How to get rid of the stereotyped thinking imposed on us since childhood? Stereotypical thinking and its impact on human life.

Many years ago, when a person who owed money to someone could be thrown into debtor's prison, there lived a merchant in London who had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a certain usurer. The latter - old and ugly - fell in love with the young daughter of a merchant and offered this kind of deal: he would forgive the debt if the merchant gave his daughter for him.

The unfortunate father was horrified by such a proposal. Then the insidious moneylender suggested casting lots: put two stones, black and white, in an empty bag, and let the girl pull out one of them. If she pulls out a black stone, she will become his wife, but if she pulls out a white stone, she will remain with her father. In both cases, the debt will be considered repaid. If the girl refuses to draw lots, then her father will be thrown into a debtor's prison, and she herself will become food and die of hunger.

Reluctantly, very reluctantly, the merchant and his daughter agreed to this proposal. This conversation took place in the garden, on a gravel path. When the moneylender bent down to find the stones for the lot, the merchant's daughter noticed that he had put two black stones in the bag. He then asked the girl to pull out one of them, thus sealing her fate and that of her father.

Now imagine that you are standing on the garden path and you have to draw lots. What would you do if you were in the shoes of this unfortunate girl? Or what advice would you give her? What type of thinking would you use to solve this problem? You have the right to argue that a thorough logical analysis should help the girl find the optimal solution, if one exists. This type of thinking is pattern thinking. But there is another type of thinking - unconventional.

In this situation, stereotyped people are unlikely to be able to help the girl in any way, since, apparently, the method by which they could solve this problem has three possible options:

1) the girl should refuse to drag the pebble; 2) the girl should show that she knows the moneylender’s trick, and thus expose him as a fraudster; 3) the girl should pull out the black pebble and sacrifice herself to save her father.

All the proposed options are equally helpless, because if the girl refuses the lot, her father will be thrown into prison, but if she pulls out the pebble, she will have to marry the hated moneylender. This story shows the difference between conventional and unconventional thinking. Conventional people in this situation would focus their attention mainly on the pebble that the girl must pull out. However, people who think outside the box would probably direct their attention to the pebble that remains in the bag. Conventional thinkers choose the most reasonable position from their point of view, and then, developing it logically, try to solve the problem. As for those who think outside the box, they prefer to take a fresh look at the problem and examine it from different points of view, rather than sticking to a position they have once chosen.

Ecology of life: Some tips to help you abandon stereotyped thinking and look at problems or difficult situations from a different perspective...

The book Liminal Thinking talks about how to move beyond the boundaries of your beliefs in your personal and professional life.

Here are some tips to help you stop thinking and look at problems or difficult situations from a different perspective.

Getting rid of template thinking

Admit your bias

Many of the problems that business leaders want to solve are caused by their behavior.- at least partially (it happens that the managers themselves do not realize this). And if you have an intractable pressing problem that keeps making itself felt every now and then, start by admitting your own bias.

Most often this is what happens: we try to solve the problem as if looking at it from the outside. When a person talks about problems, he often points the finger at others, excluding himself from the situation. He constantly repeats the word “them” because “they” seem to be the problem.

But in most cases, “they” are not the only reason. Problems that remain unsolved for a long time are classified as systemic. And if you are part of this system, then inevitably you are also part of the problem.

The biggest blind spot is yourself

If you are not willing to pay attention to how much you personally contribute to the situation and how much the problem is caused by you, you will never have a clear picture of it. Your understanding of the situation will be distorted, as will your beliefs.

Listen to your emotions

Emotions are important and even necessary in order to make decisions about further actions. If you do not experience emotions, if the matter does not evoke any feelings in you, you will never come to a logical conclusion about the need for any action. You will have nothing to strive for.

You have needs. You work, shop, dine, etc. to meet your needs for food, water, or shelter. And if they are satisfied, other, more advanced ones appear: a better house, or a car, or a great goal and search for meaning.

“Leaving emotions at the door” is a dangerous idea. You cannot take off your emotions like outer clothing and leave them somewhere.

Empty your cup

The most common mistake when trying to change something is to assume that you have a good understanding of the situation. Sometimes some people see a problem one way and others another. And sometimes others don’t see the problem at all or see a completely different one.

To learn something new, you need to empty your cup, get rid of the excess: knowledge, teachings, beliefs and prejudices that hinder you. In Zen practice this is called "beginner's mind."

