What do you think?
Rate this book
Я прав - Вы заблуждаетесь
В книге, три предисловия к которой написаны тремя Нобелевскими лауреатами, автор бросает вызов традиционной «каменной» логике западного мышления, основанной на жёстких категориях, абсолютах, споре и стремлении взять верх над оппонентом, — этот тип мышления не в состоянии порождать творческую энергию, которая нужна человечеству для создания нового будущего в третьем тысячелетии.
368 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 2006
96 people are currently reading
1576 people want to read
About the author
Edward de Bono
234 books1,150 followersEdward de Bono was a Maltese physician, author, inventor, and consultant. He is best known as the originator of the term lateral thinking (structured creativity) and the leading proponent of the deliberate teaching of thinking in schools.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
June 20, 2021
This was published in 1990 and hence its views are a little dated. The author’s views on lateral thinking are well known. He lays down the approach to the New Renaissance as he calls it that require changes to our understanding of perception and frameworks surrounding the same.
This will pave the way for us to do more critical thinking. He is opinionated and defines his views with some great examples. One of his prescriptions - which I see as a malady - is to think only of the short term as it is impossible to think beyond. In contrast he says all scholars become scholarly by studying the past when actually they should be thinking about the future - and designing for it.
In many ways “ rules are already written” for our futures except that we probably don’t have a way to fathom them. This is where he says the intellect in the universities should concentrate and focus on making education more practical. As I said this book is over three decades old and some of these are being recognized and addressed.
Stimulating read.
This will pave the way for us to do more critical thinking. He is opinionated and defines his views with some great examples. One of his prescriptions - which I see as a malady - is to think only of the short term as it is impossible to think beyond. In contrast he says all scholars become scholarly by studying the past when actually they should be thinking about the future - and designing for it.
In many ways “ rules are already written” for our futures except that we probably don’t have a way to fathom them. This is where he says the intellect in the universities should concentrate and focus on making education more practical. As I said this book is over three decades old and some of these are being recognized and addressed.
Stimulating read.
January 12, 2013
After I read this book, I changed from being constantly argumentative to constantly resolving argument, and stopped placing so much importance on ceaselessly being right. Life-changing!
August 15, 2018
Revolution is often associated with violence, emotion, and the collapse of great monuments. It's difficult to recognize how a new mode of thought could be revolutionary, yet De Bono demonstrates this thesis in IARYAW.
With patience, the reader realizes De Bono's insights could help people to think better, see more clearly, be more creative, and live in a more just, equitable, and Utopian world as a result.
De Bono's basic idea is that modern thinking, including critical thinking and analysis built on the foundation of Western logic, is insufficient and incomplete. The status quo mode of thinking, which De Bono refers to as "Rock Logic" falls prey to the brain's need for order and patterns. Consequently, we focus too much on what is or what has been. We argue, analyze, and criticize to explain, and we draw hard lines into the sand where there may in reality be none. This way of thinking, De Bono, suggests, holds us back.
His solution: with greater awareness of the operational biases of the mind, we can transcend these limits and balance out the critical, analytical, binary thinking of the western tradition with a more exploratory, generative, design and future-oriented thinking. De Bono calls this "perceptual thinking" or "water logic."
If we applied gender stereotypes to the contrasting modes of thinking, it would be easy to assign rock logic as masculine and water logic as feminine. Interesting to note that, for the millenia that rock logic has been in the ascendant, patriarchy has been the dominant social force. Without explicitly doing so, it seems De Bono is calling for a sexual revolution of the Western mind.
De Bono's ideas are not difficult or complex ideas to grasp, but the implications are profound, and the author spends the great part of the book illustrating how a revolution in thinking could transform every aspect of society, from language to education to the economy.
IARYAW is curiously written. It's repetitive, it comes in bite-size ponderable chapters rather than extended prose. It's at times stridently misinformed, like when De Bono suggests we have a better understanding of the brain than gravity (58) -- while we understand certain cognitive processes of the brain, the hard problem of consciousness is still a profound mystery. It also dances around the thesis, approaching it brusquely from many oblique angles rather than directly and deeply exploring it. I often felt the author spent too much time pointing out flaws with the current way of thinking instead of developing a substantial alternate program. We have to wait until the appendix of the book, for example, to discover a few hints about what De Bono means by his system of "water logic" -- and yet, according to the title, this is supposed to be the book's focus.
