Talk:Six Thinking Hats

Biased

The example is biased pro-yellow, green and blue hats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.106.108.215 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 March 2007‎

Why isn't it "de Bono Hats"?

Shouldn't all instances of "DeBono" in this entry be changed to "de Bono"? After all, his name is "Edward de Bono". I will change the entry, but I'm not sophisticated enough to create a new wiki entry ("de Bono Hats") and redirect to it. Could someone else do this? --Nick 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way is this biased?

I don't see how this article is biased. Because the Blue Hat has more entries under the subheading? That doesn't define it as being biased seeing as the Blue Hat needs to represent more points in an argument as it is discussing "The Big Picture". By the way Nickg you can't doing it using the "move" page function. It replies with the message of the source and destination title being the same. Seeing as the actual content of the article is correct, the naming can't make a large difference. If it still bothers you, contact an administrator. Syphron12 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't present a neutral viewpoint. It isn't pure White Hat. In the first paragraph, everything after the first sentence may very well be true but it's somewhat irrelevant in terms of presenting information on Six Hats Thinking.There are several instances such as this where the viewpoint seems to slant towards yellow hat thinking in an effort to persuade others of the benefits of using the de Bono Hats parallel thinking framework. It's understandable that the author believes de Bono Hats is an idea worth putting in Wikipedia but the article needs to be more like:

de Bono Hats, more commonly known as "Six Hats" or "Six Thinking Hats" is a parallel thinking framework designed by Dr. Edward de Bono primarily for use by groups. It's the subject of his book, "Six Thinking Hats"....

It might not be a bad idea to request Dr. de Bono himself to contribute his best White Hat thinking on Six Thinking Hats since he has expressed concern about people using his ideas incorrectly.

136.159.208.39 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a failure to adequately describe the role of the Blue Hat. It is strictly for "thinking about thinking". The role of the Blue hat is adopted by one person only at any time (like the meeting chairman) and determines the sequence of thinking under the other hats. In some ways the Six Hats are a reincarnation of earlier thinking tools devised by de Bono. The PMI (Plus Minus Interesting) tool from CoRT Thinking is similar: P = Yellow hat and M = Black hat. Red hat is emotion/gut feel/intuition. Green hat is creative thinking, and encompasses lateral thinking. White hat is just the facts or immutable and incontrovertible data. At no point does the article suggest the true value of the tool, that it is easy to categorize thinking under each of the hats. The ability to detect fundamental problems in the balance of thinking (eg. we do not have enough yellow hat on this subject) is one advantage. When a hat is announced (eg. give me your best green hat on the topic) it then opens up permission for contributions from multiple parties without fear of immediate reprisal - eg. a creative idea which is offered under the green hat cannot be criticized until black hat comments are invited. StephenSmith 15 April 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the example used for the development of the excercise of going throuhg the six thinking hats trivial and almost useless. The power of the method of thinking of the six thinking hats is best used upon matters of larger significance and consequence, and also, in which there are sizeable goods, bads, and potentials that press one into doubt. If any one has an example of a discussion that they have carried out using the hats that they feel is more informative, please erase the current examplo (August 2008 about teacher-classroom) and type in yours. Thankyou. Felipe Guardiola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.255.72 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

TradeMark?

I have a bias against unsigned comments, especially negative ones. I would, however, like to ask about the TM superscript next to "Parallel Thinking". If I use the phrase "parallel processing", do I owe someone a royalty?

Ernstwll 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it "Six Thinking Hats®" ?

Many people are more familiar with the phrase "Six Thinking Hats" since that is the term Mr. de Bono uses in his many books for this parallel thinking framework.It's the title of his book exclusively about it.Wouldn't it be better to use "Six Thinking Hats®" as the title so other people would be more likely to find it?

I know that Mr. de Bono has concerns regarding intellectual property matters but there is a point at which frequent emphasis on his ownership will have a negative effect on people choosing to use "de Bono thinking".

