|
|
|
| |
Background
In fact, our traditional thinking methods have not changed for centuries. While these methods were powerful in dealing with a relatively stable world (where ideas and concepts tended to live longer than people), they are no longer adequate to deal with the rapidly changing world of today where new concepts and ideas are urgently needed.
Argument is inadequate as the main tool of thinking. Argument lacks constructive energies, design energies, and creative energies. Pointing out faults may lead to some improvement but does not construct something new. Synthesizing both points of view does not produce a stream of new alternatives. Traditional argument is totally useless for such a design process. Instead, we need Parallel Thinking®, where each thinker puts forward his or her thoughts in parallel with the thoughts of others-not attacking the thoughts of others.
When we think in the normal way, we try to do too much at once. We may be looking at the information, forming ideas, and judging someone else's ideas all at the same time.
Think of full-color printing, where the basic color separations are made and then each basic color is printed separately onto the same sheet to give full-color printing. In the same way, we separate the modes of thinking and then apply each mode to the same subject in order to end up with full-color thinking on the subject.
There is a suggestion that the chemical setting in the brain (neurotransmitters, etc.) may be different when we are being positive from when we are being negative and from when we are being creative. If this proves to be so, then there is an absolute need to separate out the different components of thinking in order to do each properly. It would be impossible to have one brain setting that was ideal for all sorts of thinking.
If you do not like an idea, then you are not going to spend much time thinking of the benefits or good points of that idea. This is because if you uncovered sufficient good points for the idea to be accepted, then you would have "lost" the argument.
|
Thinking Approaches
The Natural Approach
"We don't need to learn thinking as a special subject because thinking is part of every subject. For instance in history we have to think what the teacher wants us to say."
The student who made the above statement was right. Thinking is part of every subject because it is part of life. It is as natural as walking or breathing and we do not really need to he taught these things. One of the most common objections to the direct teaching of thinking arises from the assumption that thinking is natural and needs no special attention. Everyone supposes themselves to be excellent thinkers and to perform as a matter of course the various thinking operations put forward in the thinking lessons.
The objection is difficult to disprove because one cannot easily convince people that they are not thinking the way they imagine themselves to be. The only way is to use experimental evidence. For example, most people claim that they are open-minded and always look at both the positive and negative aspects of a situation. However, on many occasions, the author has carried out a simple experiment in which people are asked to look at an idea which appears false at first sight. The ratio of negative to positive responses is consistently around 120:1. When the people are deliberately asked to make positive comments, they are able to do so. Quite clearly, it is not natural to look for the positive aspects of something one does not like. A conscious effort is required.
Two groups of 12-year-old students were asked to write an essay on the idea of weekend imprisonment for minor offenders. One group had completed the first thinking lesson (PMI, which concerns the examination of both positive and negative aspects of an idea), While the other group had not. The group which completed the lesson gave three times as many arguments against their final verdict than the other group. In other words, the CoRT (Cognitive Research Techniques) group was far more likely to see both sides of the idea. The total number of arguments was also almost doubled.
The experimental results shown also indicate that direct attention to thinking can have striking results. Nevertheless, in spite of results like these, people will still maintain that thinking is natural and best left alone.
Running is also natural but an athlete can be coached to a much better performance. A natural performance may well be below potential. A natural performance may only be adequate to deal with a very familiar situation but inadequate for anything new. This certainly applies to thinking. Are we right in claiming that the natural ability to think is anywhere near the full potential?
We can now look at the various methods that have been used to try and improve upon the natural ability to think.
The Logic Approach
Logic is sometimes taught as a subject in its own right. There is no doubt that it is a valid subject, but it is limited in its usefulness for teaching the general subject of thinking. Logic can tend to become an abstract semi-mathematical game in itself. A person may learn all the rules but find it impossible to apply them in real life situations where most of the thinking takes place during perception.
The modern emphasis treats logic as a pure system allied more to computer science than everyday living. There are many practical aspects of thinking which are impossible to fit under the Logic subject heading. To be fair, the subject never claimed to deal with practical thinking.
By-Product
The traditional view is that the ability to think is developed as a by-product of using the mind to learn such subjects as the classics, science, mathematics, history etc. It is true that in these various subjects students do have to use their thinking. The amount of thinking they have to do vary very much with who is teaching the subject but the thinking is all of a certain type - analytical, critical and organising. For instance, in science the emphasis is on collecting facts before reaching a conclusion, whereas in real life a practical decision may he called for when there are few facts at hand. It is time that a very gifted and determined teacher can use any subject as a basis for teaching thinking, but this remains a cumbersome and inefficient way of doing it. In most subjects, the sheer knowledge content of the subject makes it easy for the student to substitute this knowledge base for thinking. It is very difficult to focus on process if content can by itself determine the line of thought.
Discussion
There is a growing tendency towards open-ended discussion subjects which come under such headings as General Studies, Liberal Arts, Social Studies, Humanities, etc. Such topics as the environment, drugs, population, traffic, and interpersonal behaviour are discussed directly or in connection with the film-strip or other resources. This approach is valuable because it encourages interest, awareness and fluency. It allows students to have their own ideas and develop confidence in expressing them. But the format is not in itself adequate for teaching thinking as a skill. Inevitably, the emphasis is on the content and on people’s ideas about the content. It is more like a debate than a thinking lesson, and debates are not especially good at teaching people to think, since the skills involved are rather specialised. Furthermore, general attitudes are notoriously difficult to communicate.
Puzzles and Games
These can be extremely useful for illustrating points and for making thinking visible. They can also be useful for reducing attitudes that obstruct thinking and also for building up useful attitudes. Puzzles are much less useful than games because the skill is very difficult to transfer. Games or situations which require a repetition of the same thinking process can certainly develop useful thinking skills, but by themselves they are not enough. Their main purpose is to make the student conscious of thinking as a process and of some of the different types of thinking.
|
| |
|
|
