Think! (12 page)

CREATIVITY
POSSIBILITY

DESIGN
CREATIVITY

The mapped-out Flowscape is shown overleaf. It is easy to see two groupings. In one of them, Logic is central. In the other, Possibility is central. The movement from one grouping to another is via Goedel's Theorem (that logic can never be enough).

Logic is not enough. Perception is very important. Indeed, in daily life perception is more important than logic. Yet we have done nothing about perception.

In this chapter I have sought to show that we
can
do something about perception. It is astonishing that we have had to wait 2,400 years for this.

For a final example, in an experiment, students were shown still photographs of two candidates who had run against each other in some election. No names or party affiliations were given. The students were asked to guess which of the two had won the election. The students were
correct 70 per cent of the time. What are the implications of this?

Perhaps the perceptions of the students were so good that they could see confidence, ability and responsibility just from the still picture of a face.

Perhaps the students persuaded themselves that they could see these things but in the end chose what they thought the voters would have chosen.

Perhaps democracy has reached a point where physical appearance matters more than experience and ability.

This section overlaps in part with other sections, such as argument and democracy. The subject is, however, important enough to deserve a chapter of its own.

Many of those teaching thinking today are focused on teaching 'critical thinking'. There are two aspects to consider here.

Some of those teaching critical thinking claim that it covers all types of thinking, including creativity. They claim that the word 'critical' simply means 'important', in the sense of a critical issue or a critical area. This is a dangerous and misleading use of the word. The word 'critical' comes from the Greek
kritikos,
which means 'judge'. So critical thinking is judgement thinking, and that is the usual
meaning of the word. Private meanings have no validity.

The other aspect is that critical thinking takes us right back to where we started and what this book is about. The
judgement thinking of the Greek Gang of Three (GG3) is excellent – but not enough. For the Church at the Renaissance
critical thinking was enough because you simply judged whether something fitted standard doctrines or not.

In the real world, critical thinking is simply not enough. You may be so brilliant at critical thinking that you can destroy any silly idea, and even good ones. But no amount of critical thinking can produce new ideas in the first place. Where are new ideas to come from?

The repeated emphasis on critical thinking simply shuts the door on possibilities, new ideas and
progress. There may be many people who will use their excellent critical thinking on the contents of this book – but can they design something better? The need is there.

We need perceptual thinking. We need design thinking. We need creative thinking. No amount of excellence at critical thinking will supply this need.

A motor car has brakes. These are essential. Without brakes you would be crashing all the time. But brakes are not enough. A motor car obviously needs an engine as well as brakes. The only time brakes might be enough would be if you were rolling down a hill on a very wide road. So critical thinking may be enough if we are in a state of decline – but not if we want to make progress.

Criticism and complaint are a necessary part of society. They are essential to prevent aberrations and to keep control.

Most people find complaint rather easy; they can even develop an indulgent habit of complaint.

Consumer groups brought together to help design new products and services are very good at pointing out the things that could be corrected or removed. At the same time the groups are not much good at suggesting new ideas, new products and new services.

While acknowledging the great importance of criticism and complaint, we need to make it very clear that this thinking is inferior to design thinking, creative thinking or discovery thinking. This needs to be made clear at school and at universities. The development of the 'critical mind' is simply not enough. It is even worse than that. Many excellent minds that might have been creative and able to contribute to society in that way are trapped and channelled into being excellent critical minds. This is largely the case with the media, where the critical mode often seems to be the only one used.

Nothing I have written here is intended to diminish the importance of critical thinking. It is excellent, but it is not enough. We need to be able to produce new ideas. Just waiting for chance to produce new ideas is much too slow.

If creative and design thinking had been part of our
education over the last few centuries, the world might be in a much more advanced state than it is.

The term 'problem-solving' has done as much damage to the teaching of thinking as the term 'critical thinking' – and for the same reason. Both are excellent and essential – but they are not enough. They block development in other directions.

You are driving a car and it breaks down. That provides you with two problems. The first is how to get to where you need to go, and the second is how to fix the broken-down car.

The boat has a leak. That is a problem and you have to fix it.

This new drug for arthritis seems to increase the risk of heart attack. That is a problem that has to be fixed.

There is a problem child who will not do as he is told. How do you fix that problem?

A problem is a deviation from the normal or a deviation from the expected. Thinking to solve problems is very important – but it is not enough.

You have a task to carry out. How do you do it? That is not itself a problem, although there may be problems along the way.

You want to improve something? That is not a problem.

Those who claim that the term 'problem-solving' covers everything suggest that 'anything you want to do' forms a problem. So any intended mental activity is a problem.

This is misleading and dangerous. It is misleading because it suggests that the only sort of thinking is problem-solving. It is dangerous because it excludes all the other sorts of thinking: design, creative, perceptual, and so on.

Business schools in the USA (and elsewhere) focus exclusively on problem-solving. This excludes the design of strategies and the creativity needed for things such as new alliances and new marketing concepts.

It is no use claiming, as is done for critical thinking, that the term problem-solving covers all sorts of thinking. It does not and it should not.

One of the major uses of creativity is simplicity. Over time procedures and operations get ever more complex. While there is a natural tendency to ever more complexity, there is no natural tendency towards simplicity.

I suggested in my book
Simplicity
some years ago that the British government should abolish passport control on leaving the UK. At the time, if someone was found to have overstayed their visa, they were arrested, taken to court, then deported. Why not just allow them to leave and wave goodbye in the first instance? Three months after the publication of the book, passport control on leaving the UK was abolished.