142.59.90.167 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LAFFER spectramollisol@yahoo.com

see #debonostolesixhats Iancharlescarter (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to use de Bono Hats in this discussion

The current declared task is to work on this article so that the viewpoint is clearly neutral to anyone that reads it. Now, maybe this is something where vertical thinking is quite adequate but it might be interesting to use de Bono Hats as an editing group as an example of its use. It would involve some self discipline since anyone could at any time put on a different colored hat than the specific colored hat that is requested. There is also the problem of working out the Blue Hat details as a group since there could be editors that want to monopolize that hat.

There could be more Blue Hat discussion on how to get the required article. The comments so far seem to be Black Hat thinking which is ok, but let's have some more Blue Hat thinking as a fresh start.

I propose more Blue Hat thinking, then making a formal request for more Black Hat thinking and then asking for Green Hat Thinking.

The editing group doesn't have to set out a complete sequence of hats of how to get a neutral viewpoint article but something like Blue, Black, Green and an agreement on how to work together with the Blue Hat would be a start.

Another possible sequence might start with Yellow. It's good that the article exists and it does contain the basic elements of an explanation of what de Bono Hats are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.208.39 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub?

Without references, this article should be stubbed or deleted. I'm guessing that the topic is notable enough that it doesn't need to be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Drive by tagging

The article is multiple tagged, yet there are no discussions on the basis for these tags (notability, peacock etc). Until the antagonists can come up with a plausible argument I propose we just delete the tags. --11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons (or basis) for those tags can be clearly seen in the actual article, if that makes sense. Joelster (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That forces others to make unfounded assumptions, the starting point of many misunderstanding. In fact the box suggests or discuss these issues on the talk page. If people cannot clearly state their issues here I question the validity of their claims. As for notability the topic of the article is being discussed at LinkedIn as a tool for innovative processes. --12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with you on the notability point - I think the de Bono Hats are notable enough to have an article. But the thing is that when you tag an article you do not neccesarily have to discuss it on the talk page. Remember that the purpose of the tags is to notify people that it needs improving. If you just look at the article you can clearly see that it contains peacock terms and is NPOV. It is also clear that it barely cites any sources and is written in an unencyclopedic manner. So the best thing to do is improve the article as the box says. Joelster (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so can we agree the notability tag goes? I am in favour of consensus rather than bold editing leading to revert wars. Next up is the peacock tag. from what I can see it is about statements such as many agree on X being great.... This article however is quite consistent in stating that it is De Bono who make the claims. Thus the reporting of his statements are objective while one may argue his opinions are subjective. Whether or not his statements hold true is an entirely different question. One could of course point out his web page listing endorsements from several notable companies (such as Nestlé) though that runs the risk of accusations of advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.186.113 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as no one has objected, I yhave removed the notability and peacock term tags. But I still believe that the article is written ever-so-slightly like an advertisement for the Hats, and that the layout and content of the article is unencyclopedic. But the biggest problem of all is that it doesn't cite any sources; even though it does give a few references to books and external websites, these are not cited in the text. What is the address for his webpage? Perhpas there are a few statements I could cite from there. Joelster (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags removal is much appreciated. Next up is the advertising tag. Could you clarify how you see this as an advertisement? Personally had I paid for an ad like this I would have demanded my money back. You requested address for his web page, I believe it is http://www.debonoforbusiness.com/asp/six_hats.asp which is in the article. His web pages gives links (just not hyper links) to various persons in Nestlé and Washoe Health System but I am not sure how to add these without then making it look like a glowing recommendation. Links can be found in LinkedIn but URLs from there tends to be long, looking like containing session IDs. --22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.186.113 (talk)

Regarding notability: I was quite surprised to find this tag on this article, this book is just about seminal to the International Baccalaureate's Diploma Programme Theory of Knowledge course. The IB doesn't require reading of this book, any more than it requires any other, it doesn't do that, but this book accomplishes getting across how to think about thinking and ways to analyze complex issues in a way that has been a great support for ToK teachers. The notability tag should go. I can't cite an IB page for this because they don't do that, but a simple google search with "Theory of Knowledge" and "Six Thinking Hats" just gave me more than 1,700 hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.53.82 (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

Link proposed link regarding the origins of six thinking hats:

http://www.schoolofthinking.org/about/the-hats-the-origin-of-the-thinking-hats-idea/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.97.5 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 October 2008

We would need a stronger source than the subject writing in their own weblog, as per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. Has this issue received any media, legal or academic coverage? --McGeddon (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Both parties agree that there is controversy, since both engage in discussion, providing contrary statements. it is thus well documented that there is controversy, although the "truth" remains unclear. I believe that we should state that there is controversy and signpost to both sources of material. de bono fails to provide any evidence refuting the claim in his statements, gleeson provides some but it is not easily accessible.

