Lateral Thinking

by Edward de Bono

  It is like having two wooden boxes side by side into which one is putting ping-pong balls. The balls have to go into one box or the other. A ball will not balance on the division between the two boxes. If the edges of the boxes are sloping then the ball may be moved quite a long way. The process is suggested by the diagram below.

  If one of the boxes is labelled ‘black balls’ and the other one ‘white balls’ then each ball is dropped into the appropriate box depending on whether it is black or white. If there are any grey balls then some sort of decision has to be made as to whether they go into the black box or the white box. Once the decision is made the balls go into the white box just as if they were white or into the black box just as if they were black. The apparent nature of the ball has been shifted to make it fit in with the established pattern.

  A whole series of boxes might be imagined, each with its own label. As each item came along it would be put into whichever box had the most appropriate label. It would not matter if this most appropriate label was not really very appropriate. There is a shift to fit in with whatever labels are available. Once the shift has been made then it is impossible to tell that the item in the box is any different from the other items in the box.

  In order to find an appropriate box for any item that does not fit readily into any available box one can do two things. One can concentrate on those points which show that it ought to fit into one box Or one can concentrate on those points which show that it should not fit into a particular box. Thus with the grey ping-pong balls one might have said, ‘Grey is almost white therefore it fits into the white box’ or one might have said, ‘Black is a true absence of any colour therefore the grey ball cannot go into the black box.’.

  If two things are similar one could notice the points of similarity and say the two things are the same or one could notice the points of difference and say the two things are different The two things would be shifted together to be similar or shifted apart to be different. Either way there would be some shift as suggested in the diagram.

  Similarly when there is an established label a new item is either pushed right under that label or else pushed right out In a community that is sharply divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’ any stranger who happens along is assessed as to whether he is ‘one of us’ or ‘one of them’.

  Probably the stranger has a mixture of characteristics which would make him fit either group. But whichever way the decision goes his characteristics are at once assumed to have changed so that they match exactly the characteristics of the label The stranger is pushed towards one or other pole. He cannot remain in between any more than the needle of a compass can remain undecided when a magnet is brought near to it.

  From a practical point of view this polarizing system is very effective. What it means is that one can establish a few major categories and then push everything into one or other of these. Instead of having to assess everything in detail and then decide how one is going to react one merely assesses whether it fits into one category or another. This is not even a matter of exact fit but of pushing it one way or another. Once the thing has been pushed into a category then reaction is easy since the categories are established and so is the reaction to them.

  In exploring a new situation one might have two categories: ‘good to eat’ and ‘bad to eat’. This is sufficient. Anything examined can be pushed one way or the other. There is no need to have any subtle distinctions. Such distinctions as: ‘tastes nasty but is good for one’, or ‘good to eat but makes one very thirsty’, or ‘tastes good but is poisonous’, ‘not known but worth trying’ are excluded.

  New categories

  At what point does a new category arise? At what point does one decide that the item will not fit into any of the boxes and so create a new box? At what point does one decide that grey ping-pong balls would go into a special box marked ‘grey’? At what point is it decided that the stranger is neither ‘we’ nor ‘they’ but something else?.

  The danger of polarization is that things can be shifted around so much that there never comes a point when a new category has to be created. Nor is there any indication as to how many established categories there should be.

  One can get by with very few categories. The dangers of the polarizing tendency may now be summarized:

  Once established the categories become permanent.

  New information is altered so that it fits an established category. Once it has done so there is no indication that it is any different from anything else under that category.

  At no point is it ever essential to create new categories. One can get by with very few categories.

  The fewer the categories the greater the degree of shift.

  Lateral thinking

  There is no question that the named unit system is highly effective. There is no question that the polarizing properties of this system make it possible to react with very little information. The whole information processing system that arises from the basic mechanism of mind is immensely useful The disadvantages mentioned above are minor ones compared to the usefulness of the system. But the disadvantages do exist. Moreover they are inseparable from the nature of the system. So one uses the system to its full effectiveness but at the same time realizes the errors and tries to do something about them.

  The major limitation of the named unit system is the rigidity of the labels. Once established the labels are fixed. The labels alter the incoming information instead of the incoming information altering the labels.

  The aim of lateral thinking is to break out of cliché patterns and rigid labels are a perfect example of clichéé patterns. In order to escape from these labels one can do three things:

  Challenge the labels.

  Try and do without them.

  Establish new labels.

  Challenging the labels.

  Why am I using this label?

  What does it really mean?

  Is it essential?

  Am I just using it as a convenient cliché?

  Why do I have to accept that label used by other people?