Despite the quirks, bit by bit De Bono reveals genuine originality and insight. There are many fascinating asides, such as the concept of ludecy, which explains the insane consequences of people following poorly-conceived rules; the notion of networks and expectancy loops in attracting interest; the word "po" as a place-holder to help reserve judgment and create space for dispassionate reflection.
I recommend the book and recommend reading it more than once to appreciate its broad implications.
With patience, the reader realizes De Bono's insights could help people to think better, see more clearly, be more creative, and live in a more just, equitable, and Utopian world as a result.
De Bono's basic idea is that modern thinking, including critical thinking and analysis built on the foundation of Western logic, is insufficient and incomplete. The status quo mode of thinking, which De Bono refers to as "Rock Logic" falls prey to the brain's need for order and patterns. Consequently, we focus too much on what is or what has been. We argue, analyze, and criticize to explain, and we draw hard lines into the sand where there may in reality be none. This way of thinking, De Bono, suggests, holds us back.
His solution: with greater awareness of the operational biases of the mind, we can transcend these limits and balance out the critical, analytical, binary thinking of the western tradition with a more exploratory, generative, design and future-oriented thinking. De Bono calls this "perceptual thinking" or "water logic."
If we applied gender stereotypes to the contrasting modes of thinking, it would be easy to assign rock logic as masculine and water logic as feminine. Interesting to note that, for the millenia that rock logic has been in the ascendant, patriarchy has been the dominant social force. Without explicitly doing so, it seems De Bono is calling for a sexual revolution of the Western mind.
De Bono's ideas are not difficult or complex ideas to grasp, but the implications are profound, and the author spends the great part of the book illustrating how a revolution in thinking could transform every aspect of society, from language to education to the economy.
IARYAW is curiously written. It's repetitive, it comes in bite-size ponderable chapters rather than extended prose. It's at times stridently misinformed, like when De Bono suggests we have a better understanding of the brain than gravity (58) -- while we understand certain cognitive processes of the brain, the hard problem of consciousness is still a profound mystery. It also dances around the thesis, approaching it brusquely from many oblique angles rather than directly and deeply exploring it. I often felt the author spent too much time pointing out flaws with the current way of thinking instead of developing a substantial alternate program. We have to wait until the appendix of the book, for example, to discover a few hints about what De Bono means by his system of "water logic" -- and yet, according to the title, this is supposed to be the book's focus.
Despite the quirks, bit by bit De Bono reveals genuine originality and insight. There are many fascinating asides, such as the concept of ludecy, which explains the insane consequences of people following poorly-conceived rules; the notion of networks and expectancy loops in attracting interest; the word "po" as a place-holder to help reserve judgment and create space for dispassionate reflection.
I recommend the book and recommend reading it more than once to appreciate its broad implications.
February 26, 2008
Thinking is an art that needs to be understood and sharpened.The methods to do so are unconventional, but they are so only b'cos of our ignorance of the art of thought application and of serious deep thinking that has the aim- to UNDERSTAND AND WEIGH the matter rather than discuss and preach regarding it.
This book was a revelation to me and hopefully i will manage to take a leaf out of it.For all those who are wondering whether to read it or not, i say- READ IT. even if you dont like it, you would gain some insight into the way your mind works and in the process of figuring out why you didn't like it, you would benefit from a better understanding of yourself.
This book was a revelation to me and hopefully i will manage to take a leaf out of it.For all those who are wondering whether to read it or not, i say- READ IT. even if you dont like it, you would gain some insight into the way your mind works and in the process of figuring out why you didn't like it, you would benefit from a better understanding of yourself.
March 8, 2017
The guy thinks he can say whatever he wants.
Very difficult to read without stopping to say: That’s not what reason or thinking is!, or That’s not what knowledge is!
Lots of bad ideas.
Lots of bragging that he said this or that before it was popular.
Still, a few ideas you can use.
Skip the introduction, or you’ll just be angry (unless you’re into the anti-reason philosophies).
Read the first couple of chapters, through the octopi on the beach model.
I found that model useful as I read other books on how the mind works.
From that point, skim -- real fast -- the rest of the book.
Very difficult to read without stopping to say: That’s not what reason or thinking is!, or That’s not what knowledge is!
Lots of bad ideas.
Lots of bragging that he said this or that before it was popular.
Still, a few ideas you can use.
Skip the introduction, or you’ll just be angry (unless you’re into the anti-reason philosophies).
Read the first couple of chapters, through the octopi on the beach model.
I found that model useful as I read other books on how the mind works.
From that point, skim -- real fast -- the rest of the book.
