14 replies to this topic

[Plenoptic]

Quote

Attempting to solve a problem by using non-traditional methods in order to create and identify new concepts and ideas.

Lateral thinking is when you try to find an answer that may not be logical by taking in the considerations of what could go wrong really. So say you want to get something done like dig a hole and you have 5 men to do it and you want to know how long it'll take for them to finish it. Well if it takes 3 hours for 1 man to do it you would logically think that it takes 36 minutes for 5 men to do it. Well, someone using lateral thinking will think of the possibilites that could make it take longer by 1 man being lazy, it starting to rain and stuff like that.

For more examples and problems you can try to solve using lateral thinking look here...
http://www.funonthen...nt/view/163/31/

Edit: fixed the link

Edited by Plenoptic, 12 November 2006 - 04:14 PM.

[salamangkero]

@Plenoptic Please fix the link

Nonetheless, I got a clearer picture with the wiki entry.

It seems like lateral thinking encompasses all the other "arcane, alternate, creative or just downright stupid" solutions to a problem. I guess it's just a way of thinking that is not completely bounded by the classic laws of sciences and mathematics, in a sort of way.

It's thinking outta the box, considering other real-world factors usually assumed non-existent in classical problems. For one, things like humidity, atmospheric pressure, ambient sound intensity and even the planetary configurations may contribute to whether a fair coin tossed might land on a head, a tail or, heaven help us, its side.

[husker]

Wow, that's interesting. I guess I'm pretty bad at it because I only got one of the four questions right on that page. I don't like to think out of the box like this, I just do it the way it would seem, like on the problem you had above Pleno. I only do the math on those and don't think about how it could change, because it's rare. Sure, if one man was lazy on the digging problem then it would take a little longer, but the odds of someone being lazy is the same as someone being hard-working, so I think they would just balance out. It might take them an extra 2 minutes or so, but I think lateral thinking plays just a small role on problems. It's interesting though, it makes you think.

[rvalkass]

I'm quite good at lateral thinking, simply because I always come out with random reasons why things are impossible, or what could happen, although it's about as likely as a herd of elephants on an Intercity train going through my garden. I had a pretty good idea with those problems Pleno, I managed to guess em all

[ghostrider]

Lateral thinking and thinking outside the box are both very good skills to have. Thanks for posting this.

[tuddy]

It may be very good skills to have, but if you think aabout it, would you have these kind of thoughts without the logical thoughts first? No. Why you ask?

I'll use the above example: It may take 5 men 10mins to dig the required holee, but as was stated one coul be lazy and it takes an extra 5mins. Woul you beable to say i may take 15mins if you didnt logically think first that it would take 10mins? No.

My point here is, both types of thinking are actually logical. Logical thinking would be planning something, but if you were thinking logically you would factor in time or resources for any extra time or sitiaution etc.

What i believe most people are refering to here is the fact that 'thinking outside the box' has to do with 'on the spot' thinking were you don't have the time to think logically about what happening you just do it.

[Plenoptic]

tuddy, on Nov 12 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

It may be very good skills to have, but if you think aabout it, would you have these kind of thoughts without the logical thoughts first? No. Why you ask?

I'll use the above example: It may take 5 men 10mins to dig the required holee, but as was stated one coul be lazy and it takes an extra 5mins. Woul you beable to say i may take 15mins if you didnt logically think first that it would take 10mins? No.

My point here is, both types of thinking are actually logical. Logical thinking would be planning something, but if you were thinking logically you would factor in time or resources for any extra time or sitiaution etc.

What i believe most people are refering to here is the fact that 'thinking outside the box' has to do with 'on the spot' thinking were you don't have the time to think logically about what happening you just do it.

As confusing as that was, I get what you mean. But the point is though that you are calculating things in that you can't really measure all that well and it is more of an estimation really. The digging a whole thing is really something that would be logical to fit in the time for lazyness and breaks but there are some that may not be so easy to think about. If I can find the other example I had I'll post that as well.

[lindsaybernsen]

I think everyone participates in lateral thinking to some degree, they just dont realize it. Any type we pass into the subjunctive and utter a "what if..." we are engaging in lateral thinking. The difference is the terminology.

The most interesting thing about giving such a specific label to analyzing the causality of events is that it made me reconsider standardized testing. Logical thinking is wonderful, but impractical. It's only when you re using lateral thinking, taking all possible circumstances into effect that you are actually prepared. True, a logical manager would do this by default, but not simply from a mathmatical equation. He/she would build in some extra time to spare from experience. The tests we give students today dont measure their abilities to apply these concepts, or at least not objectively. I recognize how difficult it would be to create, much less grade, an objective problem-solving test for students, but our current system relies upon the notion of black and white right or wrong answers when the world ought to be viewed as varying shades of gray. Teaching students to believe all problems have a single answer is misleading and dangerous.

I know that I for one, have always 'over-analyzed' tests. I constantly called my teachers over to solidify the setting of the question because in one situtation it would be true, but not in another, and though one setting was implied nothing was explicit. It was yet another symptom of what they used to call 'alpha syndrome.' The children who passed the g/t tests in my classes all did the same thing.

[Voidless_Shadows]

I got all the questions right! = D
I actually had something occur today where I was able to use thinking laterally as advice/support for an argument

[me_boxer_dude]

Lateral thinking sure sounds like out of the box(though I think like that all the time and didnt really knew the word for it). Thanx for the nice link as well, I went through the questions and found the lighthouse one particularly amazing.