  As it implies, challenging a label means a direct challenge to the use of a label, a word, or a name. It does not mean that one disagrees with its use or that one has any better alternative. It just means that one is not prepared to accept the cliché label without challenging it.

  It is not a matter of seeking justification for the label so that one can continue to use it. One continues to challenge the label all the time even when one is using it.

  Trying to do without labels

  Whenever units are assembled together and given a new name or label this becomes so easily established that one tends to forget what lies underneath the label. By abolishing the label one can rediscover what there is underneath. One may find much of use that was hitherto hidden. One may find that there is very little of importance even though the label itself seemed to be important. One may find that the label is indeed useful but that it needs to be changed to bring it up to date.

  By abolishing the label one abolishes the cliché convenience of the label. If one is writing or speaking one tries to proceed without the cliché convenience of that label — without that label. Whenever one comes to a point when one would normally use the label one has to find a way of doing without it. This may involve finding another way of looking at things and this of course is the aim of lateral thinking. It is not much use substituting some phrase instead of the label but it is still of some use because the phrase can interact with other things in the way a fixed label cannot.

  A simple example of trying to do without a label would be rewriting a very personal piece in which ‘I’ occurred all the time. In rewriting it to avoid the use of ‘I’ one would find that many things would have happened anyway and that the personal involvement was much less than had seemed.

  It is not only in discussing a situation that one tries to do without a particular label but also hi looking at a situation. Using the label ‘mob’ it is easy to develop a certa
in line of thought but if one has to do without this label then one might be able to look at the situation in a different way. One tries to see things as they actually are and not in terms of labels.

  Establishing new labels

  It may seem paradoxical to establish a new label in order to escape the harmful effects of labels. The purpose of establishing a new label is however to escape the distorting effects of the old labels. The polarizing effect tends to shift information into established categories. The fewer the categories the greater the shift and distortion. By establishing a new category one can accept information with less distortion. So one establishes a new label in order to protect incoming information from the polarizing effect of already established labels.

  Established labels tend to build around themselves meanings, contexts and lines of development. Even if one wants to use an idea that would fit under an existing label it might be better not to put it there if one wants to develop the idea in a new way. For instance lateral thinking does overlap with what some people understand by creative thinking. But because creative thinking is surrounded by a whole complex of meanings including artistic expression, talent, sensitivity, inspiration etc. it is far better to establish lateral thinking as a separate idea if one wishes to regard it as a deliberate way of using information. Similarly the word ‘patriotism’ is so surrounded by heroics and duty and virtue and ‘my country right or wrong’ that one has to regard it as either very honourable or very dangerous. If one wants to encourage national spirit in terms of one country among others and in terms of individual culture and in terms of economic growth, then one needs a new label.

  Practice

  1. Challenging labels.

  This is rather similar to the ‘Why’ technique described in a previous section. When one challenges a name, a label, or a concept one is not asking for the term to be defined. One is questioning the use of the term as a term, not asking for its justification or explanation.

  An article is taken from a newspaper or magazine and read out to the students. If there are enough copies they can be asked to read it for themselves. The task is to pick out certain labels which seem to be used too glibly. Each of these labels is underlined. It may be a label or a concept that is fundamental to the whole argument or it may be a label that is used very often. For instance in an article on management the labels picked out might include ‘productivity’, ‘profitability’, ‘coordination’. Each student makes a list of such cliché words and at the end the lists are compared and discussed. The discussion is focused on how these labels are being used in too convenient a fashion. The point is not that the labels are right or wrong but that it is too convenient to write ‘profitability’ whenever one has to justify something. In another article the cliché words might be ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘human rights’. In addition to discussing why the label is being used too glibly one also discusses the danger of using labels in this way.

  2. Labels and discussion

  Two students are asked to debate a subject while the rest of the students listen. At the end the other students comment on the use of labels during the discussion. It is enough that the students become aware of the easy use of labels. It is not a matter of deriding whether the label was justified nor a matter of commenting on debating techniques.

  Possible subjects for such a discussion might include:

  Are women as creative as men?

  How far is obethence a good thing?

  One should only learn subjects which are going to be immediately useful.

  If you don’t get what you want you should go on trying.

  Parents should help children with their homework.

  Children should dress as they like at school.

  Some people are different from others.

  3. Dropping labels

  Here it is a matter of seeing how well one can do without a particular name or label or concept. The label is dropped completely and the article is rewritten without the use of that label. It is convenient to do this with newspaper articles that make much use of some particular label. In commenting on the result the teacher notes whether dropping the label has caused the thing to be looked at in a different way or whether the label has been replaced by a cliché phrase instead.