January 8, 2018
Here is the main idea of this book. Our society would be better if the people are well-equipped not only with norms and intelligence, but also with THINKING SKILL. Thinking skill doesn’t always related only with problem-solving, but also design thinking. Not only logical, but also creative and radical. Embracing not only fact, but also perception.
April 24, 2024
very enlightening book that puts everything in a different but logical perspective. The new words and outlook in general are neatly written with examples that are easy to understand, but can be a bit hard at times.
August 22, 2014
One word before finishing this book
Mindblowing good !!!
Mindblowing good !!!
December 3, 2023
A compelling, though naturally repetitive, case for abandoning the greco-roman philosophical model of logic and contradiction and move forward with other ways of being. This book had no novel content for me as I am reading his work entirely out of order. What is interesting for me is that this book references Gleick's work, implying that de Bono stayed up to date on contemporary science entirely outside of his home disciplines.
Anyway, per usual, logic was implemented as a tool by both religious dogmatists and antireligious humanists. It is equally effective at arguing for any point and is not concerned with truth, nominally being unconcerned with perspective but having no choice but to only build on perspectives, not truths. This works efficiently with the brain's normal tendency of classification, dismissal, etc. It is absolutely terrible for creating new things. In this book, like in several others, he sets out the tools to use, the impact of the use of the tools in real life scenarios, and the rational behind each tool. In this book, de Bono goes in on talking about how our thinking traditions in the west focus on identity and consistency, the polarity of opposites, how it makes certain kinds of thinking easy and other kinds impossible. It reminded me very much of recent conversations on the genocide happening in Gaza. So many people saying if you are not this, you are that. If you are not with Israel, you are an antisemite. Blah blah blah. This book rang true and clear within that current cultural context. What is needed is different ways of thinking. So-called debate and discussion are not the most effective ways of concept exploration, as we have been led to believe.
Some selected quotes:
"""
‘Consistency’ is, of course, the key word in critical thinking. Is something internally consistent – the favourite line of criticism of anyone who does not know the subject (as with a bureaucrat)? Is it consistent with what is generally held or with science as we now know it? Is it consistent with principles that we know to be true or absolute (or need to treat as such)? Is it consistent with my experience and perceptions? Is it consistent with the way I want to look at the matter? All of these come down to: is it consistent with my pattern of perception?
So the process of judgement may be thorough but the basis for the judgement is a perception held generally or personally.
"""
"""
With dichotomies we come to the great joy and ingenuity of table-top logic. With dichotomies traditional logic comes closer to the constructed system that it desires. There may be something that exists in experience and for that we have perception and language. But the ‘opposite’ of that thing is a deliberate ‘construction’ and means only the opposite.
Unfortunately, as I suggested earlier in this book, the mind cannot easily hold an abstract opposite but quickly locates this in experience. So the un-white chess piece is recognized as the black chess piece.
"""
"""
So when we need to escape the crudeness of broad levelling we need richer naming habits. But when we need to establish underlying uniformities we may need to look behind the naming. If we were to give different names to a glass in your hand, a glass falling through the air and a glass hitting the ground, we might have a hard time realizing that these were all part of the same process. This is a problem physicists suspect they have in particle physics. A one-year-old salmon returning to its home river is called a grilse. The English won’t eat them because they think they are different from salmon. The French do eat them because they know it is just a name for a young salmon.
"""
I think I would generally consider this as a good primer on de Bono's work and therefore do recommend reading it.
Anyway, per usual, logic was implemented as a tool by both religious dogmatists and antireligious humanists. It is equally effective at arguing for any point and is not concerned with truth, nominally being unconcerned with perspective but having no choice but to only build on perspectives, not truths. This works efficiently with the brain's normal tendency of classification, dismissal, etc. It is absolutely terrible for creating new things. In this book, like in several others, he sets out the tools to use, the impact of the use of the tools in real life scenarios, and the rational behind each tool. In this book, de Bono goes in on talking about how our thinking traditions in the west focus on identity and consistency, the polarity of opposites, how it makes certain kinds of thinking easy and other kinds impossible. It reminded me very much of recent conversations on the genocide happening in Gaza. So many people saying if you are not this, you are that. If you are not with Israel, you are an antisemite. Blah blah blah. This book rang true and clear within that current cultural context. What is needed is different ways of thinking. So-called debate and discussion are not the most effective ways of concept exploration, as we have been led to believe.
