Talk:Lateral thinking/Archives/2014

Jargon

This entire article is incoherent and does not explain the concepts used in enough depth to be understood. If you're going to use jargon manufactured by authors to give themselves an air of authoritative knowledge in a given field, EXPLAIN IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by concernedededed (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009

Agreed. Honestly, I don't think that lateral thinking exists in the way that this article represents it. Effective creative problem solvers have both creativity and strong analytical skills, where the combination of the two is often called "clever". They can generate novel ideas and then "pass them" through a strong system of traditional logic (aka logic that actually "works"). They can often do this quickly or using heuristics in a manner that they might not even be conscious of. If solutions are not being rigorously tested alongside of creativity, then one is either getting lucky or producing art/fiction/etc. I think this lateral thinking thing was produced by someone to make a name for themselves and is comfort for those that aren't good at "traditional problem solving" (and likely really aren't solving many problems at all). A great example of creative problem solvers are highly successful computer programmers. I doubt many would agree with much of what is written about this topic in this article.

Add a clearer definition

I didn't think the current definition is very clear. I looked it up in the Longman dictionary, and I paraphrased it. What do you think of this definition:

Lateral thinking is a method of thinking where you make use of your fantasy to associate things who seem unrelated.

I (where I=rursus) think: pretty good, and pretty fit to be the first paragraph of the article - however, I have gotten the impression that lateral can also refer to the quality of certain persons being extra "gifted" ¹) to associate/synthetize seemingly unrelated things.

¹) I know this so called "gift" to be something like a curse. But that's my personal reflection.

..said rursus

Lateral Thinking is a method of thinking for cutting across established patterns of thought.

DannyStevens 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re definitions. Worth indicating a dictionary definition, but the definition could be improved if it indicates the origins of the term, and maybe its special operating mechanisms. For example

LT (term popularized by E de B) is the process of discovery thinking which escapes from conventional (vertical) thinking, through deliberate introduction of low-probability elements to reach low probability insights. I don't think this is anywhere near to a satisfactory definition, but it indicates what might be of value in such a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.122.47 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Some of these examples are absolutely ludicrous. Aliens coming and blowing up the planet? Shouldn't we remove that and the two examples that follow?

Not really any more ludicrous than the rest of them, imo. I added the last 8 or so just to make the point. Someone deleted the last one already ( which was: maybe lateral thinking is bullshit and you are wasting your time reading about it).. But whatever, delete them if you want. - miike

It is likely BS. Where its use is acceptable, it is in the imagination stage of hypothesis formation or problem solving. It cannot be carried forth for testing or implementing anything successfully. It would just lead to false pattern matching and a million tangents. The only part of lateral thinking that is useful is simply imagination. Unfortunately for those interested in lateral thinking, the term "imagination" has been around for some time. I see the pushing of the concept of lateral thinking as comfort for the illogical or just muddying the waters of what is actually at play. The fact that it is proving difficult to define lateral thinking should support my ideas here.

---

I agree... the examples get a little out there. I'm not an expert on lateral thinking, but to me they looked rather strange. In the event that they are in fact good examples of lateral thinking, then maybe a better explaination at the top would serve some good. Forezt 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)