Having a “beginner’s mind” means awakening the desire to learn, becoming inquisitive, open to everything new. Even if you are an expert in some field, you begin to study the situation from scratch, rediscovering it for yourself, just as a beginner or a child would do.

Break the mold

We perform many actions automatically. Sometimes a problem seems insoluble to us because we act according to a pattern that we do not notice.

If you act not out of habit, but arbitrarily, without thinking through the course of events, then you can see the situation in a new light.

Think about how you work. Chances are, like many of us, you live on autopilot. Every day you drive the same route, see the same things along the way, and over time you stop noticing what surrounds you. But if suddenly the road is closed - for repairs or for some other reason - and you have to find a detour, you are forced to pay attention to everything new that is around you.

Chances are, you act the same way—on purpose—in a variety of areas. As soon as you realize that you are stuck and things are going in circles, try to change something. Any action you take to get out of a rut will help you see the situation differently and point you to new opportunities. Do something differently.published . If you have any questions about this topic, ask them to the experts and readers of our project .

Based on materials from the book “Liminal Thinking”

Many years ago, when a person who owed money to someone could be thrown into debtor's prison, there lived a merchant in London who had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a certain usurer. The latter - old and ugly - fell in love with the young daughter of a merchant and offered this kind of deal: he would forgive the debt if the merchant gave his daughter for him.

The unfortunate father was horrified by such a proposal. Then the insidious moneylender suggested casting lots: put two stones, black and white, in an empty bag, and let the girl pull out one of them. If she pulls out a black stone, she will become his wife, but if she pulls out a white stone, she will remain with her father. In both cases, the debt will be considered repaid. If the girl refuses to draw lots, then her father will be thrown into a debtor's prison, and she herself will become a beggar and die of hunger.

Reluctantly, very reluctantly, the merchant and his daughter agreed to this proposal. This conversation took place in the garden, on a gravel path. When the moneylender bent down to find the stones for the lot, the merchant's daughter noticed that he had put two black stones in the bag. He then asked the girl to pull out one of them, thus sealing her fate and that of her father.

Now imagine that you are standing on the garden path and you have to draw lots. What would you do if you were in the shoes of this unfortunate girl? Or what would you advise her?

What type of thinking would you use to solve this problem? You have the right to argue that a thorough logical analysis should help the girl find the optimal solution, if one exists. This type of thinking is pattern thinking. But there is another type of thinking - unconventional.

In this situation, stereotyped people are unlikely to be able to help the girl in any way, since, apparently, the method by which they could solve this problem has three possible options:

1) the girl should refuse to drag the pebble;

2) the girl must make clear that she knows the usurer’s cunning, and thus expose him as a swindler;

3) the girl can only pull out the black pebble and sacrifice herself to save her father.

All the proposed options are equally helpless, because if the girl refuses the lot, her father will be thrown into prison, but if she pulls out the pebble, she will have to marry the hated moneylender.

This story shows the difference between conventional and unconventional thinking. Conventional people in this situation would focus their attention mainly on the pebble that the girl must pull out. However, people who think outside the box would probably direct their attention to the pebble that remains in the bag. Conventional thinkers choose the most reasonable position from their point of view, and then, developing it logically, try to solve the problem. As for those who think outside the box, they prefer to take a fresh look at the problem and examine it from different points of view, rather than sticking to a position they have chosen.

So, the girl in the story with the pebbles put her hand into her bag, pulled out a pebble and, without looking at it, dropped it straight onto the gravel path, where the pebble was instantly lost.

“What a shame! - she exclaimed. - Well, yes, the matter can be fixed. After all, by the color of the remaining one, we will immediately find out what color the pebble was for me.”

And since the pebble remaining in the bag was, as you know, black; therefore, she could only pull out a white pebble. After all, a moneylender will not admit to his own fraud! This is how, by using unconventional thinking, the girl not only got out of a seemingly hopeless situation, but, moreover, found herself in an even better position than before. For if the moneylender had played a fair game, putting black and white pebbles in the bag, the girl would have had an equal chance of both salvation and death. Now she has avoided an unwanted marriage and paid off her father's debt.