Some selected quotes:
"""
‘Consistency’ is, of course, the key word in critical thinking. Is something internally consistent – the favourite line of criticism of anyone who does not know the subject (as with a bureaucrat)? Is it consistent with what is generally held or with science as we now know it? Is it consistent with principles that we know to be true or absolute (or need to treat as such)? Is it consistent with my experience and perceptions? Is it consistent with the way I want to look at the matter? All of these come down to: is it consistent with my pattern of perception?
So the process of judgement may be thorough but the basis for the judgement is a perception held generally or personally.
"""
"""
With dichotomies we come to the great joy and ingenuity of table-top logic. With dichotomies traditional logic comes closer to the constructed system that it desires. There may be something that exists in experience and for that we have perception and language. But the ‘opposite’ of that thing is a deliberate ‘construction’ and means only the opposite.
Unfortunately, as I suggested earlier in this book, the mind cannot easily hold an abstract opposite but quickly locates this in experience. So the un-white chess piece is recognized as the black chess piece.
"""
"""
So when we need to escape the crudeness of broad levelling we need richer naming habits. But when we need to establish underlying uniformities we may need to look behind the naming. If we were to give different names to a glass in your hand, a glass falling through the air and a glass hitting the ground, we might have a hard time realizing that these were all part of the same process. This is a problem physicists suspect they have in particle physics. A one-year-old salmon returning to its home river is called a grilse. The English won’t eat them because they think they are different from salmon. The French do eat them because they know it is just a name for a young salmon.
"""
I think I would generally consider this as a good primer on de Bono's work and therefore do recommend reading it.
October 18, 2023
TBH, I didn't get much of what the author wanted to say. There was something about learning from neural systems, building self-organizing systems, avoiding table-top logic, and understanding perception. The excessive use of analogies made it challenging to grasp the core concepts author had to convey.
In this book, de Bono explores the nature of thinking and how it often leads to disagreements and conflicts. He discusses the various thinking patterns and mental processes that people employ when they engage in discussions and debates. De Bono argues that people often approach conversations with the mentality that "I am right, and you are wrong," which can hinder constructive communication and problem-solving.
De Bono proposes alternative ways of thinking and communicating that can lead to more productive and collaborative outcomes. He encourages readers to consider lateral thinking and other techniques to break out of the traditional "argument" mindset and explore new approaches to resolving differences and generating creative solutions.
In this book, de Bono explores the nature of thinking and how it often leads to disagreements and conflicts. He discusses the various thinking patterns and mental processes that people employ when they engage in discussions and debates. De Bono argues that people often approach conversations with the mentality that "I am right, and you are wrong," which can hinder constructive communication and problem-solving.
De Bono proposes alternative ways of thinking and communicating that can lead to more productive and collaborative outcomes. He encourages readers to consider lateral thinking and other techniques to break out of the traditional "argument" mindset and explore new approaches to resolving differences and generating creative solutions.
June 1, 2008
essential read to discover how 'naturally narrow' our thinking tends to be, and how the real effort in productive and succesful thinking can be made and how to do it. A real eye opener. I was struck with how limiting my thinking was upon reading this book
September 4, 2025
De Bono weist einige relativistische Züge auf. Er nennt die gewohnte Anwendung von Logik ein verkapptes Glaubenssystem, während er der Mathematik stattdessen wahre "game truth" bescheinigt, die sich aus den Spielregeln des Universums ableitet. Tatsache ist, dass uns kein Bereich bekannt ist, der so zwingende Beweise zulässt wie die Mathematik. Aber sowohl Mathematik als auch Logik basieren auf unbeweisbaren Grundannahmen wie z. B. dem Glauben an die Verstehbarkeit und Strukturiertheit der Welt. Bei De Bonos Wasserlogik dreht sich jedoch alles um Wahrnehmung und Perspektive, also Wahrheit in Form von Zirkelschlüssen und Anschein, wie er selbst betont:
"In der Wahrnehmung gibt es keine 'Spielwahrheit', wie es sie in der Mathematik gibt, wo etwas wahr ist, weil es aus den Spielregeln des Spiels und des Universums folgt. Alle Wahrheit in der Wahrnehmung ist entweder zirkulär oder provisorisch. Zirkuläre Wahrheit gleicht zwei Menschen, die einander versichern, der jeweils andere sage die Wahrheit. Provisorische Wahrheit gründet sich auf Erfahrung: 'es scheint mir so'; 'soweit ich sehen kann'; 'nach meiner Erfahrung'. Es gibt nichts von jener wunderbaren Gewissheit, die wir in der gewöhnlichen Logik haben - die eine 'Glaubenswahrheit' ist, die sich als 'Spielwahrheit' ausgibt."