Innovation brain (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As I say, this issue is not well-documented, in terms of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. WP:SPS specifically says that "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". I also believe that it'd be worth mentioning this controversy, but the current sources don't allow us to do that. We need to dig deeper and find a mention in a newspaper, academic article or similar third-party authority. --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And this issue of controversy is NOT about a living person. it is about an event: a dispute and the existence of two distinct copyrights that are in conflict. Indicating that there is such a claim is NOT a comment about dr De bono. it does not in any way advance a view about him or his conduct, it does not endorse either view within the debate. Moreover the subject of this article is not dr de bono. Therefore this rule does not apply. even if this rule did apply we are referencing Dr de Bonos own comments about this issue, thereby balancing the claim made by hewit gleeson, a claim which there can be no doubt of the existence of, its veracity is a different question. I believe that you are thoroughly misinterpreting this rule, which exists to prevent defamatory statements. What I am writing is NOT a defamatory statement it is not about dr Debono, it is not about his reputation. it is about an event which has occurred and is continuing to occur.

in talk you stated

"It would be fine to say something neutral like "Hewitt Gleeson claims to have invented the Thinking Hats system in 197x as part of the School of Thinking", provided there was a simple, reliable source that backed this up. If all Gleeson has done is mentioned it in a blog entry on his own site, though, we can't use that. Any respected author can write a blog entry claiming credit for anything, but unless a third-party source documents it, it would be inappropriate to add it to the lead of the relevant Wikipedia article. The biggest problem with your current edits is that you're saying De Bono's rebuttal is "inadequate", which is a personal opinion, and reflects badly on a living person. I'm happy to go with a compromise of Gleeson claiming credit, and flagging it as requiring a reliable source, but if we can't find one, this isn't of encyclopaedic interest. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)"

I believe strongly that this is of great interest to anyone involved in using these systems. as a researcher working in this field myself any potential claims on the attribution of such an important method is of great importance. since you have so far found all of my attempts to write a neutral version unsatisfactory, I suggest that you do so. I bleieve that my statement was that the claim was neither adequately proven nor refuted adquately - this is a balanced statement in my view, however I believe that it is simple enough to state that "a conflicting claim has been made by dr michael hewitt gleeson(ref) about the origin of these methods. dr De bono has refuted this claim (ref). the dispute has not been resolved"

I'd be happy to write it - but you'll probably just revert it so why don't you write the darn thing and include both references eh? --Innovationbrain (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, all we need here are reliable sources. We can't use Gleeson's and de Bono's personal web pages. If no press or academic sources ever bothered covering this, then it's not appropriate material for Wikipedia, irrespective of whether editors feel it to be of great importance (and I completely agree with you that it's an important detail of the method's history).

To quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --McGeddon (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

so is Dr de bonos web page citing the controversy and refuting the claims not therefore adequate to indicate that there is some dispute over the origin? how how about wording it differently instead of reverting directly to a pro de bono statement which I should point out leaves you equally vulnerable from hewitt gleeson since he also asserts copyright on this material pre dating de bonos. do you really need a third party source to tell you that two people are arguing when they both have arguments naming each other and the issue over which they are arguing posted on their own websites. all I am doing is indicating the existence of these arguments. that is a fact. these arguments exist. hell, heres a third party source that cites the two - is that what you want???? or this one can we say that these men are arguing now or do we have to put our heads in the sand and pretend that all is right with the world because we are afraid of our own shadows...THINK man THINK! Innovationbrain (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

References

I don't need a third party source to tell me that two people are arguing, but Wikipedia does. The Netbloke and Wikia references are a good step towards that, but blogs and poor-quality wikis (the Wikia page seems to be a cut-and-paste of the School of Thinking site) don't meet WP:RS.

