Think! (10 page)

This may well be the most important section in the whole of this book.

Perception is a key part of thinking. Professor David Perkins of Harvard University has shown in his research that 90 per cent of the errors in thinking are errors of perception. Logic plays only a small part. And no matter how excellent the logic might be, if the perception is faulty, the answer will be wrong. He told me: 'What you have been saying all along about the importance of perception is probably right.'

Goedel's Theorem proves that from within any system you can never logically prove the starting points – no matter how logical you might be. The starting points are arbitrary perceptions and assumptions that cannot be proved logically. So no matter how logical you think you are, your conclusion will be determined by your starting points, not the excellence of your logic.

If perception is indeed so very important in thinking, why have we totally neglected it? We are constantly emphasising logic, but logic without perception is misleading and can be very dangerous. Logic from a wrong perception can give the appearance of truth with a resulting action that can be dangerous.

The main reason is that the thinking determined by the Church in the early Middle Ages did not need perception. What was needed was truth, logic and argument to prove the heretics wrong. There was no need for perception because you were not dealing with the real world. You were dealing with artificial concepts designed by man and with a given definition that everyone could agree upon: the omnipotence of God; sin; fallibility, and so on. It was never a matter of perceiving the real world. Playing around with these 'designed' pieces needed logic. There was no place for perception and no need for perception.

The real world of actual living is very different. We have not decided that there is no place for perception. Perception is more important than anything else. But we have done nothing about it.

Another reason why we have neglected perception is
that we did not know what to do about it. Applying logic to perception did not work – because it was a different system.

In Australia, a five-year-old boy called Johnny was offered a choice by his friends between a one-dollar coin and a two-dollar coin. The one-dollar coin was much bigger than the two-dollar coin. Johnny took the bigger coin. His friends laughed and giggled at Johnny's stupidity. Whenever they wanted to make a fool of Johnny, they would offer him the same choice. He never learned. He always chose the larger coin.

One day an adult saw this and felt sorry for Johnny. He called Johnny over and told him that the smaller coin, even though smaller, was actually worth twice as much as the bigger coin.

Johnny smiled and thanked him politely and then said: 'I know that. But how many more times would they have offered me the coins if I had chosen the two dollars the first time?'

It was a matter of perception. If you saw it as a single occasion, you would take the two dollars. If you knew your friends, as Johnny did, you would know that they would keep on offering the coins and you would get many dollar pieces. Perception is key.

Jilly Cooper, the well-known novelist, once wrote a piece in a newspaper suggesting that if you wanted to know if your man had another woman, you should note the length of his tie when he left after breakfast and the
length of the tie when he returned in the evening. One day a fellow returns home with his tie at a much shorter length than when he left in the morning. His wife has a go at him, accusing him of seeing some other lady.

'Honey, I have been playing squash,' he replies. You have to take off your tie to play squash. The lady's perception changes and with it her emotions.

Logic will never change emotions, but changing perception will always change emotions. You have no option.

As mentioned earlier, in the Karee mine in South Africa, some of my simple techniques for changing perception were taught (by Susan Mackie and Donalda Dawson) to the illiterate miners. Among the simple perception tools is the OPV acronym, which asks the thinker to consider the Other Person's View. Carrying out this simple mental task reduced the conflicts between the seven tribes working there from 210 a month to just four.

We are constantly emphasising logic, but logic without perception is misleading and can be very dangerous. Logic from a wrong perception can give the appearance of truth with a resulting action that can be dangerous.

A man seems to be coming towards you with an aggressive look on his face. What are the possibilities?

• He really is aggressive.
  
• That is the natural set of his face and he is not aggressive at all.
  
• For some reason he feels threatened and insecure and this is his reaction.
  
• He is showing off with a bit of bravado – perhaps to impress his friends.
  
• He is fooling around.
  
• He is not making his way towards you at all but towards the person standing right behind you.
  

Some of these alternative possibilities are not as likely as others, but perception demands the generation of possibilities. We then make an effort to check out all the possibilities.

Our minds naturally want to jump as quickly as possible to the conclusion of 'truth' and 'certainty', because that will determine our action. As a result, our perceptions are very often mistaken and our action will also be mistaken.

Objects and
situations

We can recognise a dog, a car, a horse, a tree. The different features lead to the name or word. Situations are more complex. We do not have names for different situations, so they are more difficult to recognise. As mentioned elsewhere in this book, I have created a coding system to allow us to give names to complex situations. Even so, we may be mistaken.

You are unlikely to have to say: 'This could be a horse or a car.' It will be clear. But you may well have to say: 'It could be this situation or that situation.' In perception, we always have to keep alternatives and possibilities in mind. This is much less so for familiar objects, but it is essential for situations, where we might more easily be mistaken.

What can we do about perception? What can
improve our perceptual thinking?

This is an area about which we have done virtually nothing for 2,400 years because we have been so obsessed with the excellence of logic.

There are at least three things we can do:

1. Attitude
2. Perceptual tools
3. Perceptual maps

Attitude

Much of the attitude needed has already been described.

We need to acknowledge the huge importance of perception.

We need to realise that logic is not enough. We need to realise that logic can never be better than the perceptions on which it is based.

There are a number of
attitudes, habits and mental operations that are needed for thinking. These are in addition to the specific tools and enhance the effectiveness of these tools.