Er meint nicht nur, dass man das Erkennen von Schönheit in einem neuen Kunststil (Impressionismus) trainieren kann, sondern behauptet sogar, dass ein Haufen Ziegeln tatsächlich zu einem Kunstobjekt wird, wenn man ihn in eine Kunstgalerie legt und den Leuten sagt, dass sie ihn als Kunstwerk betrachten sollen. Das ist eine eher freie Definition von Kunst, welche einen ernsthaften Künstler kränken könnte, weshalb ich zum Trost Herrn Marinovic zitieren möchte:
"Kunst vermittelt Werte. Kunst stiftet Sinn. Kunst bindet Menschen zur Gemeinschaft."
Trotzdem erscheint De Bonos hier vorgestellter Ansatz in der Praxis sehr brauchbar. Wasserlogik bietet mit Hilfe von speziellen Flussdiagrammen ein interessantes Werkzeug, um Probleme und Widersprüche kreativ aufzulösen. Sie teilt mit Fuzzylogik den Aspekt der gewollten Unschärfe, ist aber kein mathematisches, formal prüfbares System. Von der herkömmlichen Logik (hier Felslogik genannt) unterscheidet sie sich durch den Ansatz, von persönlicher Perspektive und innerer Wahrnehmung anstatt von der objektiv messbaren, akkuraten, identitätsbasierten, äußeren Realität auszugehen. Sie stellt die Frage in den Mittelpunkt, wohin etwas gedanklich (nicht unbedingt logisch-kausal, sondern natürlich-assoziativ) führt oder fließt, anstatt zu beantworten, was etwas ist oder was objektiv wahr und falsch ist. Wasserlogik ersetzt nicht die bekannte, harte Logik, aber sie kann als Denkmethode unterstützend wirken, um effizient bessere Ergebnisse zu erzielen.
"Die Felslogik strebte danach, der Subjektivität der Wahrnehmung zu entkommen. Die Wasserlogik strebt danach, die Subjektivität der Wahrnehmung zu erforschen und zu nutzen."
Ein Flussdiagramm (flowscape, analog zu landscape) beginnt mit einem Grundproblem, etwa einen schönen Urlaub zu machen oder in Ruhe durchschlafen zu können. Dazu werden Begriffe und Konzepte gesammelt (die "stream of consciousness list", eine Grundliste, im Buch als Quallen mit Stachel verbildlicht, die sich so gegenseitig stechen), die subjektiv damit zu tun haben. Jeder dieser Begriffe oder Phrasen kann nun mit einem der anderen Begriffe verbunden werden, um darzustellen, in welche Richtung die Gedanken fließen. Beispielsweise: kein Schatten → Sonnenbrand. Die Prüfung auf Übereinstimmung mit der Realität oder Perfektion wird dabei der individuellen Wahrnehmung zunächst untergeordnet. Dabei gilt zwecks besserer Übersicht die Regel, dass jeder Begriff nur zu einem einzigen anderen Begriff fließen darf. Er darf aber beliebig viele oder auch gar keine Pfeile von anderen Begriffen empfangen. Wenn ein Begriff besonders viele Pfeile empfängt, ist er ein Sammelknoten (collector point). Falls mehrere Sammelknoten entstehen, steht das oft für konkurrierende Interessen. In der Regel sollten immer irgendwann kleine oder größere Schleifen entstehen, also A ↔ B oder A → B → C → A. Wenn keine Schleife entsteht, ist das Diagramm laut Autor noch nicht fertig ausgearbeitet, denn seine Theoreme lauten:
1. In jedem System mit einer endlichen Zahl von Zuständen und einem Ermüdungsfaktor wird sich von jedem Eingang her stets eine stabile Schleife herausbilden.
2. Unter einem gegebenen Kontext X wird A stets zu B führen.
Schleifen bilden also eine Stabilisierung, einen Endzustand der Problematik. Es sind im Normalfall mehrere Überarbeitungen nötig, um die Begriffe neu zu sortieren, in Konzepten zusammenzufassen oder ins Detail zu gehen. Eine Flowscape beschäftigt sich primär mit der inneren Wahrnehmung und hat keine mathematisch vorgegebene Lösung, sondern führt während der Überarbeitung und dem Ziehen der Flusspfeile zu mehr Klarheit und neuen Perspektiven, aus denen unterschiedliche Lösungen oder Handlungsempfehlungen erwachsen können. Je nach Kontext, Zeitpunkt und individueller Ansicht können die gleichen Fakten völlig unterschiedlich abgebildet werden und zu anderen Fließrichtungen und Ergebnissen führen.