Really all we need is a reliable source that mentions the hats having originated from the School of Thinking; that would be enough to repeat the claim in the article, irrespective of whether there is a "controversy" surrounding it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

so can we record that there is a counter claim to the origin which debono refutes and place refernces to both. I fail to see why this is in any way stating that the origins are from either sources. I assert that it it DEFINITELY BIASED not to record this fact. to record that someone else claims that de bonos assertions of the origin are untrue and that he disputes this is purely a statement of fact. it is not defamatory and it does not accuse anyone of lying. frankly I'm frustrated with this now, theres plenty more material I can add to this page, by unless we resolve this I'm just going to go away and whistle a happy tune. its all well and good you citing WP:RS - all you are doing is supporting an already biased status quo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovationbrain (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is cited in the article on dr de bono on wikipedia, and as I wrote originally it is disputed - not definitively proven either way. the issue appears on both dr de bonos and dr gleesons web pages, each providing contrary statements, and neither producing any convincing evidence

I feel that it is important to highlight this controversy in order to apply pressure to both of these gentlemen to produce appropriate evidence and progress towards clarity and balance on this issue so that the general public may more effectivley establish the truth, and therefore have clarity about the copyright status and legitimate origins of this material. Clearly both gentlemen have vested interests in holding their positions, and it is likely that both of them played a part in the development of this idea. I suggest that both of the following lnks be appended until further evidence can be obtained

http://www.schoolofthinking.org/about/the-hats-the-origin-of-the-thinking-hats-idea/ http://www.edwarddebono.com/NewsDetail.php?news_id=69&

Reading them both I have formed my own judgements as to the likely truth of this matter, I believe that others should be able to form such judgements themselves also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.97.5 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Further information is provided elsewuere on hewit gleesons site and elswehere, however there is nothing conclusive that I can find. the issue has never bee settled in court and it appears that both men are profiting from applying and propogating this intellectual property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.97.5 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In the continuing absence of a source beyond Gleeson's own site, I have now removed the "Michael Hewitt-Gleeson claims that the method was initially developed during a brainstorming session he had with Edward de Bono and Eric Bienstock in 1983." sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased Title

its actually a fundamental issue - why is this termed de bono hats and not six thinking hats, aspecially given the controversy over their origins as indicated below. I consider that this page is most definitely biased on this basis.

the title should be changed to six thinking hats and the debate over origins should be included on the page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.0.5 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 October 2008‎

Requested move - old version

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus and Stale. . JPG-GR (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added considerable content to this reference now because I believe that this is an important entry and deserves full and detailed elaboration. I am a certified six hats facilitator. However I believe that this article is incorrectly titled. the title of the book is six thinking hats, the title of the training course is six thinking hats. they are delivered under the umbrella of "de Bono thinking systems"

I would really appreciate it if one of you wiki wizards would do something about this, since I do not have the power

this is especially important given the unresolved controversy over the origins of the method since it clearly makes this page non impartial thanks Innovationbrain (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Unsure that this proposed move is either harmful or helpful. It's probably not possible to say which of Six Thinking Hats or de Bono Hats is the more common name for these. Certainly Google would be a poor guide, there's so much on the web that refers to them and has an axe to grind, but my belief would be they're both acceptable names for this article, and both suffer equally from the controversy over de Bono's priority, as Six Thinking Hats is after all the title of his best-selling book on the subject.