  4. Dropping labels in discussion

  Here one student is asked to discuss a subject. Then another student is asked to explain what the first student has said but without using some particular label used by the first student. This type of thing can also be done with a debate between students with both sides forbidden to use some label. It can also be done with only one of the sides forbidden to use the label.

  Possible subjects for discussion:

  War (with label of fighting dropped).

  Car racing (with label of fast, speedy, etc dropped).

  Walking in the rain (with label of wet dropped).

  School (with label of teaching dropped).

  Police (with label of law dropped).

  5. Rephrasing.

  Instead of dropping a concept label in the course of a discussion or rewriting an article one practises doing it with single sentences. This is rather more simple to do than the previous exercise and it can be very useful practice. The teacher selects a series of sentences which may be taken from newspapers or just made up. The sentences are read out or written up on the board. The label which is to be dropped is underlined. The students can then offer suggestions in open class as to how the sentence could be rephrased without that word. Alternatively they can each produce a version of the sentence and at the end the different versions can be compared. The important point with this exercise is that the meaning must be kept as intact as possible.

  The type of sentence which could be used is as follows:

  Children should be as tidy as possible in their homework.

  Everyone has the right to equal opportunity in education.

  In a democracy government is by the will of the people.

  If a thief is caught stealing he may be sent to prison.

  Strawberry ice cream tastes better than vanilla.

  If you drop a plate on the floor it will break.

  The difficulty with this type of exercise is that very often one simply gets synonyms. Thus in the above examples one might well get ‘careful’, or ‘neat’ instead of the word ‘tidy’. One cannot really refuse to accept synonyms for the dividing line is very difficult between what is a genuine synonym and what is a different way of looking at the situation. So one accepts synonyms but goes on further and asks for further ways of putting things. Instead of refusing them one tries to exhaust synonyms.

  6. Headlines

  This is very similar to the previous exercise. Instead of sentences a series of headlines is taken from the newspapers. The task is to rephrase the entire headline so that no one word is the same as before and yet the meaning is the same. It is necessary to choose headlines which do not have specific labels in them. For instance the headline ‘Ribofillo’ wins Derby’ would be difficult to rephrase unless one were allowed to say, ‘Favourite triumphs in classic Epsom race’, but this would imply that one knew Ribofillo to be the favourite. One has to allow some licence in this respect.

  7. New labels

  Since communication is so very important one does not really want to encourage students to develop their own special labels for things. One can however have an open class session in which the students are asked to put forward ideas which they feel are:

  1. Improperly classified.

  2. Left out by existing labels.

  For instance someone may feel that a hovercraft is not really an aeroplane or a car but something special. Someone else might feel that ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ are too sharp a division and that there should be room for a person who is technically guilty but innocent as far as intention goes (or technically innocent but actually guilty.)

  Perhaps there ought to be a special label for something which is not ‘ugly’ or ‘beautiful’ instead of h
aving to call it ordinary. Perhaps there ought to be a special label to cover the phrase, ‘the way you look at something’. Perhaps there ought to be a special label for something that was going well at the moment, but was clearly headed for disaster. Perhaps mere ought to be a special label for something that was not entirely an accident nor was it entirely someone’s fault but a mixture of the two.

  The new word po 20

  Understanding the nature of lateral thinking and the need for it is the first step towards using it. But understanding and goodwill are not enough. The formal routines suggested as methods of applying lateral thinking are more practical but there is a great need for something more definite, more simple, and more universal. Some tool for applying lateral thinking just as NO is a tool for applying logical thinking.

  NO and PO

  The concept of logical thinking is selection and this is brought about by the processes of acceptance and rejection. Rejection is the basis of logical thinking. The rejection process is incorporated in the concept of the negative. The negative is a judgement device. It is the means whereby one rejects certain arrangements of information. The negative is used to carry out judgement and to indicate rejection. The concept of the negative is crystallized into a definite language tool. This language tool consists of the words no and not. Once one learns the function and use of these words one has learned how to use logical thinking. The whole concept of logical thinking is concentrated in the use of this language tool. Logic could be said to be the management of NO.

  The concept of lateral thinking is insight restructuring and this is brought about through the rearrangement of information. Rearrangement is the basis of lateral thinking and rearrangement means escape from the rigid patterns established by experience. The rearrangement process is incorporated in the concept of the (re) laxative. The laxative is a rearranging device. It is the means whereby one can escape from established patterns and create new ones. The laxative allows the arrangement of information in new ways from which new patterns can arise. The concept of the laxative is crystallized into a definite language tool. This language tool is PO. Once one learns the function and use of PO one has learned how to use lateral thinking. The whole concept of lateral thinking is concentrated in the use of this language tool. Lateral thinking could be said to be the management of PO just as logical thinking is the management of NO.