Wenn man die Flowscapes nicht per Hand zeichnen will, kann man jedes beliebige Programm benutzen, das Flussdiagramme erstellen kann. Sehr gut funktioniert etwa yEd.
"In der Wahrnehmung gibt es keine 'Spielwahrheit', wie es sie in der Mathematik gibt, wo etwas wahr ist, weil es aus den Spielregeln des Spiels und des Universums folgt. Alle Wahrheit in der Wahrnehmung ist entweder zirkulär oder provisorisch. Zirkuläre Wahrheit gleicht zwei Menschen, die einander versichern, der jeweils andere sage die Wahrheit. Provisorische Wahrheit gründet sich auf Erfahrung: 'es scheint mir so'; 'soweit ich sehen kann'; 'nach meiner Erfahrung'. Es gibt nichts von jener wunderbaren Gewissheit, die wir in der gewöhnlichen Logik haben - die eine 'Glaubenswahrheit' ist, die sich als 'Spielwahrheit' ausgibt."
Er meint nicht nur, dass man das Erkennen von Schönheit in einem neuen Kunststil (Impressionismus) trainieren kann, sondern behauptet sogar, dass ein Haufen Ziegeln tatsächlich zu einem Kunstobjekt wird, wenn man ihn in eine Kunstgalerie legt und den Leuten sagt, dass sie ihn als Kunstwerk betrachten sollen. Das ist eine eher freie Definition von Kunst, welche einen ernsthaften Künstler kränken könnte, weshalb ich zum Trost Herrn Marinovic zitieren möchte:
"Kunst vermittelt Werte. Kunst stiftet Sinn. Kunst bindet Menschen zur Gemeinschaft."
Trotzdem erscheint De Bonos hier vorgestellter Ansatz in der Praxis sehr brauchbar. Wasserlogik bietet mit Hilfe von speziellen Flussdiagrammen ein interessantes Werkzeug, um Probleme und Widersprüche kreativ aufzulösen. Sie teilt mit Fuzzylogik den Aspekt der gewollten Unschärfe, ist aber kein mathematisches, formal prüfbares System. Von der herkömmlichen Logik (hier Felslogik genannt) unterscheidet sie sich durch den Ansatz, von persönlicher Perspektive und innerer Wahrnehmung anstatt von der objektiv messbaren, akkuraten, identitätsbasierten, äußeren Realität auszugehen. Sie stellt die Frage in den Mittelpunkt, wohin etwas gedanklich (nicht unbedingt logisch-kausal, sondern natürlich-assoziativ) führt oder fließt, anstatt zu beantworten, was etwas ist oder was objektiv wahr und falsch ist. Wasserlogik ersetzt nicht die bekannte, harte Logik, aber sie kann als Denkmethode unterstützend wirken, um effizient bessere Ergebnisse zu erzielen.
"Die Felslogik strebte danach, der Subjektivität der Wahrnehmung zu entkommen. Die Wasserlogik strebt danach, die Subjektivität der Wahrnehmung zu erforschen und zu nutzen."
Ein Flussdiagramm (flowscape, analog zu landscape) beginnt mit einem Grundproblem, etwa einen schönen Urlaub zu machen oder in Ruhe durchschlafen zu können. Dazu werden Begriffe und Konzepte gesammelt (die "stream of consciousness list", eine Grundliste, im Buch als Quallen mit Stachel verbildlicht, die sich so gegenseitig stechen), die subjektiv damit zu tun haben. Jeder dieser Begriffe oder Phrasen kann nun mit einem der anderen Begriffe verbunden werden, um darzustellen, in welche Richtung die Gedanken fließen. Beispielsweise: kein Schatten → Sonnenbrand. Die Prüfung auf Übereinstimmung mit der Realität oder Perfektion wird dabei der individuellen Wahrnehmung zunächst untergeordnet. Dabei gilt zwecks besserer Übersicht die Regel, dass jeder Begriff nur zu einem einzigen anderen Begriff fließen darf. Er darf aber beliebig viele oder auch gar keine Pfeile von anderen Begriffen empfangen. Wenn ein Begriff besonders viele Pfeile empfängt, ist er ein Sammelknoten (collector point). Falls mehrere Sammelknoten entstehen, steht das oft für konkurrierende Interessen. In der Regel sollten immer irgendwann kleine oder größere Schleifen entstehen, also A ↔ B oder A → B → C → A. Wenn keine Schleife entsteht, ist das Diagramm laut Autor noch nicht fertig ausgearbeitet, denn seine Theoreme lauten:
1. In jedem System mit einer endlichen Zahl von Zuständen und einem Ermüdungsfaktor wird sich von jedem Eingang her stets eine stabile Schleife herausbilden.