Both this article and the Edward de Bono article need cleanup. My suggestion would be to do this first. Perhaps then a separate article, or at least a stub, at Six Thinking Hats would be appropriate, dealing specifically with de Bono's book by that name. But at present, the article is based on this one source anyway. And if in the process of developing the article we discover sufficient non-de Bono material to move it to a non-de-Bono name, I'd be skeptical that this move would be the one currently proposed. Does everyone else use exactly six hats? We might well find that thinking hats or thinking hat or something similar was a better title for the generic article, if indeed one is justified. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Six Thinking Hats would serve as the title of an article about the book and de Bono's system; when other sources of the idea (Isaac Bonewits?) are added, we can spin off an article on the dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, given that we don't appear to have a source that refers to them as "de Bono Hats". --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Further supporting arguments and detail There are four primary sources for this article as it is and as I intend to make it - doing a bit at a time. they are:
the book
the training notes (as provided by de bonos franchised training activities so an aputhentic approved source)
websites of and interviews with dr De Bono
websites of and interviews with dr Hewitt Gleeson (including school of thinking)

The title on the training notes front page is:
small type "Edward de Bono's"
Large type "Six Thinking Hats®"
mediume type "Tools for Rarallel Thinking®"

The slide rule that came with the training notes for quick reference is emblazoned with "Six Thinking Hats®"

For me this makes it pretty clear. However, the issue "does everyone use exactly the same hats" is relevant. Hewitt gleeson does methion a seventh hat - grey, representing experience. I would therefore propose on balance that the best home would be "thinking hats" within which the article would contain:

information on the method, its origins and practice,
information about how it is available (the book, the training from debono, the school of thinking articles)
details of the hats
details of the application method and associated tools
example programs or sequences

you may choose to have a separate page about the book as well as this - although I'd personally not find that interesting enough to contribute to

Innovationbrain (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

De Bono appears to refer to them simply as "Six Hats" in the text of his book (as far as I can skim it on Amazon). --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but the title of de Bono's book (1985 hardcover ISBN 0-316-17831-4 and softcover 1995) is Six Thinking Hats. And while his claim to have invented the technique is challenged, there's no question that he wrote the book by this title which popularised it. Andrewa (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but if this article is about the process rather than the book, and de Bono himself calls the process "Six Hats", then it's an argument for calling the article "Six Hats". --McGeddon (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move - reflection and consensus building

took my eye off the ball there and now its gone squirly!

In the book the term "six hats" is used, as is the term "six thinking hats" to describe the process. However, his official course materials call it "Six thinking hats" as I indicated above - that is the title given to the process and its associated training materials. That is what has been registered as a trademark.

The term "six hats" is used as shorthand in some elements of the book, and occasionally by practitioners of the process talking amongst themselves. However, when talking with someone who is not already aware of what it is the full title "six thinking hats" is invariably used.

"six hats" is a shorthand expression, and being less descriptive so of less value as a title(IMHO)

Tt should be "six thinking hats" since:
thats what all the official documentation calls it (book title, course documents, official tools
thats a non controversial name given the debate over origins
That is a full and descriptive title

So if you have a strong argument against making this move, in the face of this information, please make it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovationbrain (talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move revisited

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Six Thinking Hats --Aervanath (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

In light of the statement made above - just too late for the consensus process - and the fact that no response has been recieved since oct 08 I have requested a move of this page to address the issues outlined in the preceding statement "reflection and consensus building"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovationbrain (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 February 2009

• Support, as above - no source refers to them as "De Bono Hats". (Innovationbrain moved this article to "Six T", a phrase which isn't used in the article and which I assume was a typo - I've moved it back to "De Bono Hats" while the move is formally discussed.) --McGeddon (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks McGeddon, I Couldn't figure out how to undo that error...194.200.0.5 (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

White Hat example incorrect

In the example for White Hat thinking, under the classroom application the following example of White Hat thinking is presented.

'Students are not understanding the focused lecture due to lack of concentration'

I would like to challenge this as being White Hat thinking for the following reasons.

-This is an observation but not in itself the facts. An analogy to history would be that this is secondary evidence

-Not understanding seems too speculative to be White Hat without supporting evidence. Rather than state it that way it would be more objective to say 'test results are low with 80% of the class failing' or 'when questioned the students did not demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter'

-Claiming that something is 'due to' something else is not White Hat thinking. State the facts that let conclusions be drawn as a result of those facts.