When I came up with this idea, I was not seeking to solve a problem. The system worked as it stood.

Improvement and
simplification is not problem-solving. Simplicity saves time, money, hassle and stress. Using creativity to simplify something deliberately is one of the most important practical uses of creativity.

The real danger of treating thinking as problem-solving is that we only focus our attention on problems and deficiencies. What is not a 'problem' does not get our thinking attention.

I was invited to talk at a large education meeting in Italy. There were about 10,000 teachers present. Almost the whole meeting was about teaching difficult or disadvantaged students (with conditions such as autism). It was assumed that everything else in education was perfect and did not need thinking about. I told them that our thinking was far from perfect and needed a great deal of attention.

It is the same with foundations. If I went to a large foundation, such as the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, or the Rockefeller Foundation, to ask for funds for dealing with AIDS in Africa, I might possibly get a grant. If I went and asked for funds to continue my work to improve the apparent best of human thinking, I doubt if I would be successful.

The habit of looking only at problems means that we
stagnate. As discussed earlier democracy could do with a lot of improvement, but you could not call it a 'problem'.

This very dangerous habit of calling all human thinking 'problem-solving' severely limits our attention to thinking and our use of thinking. Psychologists are among the worst offenders here – perhaps because they do not operate in the real world where a great deal of other thinking is needed. Problem-solving, like critical thinking, is excellent – but it is not enough.

Excellent but not enough is the theme in many sections of this book. It is not only that there are other things that need doing. The danger is that all other activity is
blocked by our reverence for these things. At the same time I am not going to attack them and say that these things are wrong. They are not – they are excellent. But they drain attention and energy from other areas that need energy and attention.

The best-known statue of a thinker is that by Rodin. This statue is heavy, gloomy and boring. I would like to run an international competition for a statue of a thinker that showed excitement, achievement and hope. Thinking is not boring, tedious and heavy.

Art has done very little to encourage thinking. This is because art seems to believe that the true essence of human beings is
emotion. Literature and theatre is usually about emotion, because that is where the drama lies. There is very little thinking and very little happiness.

I once suggested in Hollywood (through a page in
Variety
magazine) that a 'Happiness' rating be given to films. A very happy film would get HHHH, a less happy one HHH, then HH and finally one H. So when you were deciding which movie to go to, this rating could help your choice. I quickly got the impression that the movie industry did not like this idea at all. That may be because most films are anguished or full of fighting. It is probably
because they realised that 'happy' films are not easy to make. Just as the press cannot escape from the easy option of
negativity, so the movie-makers find it difficult to escape from the easy option of anguish and violence.

There is a false belief that anguish and tragedy are the real essence of life. All else is superficial and distraction. This may indeed be true in terms of audience interest, but at the same time it is a powerful con trick that is not related to daily life. The tragedy element in most people's lives is tiny compared to the boredom element.

Being depressed sinks you into more depression. You need to think your way out of depression and also out of boredom.

Too many creative people believe that creativity is
being different for the sake of being different. This applies very strongly to the area of painting. You do not want to paint as people did in the past, possibly because you would not do it as well. So you paint in a very different, even bizarre, fashion. You then persuade people of the value of your work – if they learn to look at it in the right way.

This is a perfectly valid operation; it has produced Cubism and Picasso as well as many excellent
artists of today.

In addition, many artists are not creative per se; they are powerful stylists who have a valuable style of perception and expression. Many artists even become trapped in a certain style because it is what the world has come to expect of them. For example, an Andy Warhol piece of art was expected to look like an Andy Warhol piece of art.

Painting is really a choreography of
attention. Attention goes to this point, then the whole, then back to another point. It is this dance of attention that is aesthetically pleasing. It is not unlike a music of attention. This is usually done unconsciously – but could also be done consciously.

Some painting and sculpture demands that the viewer do a lot of work before he or she can see a value. There is nothing wrong with that provided there is success at the end.

There are paintings that stimulate the viewer to think and that provide insights and understandings that were not there before. Such paintings are aids to perception and amplify our repertoire of perception possibilities.

Artists can be fresh and original, but they do not always have the flexibility that is part of creative thinking. It is true that
they often have a willingness to play around with concepts and perceptions and a readiness to let the end result justify the process of getting there instead of following a series of set steps. All of this is important in the general creative mood.

However, there is a misperception that creativity has to do with art and therefore artists are the best people to teach creativity. That is like saying that the Grand Prix racing driver is the best designer of Grand Prix cars and the best driving instructor. There is a thought that there will be a sort of osmosis effect – the attitudes of the artist will come through to the students who will in turn become creative.

There are some artists who are creative and are good teachers of creativity. But these are people who are creative and are good teachers of creativity. They just happen to be artists. The confusion of 'creativity' with 'art' is a language problem and it can do much damage.

On the whole, music is much more uplifting than other forms of art. This covers classical music, and rock music, pop and modern too.

As a matter of interest, musicians have shown more interest in my work than other artists. This may be because in writing and painting you are representing
something – even if remotely. In music you are creating the entire work, you are not just depicting something.

So operations such as 'provocation' make a lot of sense to musicians.

It could be claimed that life is to be experienced and not thought about. It could be claimed that the purpose of art is to make more acute that experience of life. I would not disagree with this.

At the same time, adding thinking to experience is like adding colour to a black-and-white photograph. Nuances, meaning and relationships now become visible.

Raw experiences and raw emotions are rather like raw meat, which is fine for those who like it.