2. Unter einem gegebenen Kontext X wird A stets zu B führen.
Schleifen bilden also eine Stabilisierung, einen Endzustand der Problematik. Es sind im Normalfall mehrere Überarbeitungen nötig, um die Begriffe neu zu sortieren, in Konzepten zusammenzufassen oder ins Detail zu gehen. Eine Flowscape beschäftigt sich primär mit der inneren Wahrnehmung und hat keine mathematisch vorgegebene Lösung, sondern führt während der Überarbeitung und dem Ziehen der Flusspfeile zu mehr Klarheit und neuen Perspektiven, aus denen unterschiedliche Lösungen oder Handlungsempfehlungen erwachsen können. Je nach Kontext, Zeitpunkt und individueller Ansicht können die gleichen Fakten völlig unterschiedlich abgebildet werden und zu anderen Fließrichtungen und Ergebnissen führen.
Wenn man die Flowscapes nicht per Hand zeichnen will, kann man jedes beliebige Programm benutzen, das Flussdiagramme erstellen kann. Sehr gut funktioniert etwa yEd.
April 29, 2009
This revolutionized my understanding of the way the mind works and the way that different modes or ways of thinking shape our understanding of the world around us.
February 4, 2011
La otra manera de ver la vida, buscando la otra solución, usando el pensamiento alternativo..
Read
July 20, 2025Interesting that the eye-catching title does not appear in the book (I think!), although de Bono does talk about the human predilection to follow ‘rock logic’ and thinking patterns of dichotomies and argument & clash. As BookAmbler [previous reviewer] says, the writing is not very accessible, maybe because de Bono is – despite his anti-university message – very much an academic, or maybe because English isn’t his first language (he is Maltese, who knew!) It’s quite a difficult book to read and take in, not because of the content, but because of the structure, the repetition, the oddly meandering narrative. Some really fascinating stuff about how the brain works, lots of octopi on a beach(!), and about how the chemistry & physiology of such a self-organising information system creates our perceptions. De Bono also has quite a few bees in his bonnet about how we think and communicate, how we organise our institutions, lack of creativity & design (versus the problem-solving, backwards looking, analytical bias) – the list goes on. So, some interesting stuff, but loses a bit in the delivery :(
July 19, 2020
I've been reading and rereading this book for over 20 years. Looking back it's clear that it has formed a part of how I behave. I guess in that sense it has literally changed my life.
It uses elements of neurology together with what we would now call non-linear and complex thinking to model the way we as humans perceive the world and hence the way we react to the world. Why we're pulled towards biased and siloed viewpoints with the same polemical and confrontational patterns. More importantly it provided ways of overcoming those biases. Simple and well known examples are the lateral thinking and six-hats techniques. Likewise things like deliberate equivocation and working backwards are so useful and productive (and even *healthy*) they should be taught in schools.
On the negative side de Bono's writing style is sometimes somewhat repetitive and self-elevating. Also, although it doesn't change the substance of the book, neurology and machine learning have advanced considerably since the book was written. The references and examples are a little outdated.
It uses elements of neurology together with what we would now call non-linear and complex thinking to model the way we as humans perceive the world and hence the way we react to the world. Why we're pulled towards biased and siloed viewpoints with the same polemical and confrontational patterns. More importantly it provided ways of overcoming those biases. Simple and well known examples are the lateral thinking and six-hats techniques. Likewise things like deliberate equivocation and working backwards are so useful and productive (and even *healthy*) they should be taught in schools.
On the negative side de Bono's writing style is sometimes somewhat repetitive and self-elevating. Also, although it doesn't change the substance of the book, neurology and machine learning have advanced considerably since the book was written. The references and examples are a little outdated.
May 30, 2020
The book went above and beyond my expectations .. When I first read the comments on the front and back covers, it gave me a sense that it is just another self-help book that offers spoon-fed advise on how to deal with your day to day struggles without any real learning or new information.
