Six thinking hats

The six thinking hats of nonadverserial discussion and individual thinking: (- de Bono)

Information: (White)
  • considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
Emotions (Red)
  • instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
Bad points judgment (Black)
  • logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers, seeking mismatch
Good points judgment (Yellow)
  • logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
Creativity (Green)
  • statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
Thinking (Blue)
  • thinking about thinking

put on all hats in parallel to think in parallel. ego + western culture- predilection towards black hat thinking = non-convergence of discussions.


Fichtean/Hegelian Dialectics is based on three (or four) basic concepts: Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians). Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions). Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change). Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles (sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation").[citation needed]

The aim of Dialectics is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion, and the search for truth.

Thesis + antithesis = synthesis = negation of negation. development proceeding in spirals, by leaps and breaks in continuity.

syād-asti – "in some ways it is" syād-nāsti - "in some ways it is not" syād-asti-nāsti - "in some ways it is and it is not" syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is and it is indescribable" syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable" syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable" syād-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is indescribable"

Jain dialectic: truth and reality is percieved differently from different points of view, we can only comprehend some aspects and manifestations, no one view can claim to represent the absolute truth.

points against dialecticism: putting up with contradictions, totalitarian modes of thought, undermining standards of intellectual responsibility?

Lateral thinking

not immediately obvious, indirect creative approach, reaching goals not obtainable by step-by-step logic.

polemic - disputing parties aim to establish superiority of own points. similar to debate: definite thesis + controversy. unlike debate: polemic does not seek common ground, but establish supremacy of single point of view.

Systems thinking

circular not linear, dynamic complex whole "more than sum of parts" emphasis on design : root cause analysis

systems analysis -> systems synthesis

"the world is systemic and is studied systematically" "the world is problematic and we study it systemically"

oscillating, chaotic or exponential behavior holistic system: interdependent temporally interacting parts systems are generally parts/holons of other systems.

The very notion of a problem is contingent on a human being perceiving it as such.

A systemic whole is directly related to the relationships of elements, in that our experience of such a relationship is as a whole. One of the significant characteristics of a system of this type is that there are properties of the whole that cannot be found in the elements. Meaning, for example, is not found in the properties of these letters you are reading.

That which is, is. No "systems" in nature. system: conceptual model for understanding, arbitrary boundry. For analysis, discussion, understanding. Arbitrary, without previous dependency not random or meaningless. Assumption: objective universe, subjective understanding. We see what we look at.

Elements relationships wholes and rules associated with a system.

hard systems: justifiably quantified, well-defined, optimum solution can't take into account unquantifiables, soft systems: unquantifiable: mulitiple conflicting frames of reference evolutionary systems: critical systems inquiry + soft systems methodology

critical tenents: Interdependence of objects/attributes holism: emergent properties not detectable by analysis goal seeking input output dependence of input and output entropy regulation - measure of necessary feedback hierarchy: smaller subsystems differentiation: specialization equifinality: convergence of alternate ways multifinality: divergence of alternative objectives from same inputs

7 stages of Soft Systems Methodology

entering the problem situation, expressing the problem situation, formulating root definitions of relevant systems, building Conceptual Models of Human Activity Systems, comparing the models with the real world, defining changes that are desirable and feasible, and taking action to improve the real world situation.

stake holders: client actors and owner

CATWOE:Clients Actors Transformation Worldview Owner Environment

Clients – Who are the beneficiaries or victims of this particular system? (Who would benefit or suffer from its operations?) Actors – Who are responsible for implementing this system? (Who would carry out the activities which make this system work?) Transformation – What transformation does this system bring about? (What are the inputs and what transformation do they go through to become the outputs?) Weltanschauung (or Worldview) – What particular worldview justifies the existence of this system? (What point of view makes this system meaningful?) Owner – Who has the authority to abolish this system or change its measures of performance? Environmental constraints – Which external constraints does this system take as a given? SSM makes nice bubble concept diagrams - seven bubbles ± 2 + monitor and control + maybe hundreds of bubbles?


system of problem resolution by contradiction analysis matrix of 40 priciples. substance-field analysis. 76 standard solutions, ARIZ algorithmic approach Ideal Final Result <=> Inventive solution Administrative Contradiction - needs vs abilities Technical Contradiction - inverse dependence between parameters Physical Contradiction - contradictory requirements to an object => separation of contradictory requirements; VePol/ SuField: substances(transmission+tool) in energy field

C-K: unified design theory

Knowledge space describes all objects and truths established from designer POV Concept: proposition without logical status in K-Space.

C->K K->C C->C K->K
Concept <-disjunction- Knowledge
 expansion             expansion
  |                       |
  v                       v
Concept -conjunction-> Knowledge

C-K makes nice Concept | Knowledge diagrams...

Boundary critique

both the meaning and the validity of professional propositions always depend on boundary judgments as to what 'facts' (observation) and 'norms' (valuation standards) are to be considered relevant" or not

multiple perspectives, interconnectedness. what is in, what is out.

Self-reflective boundary relating to the question "What are my boundary judgements?". Dialogical boundary relating to the question "Can we agree on our boundary judgements?". Controversial boundary relating to the question "Don't you claim too much?".