, bit by bit De Bono reveals genuine originality and insight. There are many fascinating asides, such as the concept of ludecy, which explains the insane consequences of people following poorly-conceived rules; the notion of networks and expectancy loops in attracting interest; the word "po" as a place-holder to help reserve judgment and create space for dispassionate reflection.
I recommend the book and recommend reading it more than once to appreciate its broad implications.
Thinking is an art that needs to be understood and sharpened.The methods to do so are unconventional, but they are so only b'cos of our ignorance of the art of thought application and of serious deep thinking that has the aim- to UNDERSTAND AND WEIGH the matter rather than discuss and preach regarding it. This book was a revelation to me and hopefully i will manage to take a leaf out of it.For all those who are wondering whether to read it or not, i say- READ IT. even if you dont like it, you would gain some insight into the way your mind works and in the process of figuring out why you didn't like it, you would benefit from a better understanding of yourself.
The guy thinks he can say whatever he wants. Very difficult to read without stopping to say: That’s not what reason or thinking is!, or That’s not what knowledge is! Lots of bad ideas. Lots of bragging that he said this or that before it was popular. Still, a few ideas you can use. Skip the introduction, or you’ll just be angry (unless you’re into the anti-reason philosophies). Read the first couple of chapters, through the octopi on the beach model. I found that model useful as I read other books on how the mind works. From that point, skim -- real fast -- the rest of the book.
Here is the main idea of this book. Our society would be better if the people are well-equipped not only with norms and intelligence, but also with THINKING SKILL. Thinking skill doesn’t always related only with problem-solving, but also design thinking. Not only logical, but also creative and radical. Embracing not only fact, but also perception.
very enlightening book that puts everything in a different but logical perspective. The new words and outlook in general are neatly written with examples that are easy to understand, but can be a bit hard at times.
A compelling, though naturally repetitive, case for abandoning the greco-roman philosophical model of logic and contradiction and move forward with other ways of being. This book had no novel content for me as I am reading his work entirely out of order. What is interesting for me is that this book references Gleick's work, implying that de Bono stayed up to date on contemporary science entirely outside of his home disciplines.
Anyway, per usual, logic was implemented as a tool by both religious dogmatists and antireligious humanists. It is equally effective at arguing for any point and is not concerned with truth, nominally being unconcerned with perspective but having no choice but to only build on perspectives, not truths. This works efficiently with the brain's normal tendency of classification, dismissal, etc. It is absolutely terrible for creating new things. In this book, like in several others, he sets out the tools to use, the impact of the use of the tools in real life scenarios, and the rational behind each tool. In this book, de Bono goes in on talking about how our thinking traditions in the west focus on identity and consistency, the polarity of opposites, how it makes certain kinds of thinking easy and other kinds impossible. It reminded me very much of recent conversations on the genocide happening in Gaza. So many people saying if you are not this, you are that. If you are not with Israel, you are an antisemite. Blah blah blah. This book rang true and clear within that current cultural context. What is needed is different ways of thinking. So-called debate and discussion are not the most effective ways of concept exploration, as we have been led to believe.
Some selected quotes:
""" ‘Consistency’ is, of course, the key word in critical thinking. Is something internally consistent – the favourite line of criticism of anyone who does not know the subject (as with a bureaucrat)? Is it consistent with what is generally held or with science as we now know it? Is it consistent with principles that we know to be true or absolute (or need to treat as such)? Is it consistent with my experience and perceptions? Is it consistent with the way I want to look at the matter? All of these come down to: is it consistent with my pattern of perception? So the process of judgement may be thorough but the basis for the judgement is a perception held generally or personally. """
""" With dichotomies we come to the great joy and ingenuity of table-top logic. With dichotomies traditional logic comes closer to the constructed system that it desires. There may be something that exists in experience and for that we have perception and language. But the ‘opposite’ of that thing is a deliberate ‘construction’ and means only the opposite. Unfortunately, as I suggested earlier in this book, the mind cannot easily hold an abstract opposite but quickly locates this in experience. So the un-white chess piece is recognized as the black chess piece. """
""" So when we need to escape the crudeness of broad levelling we need richer naming habits. But when we need to establish underlying uniformities we may need to look behind the naming. If we were to give different names to a glass in your hand, a glass falling through the air and a glass hitting the ground, we might have a hard time realizing that these were all part of the same process. This is a problem physicists suspect they have in particle physics. A one-year-old salmon returning to its home river is called a grilse. The English won’t eat them because they think they are different from salmon. The French do eat them because they know it is just a name for a young salmon. """
I think I would generally consider this as a good primer on de Bono's work and therefore do recommend reading it.
TBH, I didn't get much of what the author wanted to say. There was something about learning from neural systems, building self-organizing systems, avoiding table-top logic, and understanding perception. The excessive use of analogies made it challenging to grasp the core concepts author had to convey.
In this book, de Bono explores the nature of thinking and how it often leads to disagreements and conflicts. He discusses the various thinking patterns and mental processes that people employ when they engage in discussions and debates. De Bono argues that people often approach conversations with the mentality that "I am right, and you are wrong," which can hinder constructive communication and problem-solving.
De Bono proposes alternative ways of thinking and communicating that can lead to more productive and collaborative outcomes. He encourages readers to consider lateral thinking and other techniques to break out of the traditional "argument" mindset and explore new approaches to resolving differences and generating creative solutions.
essential read to discover how 'naturally narrow' our thinking tends to be, and how the real effort in productive and succesful thinking can be made and how to do it. A real eye opener. I was struck with how limiting my thinking was upon reading this book
This revolutionized my understanding of the way the mind works and the way that different modes or ways of thinking shape our understanding of the world around us.
I've been reading and rereading this book for over 20 years. Looking back it's clear that it has formed a part of how I behave. I guess in that sense it has literally changed my life.
It uses elements of neurology together with what we would now call non-linear and complex thinking to model the way we as humans perceive the world and hence the way we react to the world. Why we're pulled towards biased and siloed viewpoints with the same polemical and confrontational patterns. More importantly it provided ways of overcoming those biases. Simple and well known examples are the lateral thinking and six-hats techniques. Likewise things like deliberate equivocation and working backwards are so useful and productive (and even *healthy*) they should be taught in schools.
On the negative side de Bono's writing style is sometimes somewhat repetitive and self-elevating. Also, although it doesn't change the substance of the book, neurology and machine learning have advanced considerably since the book was written. The references and examples are a little outdated.
The book went above and beyond my expectations .. When I first read the comments on the front and back covers, it gave me a sense that it is just another self-help book that offers spoon-fed advise on how to deal with your day to day struggles without any real learning or new information.
The author fully explains how the human brain works through the self-organizing information system model. He goes into explaining logic, perception, humor, catchment, patterns, creativity and many aspects of human natural interaction. He also points out a lot of the flaws of our current “Table-top logic” thinking, which the author believes is the main limiting factor of our progress in all fields from technology to psychology and beyond. He believes this is mainly due to our lack of understanding of how the brain works and how with our current inefficient thinking system, we are unable to explain critical phenomena such as creativity and humor. Rather, we would claim and accept that creativity and Aha! (Eureka) moments are as a result of coincidence, accident and evolution.
On the whole, I loved the book and loved the insights the author offered and I highly recommend it to everyone for an enjoyable and information-rich read.
De Bono does a nice job of contrasting what he calls "rock" logic which is based on reason and "water" logic which is based on perception. De Bono advocates for thinking as exploration. He points out the limitations of reason and challenges of language which is used to codify, categorize, and describe and the traditional thinking approaches based on argument and analysis.
Lots to glean from this work including thinking frameworks, thinking patterns, and thinking habits. Looking forward to digging into more from his work on Water Logic.
If a person has a beautiful spirit, they are by all means, allowed to be expressing themselves with poetry, song and compassion. Manners are the lubricant of society, when emotional warmth and spiritual solidarity cannot be relied upon. 70 percent psychological and thirty percent mathematical and rational, are what makes up Economical Behaviour. Generative, creative, constructive and design aspects of thinking are a part of Critical Thinking. The Brutal Arrogance of Rock Thinking is enough.
Edward de Bono's discussions on lateral thinking are very clearly set out and easy to read. He uses analogies and anecdotes that help the reader think about how to think.
p.s. These kinds of "old-school" development books are usually available very cheaply at book fairs and second-hand stores - I got this copy for $1 at the Lifeline Bookfair.
The part about the octopuses is mildly confusing and does not help in understanding neural networks. Also, I am still not entirely sure what De Bono means by perception. Nice book overall, gives a different perspective.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
I liked it. The first part blew my (creative) mind and I felt seen. However, I dunno, it lost its way in the last third (that's my critical thinking mind).
Quite apart from the fact that this author is a shameless name dropper (and mostly re himself), yea, he challenges Western empirical thought but does not, in any way shape of form propose a new 'methodology' of thinking. Thats not to say I don't condone the arm chair critic, but at the end of the day, unless you can show the way forward, then don't storm the castle. It will just phoenix. De Bono's main point (although he'd probably disagree) is that the only way to break from classical 'table-top' logic is to....make a mistake. He himself acknowleges the greatest inventions of the century have been the by-product of experiments gone awry. So...unless we all embrace a culture of raring for the error, its a non starter.
A fascinating study on human brain function. Edward De Bono makes great use of metaphor to explain how the brain works. Not a sorting and counting table but a pile of sand with water dripping. Octopuses on a beach with helicopters overhead shining lights. Years after reading I Am Right, You Are Wrong, the mental images created by De Bono endure.
If you ever wonder why people on the one hand are capable of thinking so creatively, and on the other hand can so easily delude themselves, this is the book to read. Highly recommended.
Difficult to rate, or classify. But maybe that's the point, right? I like the ideas but I'm not too fond of the way they're presented. It's too unstructured (yeah!), like a brain dump sometimes. I read a Swedish translation, which was not very good, but I'm happy to have been able to find the book at all (thanks Jens!) considering its out of print status. Rather than a re-read, I'd like to find another author that develops de Bono's ideas, which are definitely worthwhile and possibly even great sometimes.
Es un excelente libro que explica de una manera muy sencilla como evidenciar nuestras percepciones, para poder ser conscientes de las mismas, y en función de ello actuar.
Este libro aclara y profundiza, mediante la lógica fluida, las explicaciones que hace De Bono sobre como funciona nuestro cerebro cuando recibe información como sistema auto organizado, en los libros El pensamiento lateral, El pensamiento creativo y en el libro Aprender a pensar.
Muy recomendable para aquellos que trabajan con temas relacionados con la creatividad, y con la resolución creativa de problemas.