The author fully explains how the human brain works through the self-organizing information system model. He goes into explaining logic, perception, humor, catchment, patterns, creativity and many aspects of human natural interaction. He also points out a lot of the flaws of our current “Table-top logic” thinking, which the author believes is the main limiting factor of our progress in all fields from technology to psychology and beyond. He believes this is mainly due to our lack of understanding of how the brain works and how with our current inefficient thinking system, we are unable to explain critical phenomena such as creativity and humor. Rather, we would claim and accept that creativity and Aha! (Eureka) moments are as a result of coincidence, accident and evolution.
On the whole, I loved the book and loved the insights the author offered and I highly recommend it to everyone for an enjoyable and information-rich read.
The author fully explains how the human brain works through the self-organizing information system model. He goes into explaining logic, perception, humor, catchment, patterns, creativity and many aspects of human natural interaction. He also points out a lot of the flaws of our current “Table-top logic” thinking, which the author believes is the main limiting factor of our progress in all fields from technology to psychology and beyond. He believes this is mainly due to our lack of understanding of how the brain works and how with our current inefficient thinking system, we are unable to explain critical phenomena such as creativity and humor. Rather, we would claim and accept that creativity and Aha! (Eureka) moments are as a result of coincidence, accident and evolution.
On the whole, I loved the book and loved the insights the author offered and I highly recommend it to everyone for an enjoyable and information-rich read.
May 5, 2023
READ MAY 2023
De Bono does a nice job of contrasting what he calls "rock" logic which is based on reason and "water" logic which is based on perception. De Bono advocates for thinking as exploration. He points out the limitations of reason and challenges of language which is used to codify, categorize, and describe and the traditional thinking approaches based on argument and analysis.
Lots to glean from this work including thinking frameworks, thinking patterns, and thinking habits. Looking forward to digging into more from his work on Water Logic.
De Bono does a nice job of contrasting what he calls "rock" logic which is based on reason and "water" logic which is based on perception. De Bono advocates for thinking as exploration. He points out the limitations of reason and challenges of language which is used to codify, categorize, and describe and the traditional thinking approaches based on argument and analysis.
Lots to glean from this work including thinking frameworks, thinking patterns, and thinking habits. Looking forward to digging into more from his work on Water Logic.
March 19, 2025
If a person has a beautiful spirit, they are by all means, allowed to be expressing themselves with poetry, song and compassion. Manners are the lubricant of society, when emotional warmth and spiritual solidarity cannot be relied upon. 70 percent psychological and thirty percent mathematical and rational, are what makes up Economical Behaviour. Generative, creative, constructive and design aspects of thinking are a part of Critical Thinking. The Brutal Arrogance of Rock Thinking is enough.
February 10, 2019
Edward de Bono's discussions on lateral thinking are very clearly set out and easy to read. He uses analogies and anecdotes that help the reader think about how to think.
p.s. These kinds of "old-school" development books are usually available very cheaply at book fairs and second-hand stores - I got this copy for $1 at the Lifeline Bookfair.
p.s. These kinds of "old-school" development books are usually available very cheaply at book fairs and second-hand stores - I got this copy for $1 at the Lifeline Bookfair.
June 21, 2022
The part about the octopuses is mildly confusing and does not help in understanding neural networks. Also, I am still not entirely sure what De Bono means by perception. Nice book overall, gives a different perspective.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 22, 2017
x
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 14, 2019
I didn't finish it as I didn't like the way it's written . Nothing attracted me to go through it .
August 9, 2020
Nice book
December 17, 2020
from one of the great thinkers of our time; diverse set of principles and observations; engaging for anyone prepared to think, to prop and to reflect
November 4, 2022
It's clear and blatant. Make so much sense in shifting contexts. But something feels off and I don't know what is it, rereading it to find it.
November 7, 2024
Brilliant. Thought provoking and insightful.
January 23, 2025
I liked it. The first part blew my (creative) mind and I felt seen. However, I dunno, it lost its way in the last third (that's my critical thinking mind).
July 13, 2025
This book literally changed my entire life.
Its the definition of growth mindset long before the term existed.
Awesome author.
Its the definition of growth mindset long before the term existed.
Awesome author.
August 23, 2011
Quite apart from the fact that this author is a shameless name dropper (and mostly re himself), yea, he challenges Western empirical thought but does not, in any way shape of form propose a new 'methodology' of thinking. Thats not to say I don't condone the arm chair critic, but at the end of the day, unless you can show the way forward, then don't storm the castle. It will just phoenix. De Bono's main point (although he'd probably disagree) is that the only way to break from classical 'table-top' logic is to....make a mistake. He himself acknowleges the greatest inventions of the century have been the by-product of experiments gone awry. So...unless we all embrace a culture of raring for the error, its a non starter.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews