Attitudes Towards Lateral Thinking

Attitudes towards lateral thinking 3

Because it is so very different from vertical thinking many people feel uncomfortable about lateral thinking. They would rather feel that it is just part of vertical thinking or that it does not exist. Some of the more standard attitudes are shown below.

Although one appreciates the effectiveness of insight solutions and the value of new ideas there is no practical way these can be brought about. One can only wait for them and recognize them after they have happened

This is a negative attitude which neither takes account of the insight mechanism nor of the information imprisoned in cliché patterns. Provocative stimulation* can change the sequence of a familiar pattern; lateral thinking aims to provide that stimulation. Information imprisoned in old cliché patterns can often come together in a new way of its own accord once the pattern is disrupted. It is a function of lateral thinking to free information by challenging cliché patterns. To regard insight and innovation as a matter of chance does not explain why some people are consistently able to generate more ideas than others. In any case one can take steps to encourage a chance process. The effectiveness of lateral thinking for generating new ideas can be shown experimentally.

Whenever a solution is said to have been reached by lateral thinking there is always a logical pathway by which the solution could have been reached. Hence what is supposed to be lateral thinking is no more than a plea for better logical thinking

It is quite impossible to tell whether a particular solution was reached by a lateral or vertical process. Lateral thinking describes a process, not a result. Because a solution could have been reached by vertical thinking does not mean that it was not reached by lateral thinking.

If a solution is acceptable at all then by definition there must be a logical reason for accepting it. It is always possible to describe a logical pathway in hindsight once a solution is spelled out. But being able to reach that solution by means of this hindsight pathway is another matter. One can demonstrate this quite simply by offering certain problems which are difficult to solve and yet when solved the solution is obvious. In such cases it is impossible to suppose that what made the problem difficult was lack of the elementary logic required.

It is characteristic of insight solutions and new ideas that they should be obvious after they have been found. In itself this shows how insufficient logic is in practice, otherwise such simple solutions must have occurred much earlier. In absolute terms it is impossible to prove that a logical pathway could not have been taken if one can be shown in hindsight (except by reference to the mechanics of information handling in the mind). In practical terms however it is quite obvious that the hindsight demonstration of a logical pathway does not indicate that the solution would have been reached in this way.