I'd like to invite debate or suggestions on this. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

J

Papamidnite (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Papamidnite 11/05/2010

I agree - in fact I feel that the classroom article is not really a very clear example overall, and I would propose to remove all of the elements relating to it. I added the other examples in order to clarify the hats and to make the classroom elements redundant. I'd be happy to see them go. regards

Innovationbrain (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Underlying principles

The statements regarding the brains "distinct ways of thinking" is not part of Edward de Bonos arguemnt. In fact several of the hats are designed in such a way that you will get a serious headacke if you keep one of the hats on for more that a few minnuts - thinkink like is not "natural" and should be done only as it is taught by autorized trainer. Thus the hats requre a specific deliberate effort - the didactics for this is very specifick - and in case you should attempt to train your self to use the hats for a longer time your brain would probably take damage!! The hats has been desinged in such a way that if you use them as described here you will probably not get some very diffrent results than you expected....

For the benefit of future useres I suggest that this entire section is removed or rewiritten by someone that knows what Edwards work is about. --AssetDK (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The premise of the method is that the human brain thinks in a number of distinct ways which can be identified, deliberately accessed and hence planned for use in a structured way allowing one to develop strategies for thinking about particular issues. Dr de Bono identifies six distinct states in which the brain can be "sensitised". In each of these states the brain will identify and bring into conscious thought certain aspects of issues being considered (e.g. gut instinct, pessimistic judgment, neutral facts).

Diadactics and Design

This section really needs re-writing. It is not even close to the correct format. I don't know enough about the subject to correct it, but could someone please?

203.58.7.182 (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Texonidas 3/10/2011

Article Quality

I've shuffled around some of the content so that the narrative of the article is better. It seems sensible to me that an explanation about sequences of hats should come immediately after the section where hats are introduced. I've also removed the listing of sequences in response to a worry about original research posted by someone else - I didn't feel it added much and article (at least at it's current quality level) need not go into that specific level of detail. I feel there's a real lack of encyclopedic quality in the last few sections - there are no references and the text reads like an uncritical explanation, almost to the point where it could be teaching material for a course on this. If it were up to me I'd remove that content entirely - the rest of the article gives a good enough summary of what STH is without it. Someone probably cares about this more though. Jamesd (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific hats

A little tidying up of the redirects, DABs and perhaps hatnotes associated with this page is in order. Under way. See White hat, Red hat, Black hat, Yellow hat, Green hat and Blue hat for progress. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. One is a redir to this article, three are DABs or redirs to DABs, and two are redirs to other articles each with a hatnote to a DAB. All the DABs are MOSified and point here. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed comment on neural states

Removing claim: "Furthermore, de Bono asserts that these modes are associated with distinct chemical states of the brain. (reference is needed?) However, no details or evidence of this are presented in the book." - it does indeed need a reference if it stays in (but that shouldn't be marked on the page), but I'm not sure it's particularly useful to have the comment without some further discussion. So, it needs expanding and an attribution, or removing (which I have done) Goodwin57 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Summary" section isn't a summary at all

Not sure what to rename it to! Equinox (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How's that? Article still needs a lot of work though! Sjgknight (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

At a glance it looks much better. Thanks. Equinox (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Using hats to improve article

Let's use the green hat to improve the article about Six Thinking Hats. We can use lateral thinking (click to view the article on this) and set up a provocation of the escape type. We take for granted that people read the article on Six Thinking Hats so the provocation is "Po, noone reads the article." Let's use the movement technique "Extract a principle". RLee (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The extracted principle is that you don't need to write anything in the article. But you can add pictures, so this is the idea we have reached. RLee (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We can use the movement technique "Focus on the Difference". It takes less time not to read the article than to read it. (...) RLee (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Set of tools corresponding to all six thinking hats

The bulleted list in "Underlying Principles" is full of undefined acronyms (CAF, FIP, PMI) and concepts that are not explained.

Over at Coloured_hat there is a much clearer list that could be swapped in to replace the content in this entry.

   White hat – Facts & Information
   Red hat – Feelings & Emotions
   Black hat – Critical Judgement
   Yellow hat – Positive
   Green hat – New Ideas
   Blue hat – The Big Picture

I'm just not sure whether to fix or replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmyfowlkes (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

These definitions were added.Sandcherry (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)