There is the basic attitude that you can seek to be creative about anything. There is a need to get away from the problem-solving attitude that focuses on failures, faults and shortcomings. These do need thinking about and the lateral thinking tools may be used for that purpose. The great danger is that we limit our creative thinking to problems. This means that we make no attempt to generate new possibilities if something seems to be working well. This is reflected in the well-known phrase 'If it is not broken, don't fix it'.

Another fundamental attitude is the willingness to use 'movement' rather than 'judgement'. Our normal thinking, for obvious reasons (and important ones), is all about judgement. Judgement exists on many levels. Is this relevant? Is this useful? Is this correct? Will this work?

Instead of judgement we try to use 'movement'. This is a very different mental operation. Judgement is all about 'accept' and 'reject' in addition to 'recognition'. Movement is all about movement: where can I move to from this position? We seek to move forwards and to use things for their movement value.

The actual process of movement is described earlier, but what is important is to be able to look at anything for
its 'movement value' and not just its usual judgement value. That requires a big change in attitude.

Another attitude is the willingness to look for alternatives. This means making an effort to go beyond the obvious alternatives to seek further ones. There may be alternatives of perception: how else could we look at this? There may be alternatives of explanation: what are the alternative explanations for what is happening? There may be alternatives for action: what alternative courses of action do we have? There may be alternatives for choice: what are the options? There can be alternatives in many areas. There can be alternative consequences of an action. There can be alternative scenarios.

Being open to alternatives means not being in a hurry to arrive at the 'truth' or the 'best'.

Linked to the search for alternatives is the attitude that opens up and accepts possibilities. Too often science has been frozen because of a claimed truth (such as the belief that peptic ulcers were caused by stomach acid). There is a skill in being practical and action orientated and, at the same time, keeping possibilities in mind. In a marriage you have to choose one lady or man from among many possibilities. You are then supposed to forget about the possibilities. With creativity you need to keep possibilities active even while you get on with practicalities.

We need to consider possibilities and alternatives and to keep these in mind – instead of jumping to a conclusion.

We need to realise that other people may have other perceptions based on their experience and values.

Perceptual tools

An explorer is sent off to a newly discovered island. On his return he makes a report. He comments on the smoking volcano in the north of the island. He comments on a strange-looking bird that cannot fly.

He is asked for further comments. He replies that these were the only things that caught or 'pulled' his
attention.

This is not good enough. He is sent back to the island with specific instructions to 'direct' his attention rather than waiting for it to be 'pulled' in some direction. He is asked to look north and to note down all he sees. Then he should look east and note down what he sees. Then south and then west.

He returns with a much fuller description of the island. This is because he had a framework for 'directing attention' rather than relying on something to catch or 'pull' his attention.

In the same way someone is sent into the garden to look at all the colours. The dominant colours will 'pull' their attention – the yellow in daffodils, the green in grass. Less-obvious colours will be ignored. However, if that same person is sent into the garden with a framework to look for each colour in turn – blue, yellow, red, brown – their attention scan will be far more comprehensive.

Attention is a key element in improving perception. If
we don't direct attention, we see only the familiar patterns.

So what can we do about directing attention instead of waiting for our attention to be pulled towards something, usually something unusual? In my book
Six Frames for Thinking about Information
I noted that we could set directions in which to look and in each case note what we see in that direction. We can look for value, for interest, for accuracy, for satisfaction, etc.

In exactly the same way we can create formal frameworks for 'directing attention' which function like the NSEW (North-South-East-West) framework and which improve perception.

This forms the basis of the CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) programme for thinking that is now widely used in tens of thousands of schools worldwide. There are 60 lessons in the full CoRT programme. Not all of these are perceptual tools. For instance, CoRT 4 is mainly about creativity. The most basic perceptual tools are in CoRT 1. In addition to these specific tools, the key factor in perception is possibilities and alternatives. You are looking at the situation in one way and you examine other possibilities and alternatives.

Basic tools

PMI:
This means directing attention to the Plus (positive) aspects, then the Minus (negative) aspects and finally the
Interesting aspects. 'Interesting' means something worth noting or commenting upon. What is interesting here? That aspect may be neither positive nor negative.

CAF (pronounced 'caff')
: Considering All Factors. The thinker makes a deliberate effort to see all the factors that are relevant to the thinking. What should be taken into account?

C&S: This means directing attention to the Consequences and Sequels, whichever there may be. What will happen in the future? What are the immediate consequences, the short-term consequences, the medium-term consequences and the long-term consequences? These may not be easy to see – but the effort must be made.

AGO:
Aims, Goals and Objectives. We usually have only a vague idea of what we are trying to do. The AGO asks us to be very clear. What are we trying to achieve? What is the goal? What are the objectives? Spelling these things out is very different from just having them in the back of the mind.

FIP (pronounced 'fipp'):
This tool directs attention to the First Important Priorities. Not everything is of equal importance. In any list some things are more important than others. This tool directs attention to the important things and the priorities. It also directs attention to what must be done, or considered, first.

APC:
Alternatives, Possibilities and Choices. What are the alternatives here? They may be alternatives of explanation, alternatives of perception and alternatives of action. What are the possibilities? What are the choices, both the obvious choices and the more hidden ones? This tool seeks to multiply possibilities.

OPV:
Other People's Views. Here the thinker seeks to get inside the mind of the other parties involved to see what their thinking might be. Very often this tool dissolves fights and conflicts. It is the main tool that reduced the fights in the Karee mine. There is a genuine effort to see where the other person is coming from. It is never a matter of what the other person
should
be thinking, but of what the other person
might
be thinking.