Template thinking has always been the only revered way of thinking. Logic, as an extreme form of such thinking, was extolled as a model worthy of imitation. It did not take into account how serious its shortcomings were. The best example of the limitations of formulaic logical thinking is provided by computers. The software engineer clearly defines the problem and indicates the method by which this problem should be solved. Then the computer, on a rigid, logical basis, begins to solve it. The smooth transition of template thinking from one reliable step to another is fundamentally different from unconventional thinking.

Let's take, for example, a set of children's blocks and begin to place the cubes one on top of the other so that each cube stands firmly and steadily on the bottom one. We will get a clear illustration of the functioning of template thinking. If we scatter the cubes in disarray, we get an example of unconventional thinking. The cubes can be connected to each other in any way you like or not connected at all. However, the resulting pattern may be just as useful as a vertically erected building.

Unconventional thinking is easier to capture when it is shown in action, as in the story of the pebbles. Everyone has had to deal with problems that seem impossible to solve, until suddenly a surprisingly simple solution is discovered. And once a solution is found, it immediately becomes so obvious that one can only wonder how it never came to mind before. And in fact, problems of this kind are apparently difficult to solve as long as formulaic thinking is used to solve them.

Out-of-the-box thinking is not only about solving problems, it also has to deal with new ways of looking at things and new ideas of all sorts.

If a story similar to the story with the pebbles were immediately told from beginning to end, thus conveying its solution, then the listeners, apparently, would only grin - it would seem so trivial to them. And only if you give the listeners the opportunity to try to find a solution themselves, it becomes obvious that this is not at all easy. Even in the most successful examples of lateral thinking, the solution becomes logically obvious only after it has already been found. And the fact that it was found in an unconventional way is quickly forgotten. As soon as there is already a solution, there are immediately a lot of people who want to explain how it could just as easily be obtained using template thinking. Knowing the answer, it is quite easy to discover the logical connection between the problem and its solution.

A subject in a state of hypnotic trance can be instructed to behave in the most strange manner after emerging from the trance. When the time comes, the subject performs the hypnologist's tasks, which may include, for example, opening an umbrella in the living room, giving everyone a glass of milk, or getting on all fours and barking like a dog. If you ask why a subject behaves in such a strange way, he will immediately give a completely reasonable explanation, convincingly demonstrating the power of rationalization. And although all participants in the experiment know perfectly well the true reason for the subject’s strange behavior, he can give it such a reasonable explanation that it will convince any inexperienced person.

When a solution to a problem has already been found through lateral thinking, it is quite possible (and there is nothing wrong with that) to give it a rational explanation. The only danger is that since the template path to solving a problem can be traced retrospectively, it seems that with the help of template thinking you can solve any problem with the same ease as with non- template thinking.

One of the techniques of unconventional thinking is the deliberate use of the rationalizing ability of the mind. Instead of moving step by step in the usual, patterned way, you take a new, completely arbitrary position. Then you work your way back and try to recreate a logical path between your new position and your starting point. The possibility of such a path should ultimately be tested with all logical rigor. If your path turned out to be quite logical, you are in the right position, which you would never have taken using stereotyped thinking. If this arbitrarily chosen position turns out to be logically incorrect, you somehow acquired a number of useful new ideas by trying to establish its correctness.

Some are so carried away by the idea of ​​unconventional thinking that they begin to constantly use it instead of template thinking. The majority generally reject unconventional thinking, believing that for them one template, logical one is quite enough. In fact, both types of thinking do not exclude, but complement each other; they are said to be complementary. In the case when it is not possible to solve a problem with stereotyped thinking or when the need for a new idea arises, unconventional thinking should be used. New ideas depend on thinking outside the box, because the very nature of box thinking has limitations that make it ineffective for such purposes. At the same time, the limitations of template thinking also have their positive sides.

The functional organization of the brain, being an optimizing system, forces it to interpret any situation in the most probable way. The degree of probability is determined by experience and the requirements of the moment. Template thinking operates with high probabilities; without it, everyday life would be impossible. Any sensation or action would have to be analyzed most carefully, since it would always need evidence. Just as a centipede, possessing “self-awareness,” would not know which foot to start moving from, so a person, due to the complexity and confusion of the environment around him, could not begin to act. The task of thinking is precisely to provide the opportunity to take action based on a conscious situation. This becomes possible only when the most likely interpretation of a situation prompts the most effective action.

Just as water, flowing down the side of a mountain, digs out an ever deeper channel for itself, so patterned thinking, following the path of the highest probability, gradually increases the degree of probability of this path. If template thinking is the most highly probabilistic, then unconventional thinking operates with low probabilities. To change the direction of water flow, you need to deliberately dig a new channel, or block the old one with dams in the hope that the water will find new and much more convenient ways to flow. Sometimes even river water has to be driven up using pumps. When a non-probability line of thought leads to a new, more powerful idea, a heuristic moment occurs whereby the non-probability approach to solving a problem instantly becomes the highest probability. This is exactly the moment when the water, laboriously lifted upward by the pump, overflows and immediately begins to flow freely. Reaching this point is the goal of thinking outside the box.

Since divergent thinking is aimed at new ideas, it probably should be classified as creative thinking. Creative thinking is a special type of lateral thinking that covers a broader area. In some cases, the results of unconventional thinking are ingenious creations, in others they are nothing more than simply a new way of looking at things, and therefore something less significant than genuine creativity. In most cases, creative thinking requires talent to manifest itself, while lateral thinking is available to anyone who is interested in obtaining new ideas.

In this article, we do not consider creative thinking in the field of art as an example of unconventional thinking, since any assessment of the results of activities in the field of art and literature is very subjective. It is much easier to demonstrate the effectiveness of unconventional thinking using the example of the invention of any mechanical device - after all, it either works or it doesn’t. In this case, it is also easy to establish the degree of effectiveness of solving a particular problem through unconventional thinking. Evaluating creative achievements in the field of art is a matter of taste and fashion.

The further unconventional thinking deviates from the logical laws of template thinking, the more it seems to approach madness. Perhaps unconventional thinking is simply a form of temporary and deliberate insanity? Is low probability thinking different from the disordered associations of a person with schizophrenia? One of the most characteristic features of schizophrenia is a fragmented, moth-like thinking that easily jumps from one thought to another. If someone wanted to step away from the obvious view of things for a while, then why not use psychedelic drugs for this? The main difference between unconventional thinking and the thinking of mentally ill people is that with unconventional thinking, the entire thinking process is strictly controlled and managed. If unconventional thinking prefers to use chaos, then this is controlled chaos, and not chaos as a consequence of the lack of control. Along with this, the logical faculty of the mind always involves carefully developing and ultimately evaluating a new idea whenever it appears. The difference between template and unconventional thinking is that with template thinking, logic controls the mind, whereas with unconventional thinking, it serves it. Does a person’s ability to think invariably, or do his abilities depend on his interest and opportunities for their development? Only a small number of people have a natural inclination to think outside the box, but anyone can develop certain skills in this kind of thinking if they want. Typically, Orthodox education does not set itself the goal of developing unconventional thinking skills in a person. Moreover, it deliberately impedes their development by tailoring its requirements to the exam framework.

Unconventional thinking is not some kind of magic formula that, once memorized, can be successfully applied in the future. It is just a habit, a mindset. The various techniques described below are provided to introduce the reader to the process of thinking outside the box;

They do not pretend to solve all problems. And there cannot be a sudden transition from belief in the omnipotence of template thinking to belief in the absolute usefulness of unconventional thinking. Thinking outside the box is a matter of knowledge and practice, not revelation.

Edward de Bono, "Using Lateral Thinking"

Chapter 1. Template and unconventional thinking

Many years ago, when a person who owed money to someone could be thrown into debtor's prison, there lived a merchant in London who had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a certain usurer. The latter - old and ugly - fell in love with the young daughter of a merchant and offered this kind of deal: he would forgive the debt if the merchant gave his daughter for him.

The unfortunate father was horrified by such a proposal. Then the insidious moneylender suggested casting lots: put two stones, black and white, in an empty bag, and let the girl pull out one of them. If she pulls out a black stone, she will become his wife, but if she pulls out a white stone, she will remain with her father. In both cases, the debt will be considered repaid. If the girl refuses to draw lots, then her father will be thrown into a debtor's prison, and she herself will become food and die of hunger.

Reluctantly, very reluctantly, the merchant and his daughter agreed to this proposal. This conversation took place in the garden, on a gravel path. When the moneylender bent down to find the stones for the lot, the merchant's daughter noticed that he had put two black stones in the bag. He then asked the girl to pull out one of them, thus sealing her fate and that of her father.

Now imagine that you are standing on the garden path and you have to draw lots. What would you do if you were in the shoes of this unfortunate girl? Or what would you advise her?

What type of thinking would you use to solve this problem? You have the right to argue that a thorough logical analysis should help the girl find the optimal solution, if one exists. This type of thinking is pattern thinking. But there is another type of thinking - unconventional.

In this situation, stereotyped people are unlikely to be able to help the girl in any way, since, apparently, the method by which they could solve this problem has three possible options:

1) the girl should refuse to drag the pebble;

2) the girl must make clear that she knows the usurer’s cunning, and thus expose him as a swindler;

3) the girl can only pull out the black pebble and sacrifice herself to save her father.

All the proposed options are equally helpless, because if the girl refuses the lot, her father will be thrown into prison, but if she pulls out the pebble, she will have to marry the hated moneylender.

This story shows the difference between conventional and unconventional thinking. Conventional people in this situation would focus their attention mainly on the pebble that the girl must pull out. However, people who think outside the box would probably direct their attention to the pebble that remains in the bag. Conventional thinkers choose the most reasonable position from their point of view, and then, developing it logically, try to solve the problem. As for those who think outside the box, they prefer to take a fresh look at the problem and examine it from different points of view, rather than sticking to a position they have chosen.

So, the girl in the story with the pebbles put her hand into her bag, pulled out a pebble and, without looking at it, dropped it straight onto the gravel path, where the pebble was instantly lost.

What a shame! - she exclaimed. - Well, yes, the matter can be fixed. After all, by the color of the remaining one, we will immediately find out what color the pebble got to me.

And since the pebble remaining in the bag was, as you know, black; therefore, she could only pull out a white pebble. After all, a moneylender will not admit to his own fraud! This is how, by using unconventional thinking, the girl not only got out of a seemingly hopeless situation, but, moreover, found herself in an even better position than before. For if the moneylender had played a fair game, putting black and white pebbles in the bag, the girl would have had an equal chance of both salvation and death. Now she has avoided an unwanted marriage and paid off her father's debt.

Template thinking has always been the only revered way of thinking. Logic, as an extreme form of such thinking, was extolled as a model worthy of imitation. It did not take into account how serious its shortcomings were. The best example of the limitations of formulaic logical thinking is provided by computers. The software engineer clearly defines the problem and indicates the method by which this problem should be solved. Then the computer, on a rigid, logical basis, begins to solve it. The smooth transition of template thinking from one reliable step to another is fundamentally different from unconventional thinking.

Let's take, for example, a set of children's blocks and begin to place the cubes one on top of the other so that each cube stands firmly and steadily on the bottom one. We will get a clear illustration of the functioning of template thinking. If we scatter the cubes in disarray, we get an example of unconventional thinking. The cubes can be connected to each other in any way you like or not connected at all. However, the pattern that may be obtained may turn out to be just as useful as a vertically erected building.

Unconventional thinking is easier to capture when it is shown in action, as in the story of the pebbles. Everyone has had to deal with problems that seem impossible to solve, until suddenly a surprisingly simple solution is discovered. And once a solution is found, it immediately becomes so obvious that one can only wonder how it never came to mind before. And in fact, problems of this kind are apparently difficult to solve as long as formulaic thinking is used to solve them.

Out-of-the-box thinking is not only about solving problems, it also has to deal with new ways of looking at things and new ideas of all sorts.

If a story similar to the story with the pebbles were immediately told from beginning to end, thus conveying its solution, then the listeners, apparently, would only grin - it would seem so trivial to them. And only if you give the listeners the opportunity to try to find a solution themselves, it becomes obvious that this is not at all easy. Even in the most successful examples of lateral thinking, the solution becomes logically obvious only after it has already been found. And the fact that it was found in an unconventional way is quickly forgotten. As soon as there is already a solution, there are immediately a lot of people who want to explain how it could just as easily be obtained using template thinking. Knowing the answer, it is quite easy to discover the logical connection between the problem and its solution.

A subject in a state of hypnotic trance can be instructed to behave in the most strange manner after emerging from the trance. When the time comes, the subject performs the hypnologist's tasks, which may include, for example, opening an umbrella in the living room, giving everyone a glass of milk, or getting on all fours and barking like a dog. If you ask why a subject behaves in such a strange way, he will immediately give a completely reasonable explanation, convincingly demonstrating the power of rationalization. And although all participants in the experiment know perfectly well the true reason for the subject’s strange behavior, he can give it such a reasonable explanation that it will convince any inexperienced person.

When a solution to a problem has already been found through lateral thinking, it is quite possible (and there is nothing wrong with that) to give it a rational explanation. The only danger is that since the template path to solving a problem can be traced retrospectively, it seems that with the help of template thinking you can solve any problem with the same ease as with non- template thinking.

One of the techniques of unconventional thinking is the deliberate use of the rationalizing ability of the mind. Instead of moving step by step in the usual, patterned way, you take a new, completely arbitrary position. Then you work your way back and try to recreate a logical path between your new position and your starting point. The possibility of such a path should ultimately be tested with all logical rigor. If your path turned out to be quite logical, you are in the right position, which you would never have taken using stereotyped thinking. If this arbitrarily chosen position turns out to be logically incorrect, you somehow acquired a number of useful new ideas by trying to establish its correctness.

Some are so carried away by the idea of ​​unconventional thinking that they begin to constantly use it instead of template thinking. The majority generally reject unconventional thinking, believing that for them one template, logical one is quite enough. In fact, both types of thinking do not exclude, but complement each other; they are said to be complementary. In the case when it is not possible to solve a problem with stereotyped thinking or when the need for a new idea arises, unconventional thinking should be used. New ideas depend on thinking outside the box, because the very nature of box thinking has limitations that make it ineffective for such purposes. At the same time, the limitations of template thinking also have their positive sides: the functional organization of the brain, being an optimizing system, forces it to interpret any situation in the most probable way. The degree of probability is determined by experience and the requirements of the moment. Template thinking operates with high probabilities; without it, everyday life would be impossible. Any sensation or action would have to be analyzed most carefully, since it would always need evidence. Just as a centipede, possessing self-awareness, would not know which foot to start moving from, so a person, due to the complexity and confusion of the environment around him, could not begin to act. The task of thinking is precisely to provide the opportunity to take action based on a conscious situation. This becomes possible only when the most likely interpretation of a situation prompts the most effective action.

Just as water, flowing down the side of a mountain, digs out an ever deeper channel for itself, so patterned thinking, following the path of the highest probability, gradually increases the degree of probability of this path. If template thinking is the most highly probable, then unconventional thinking operates with low probabilities. To change the direction of water flow, you need to deliberately dig a new channel, or block the old one with dams in the hope that the water will find new and much more convenient ways to flow. Sometimes even river water has to be driven up using pumps. When a non-probability line of thought leads to a new, more powerful idea, a heuristic moment occurs whereby the non-probability approach to solving a problem instantly becomes the highest probability. This is exactly the moment when the water, laboriously lifted upward by the pump, overflows and immediately begins to flow freely.

Reaching this point is the goal of thinking outside the box.

Since divergent thinking is aimed at new ideas, it probably should be classified as creative thinking. Creative thinking is a special type of lateral thinking that covers a broader area. In some cases, the results of unconventional thinking are ingenious creations, in others they are nothing more than simply a new way of looking at things, and therefore something less significant than genuine creativity. In most cases, creative thinking requires talent to manifest itself, while lateral thinking is available to anyone who is interested in obtaining new ideas.

In this book, we do not consider creative thinking in the field of art as an example of unconventional thinking, since any assessment of the results of activities in the field of art and literature is very subjective. It is much easier to demonstrate the effectiveness of unconventional thinking using the example of the invention of any mechanical device - after all, it either works or it doesn’t. In this case, it is also easy to establish the degree of effectiveness of solving a particular problem through unconventional thinking. Evaluating creative achievements in the field of art is a matter of taste and fashion.

The further unconventional thinking deviates from the logical laws of template thinking, the more it seems to approach madness. Perhaps unconventional thinking is simply a form of temporary and deliberate insanity? Is low probability thinking different from the disordered associations of a person with schizophrenia? One of the most characteristic features of schizophrenia is a fragmented, moth-like thinking that easily jumps from one thought to another. If someone wanted to step away from the obvious view of things for a while, then why not use psychedelic drugs for this? The main difference between unconventional thinking and the thinking of mentally ill people is that with unconventional thinking, the entire thinking process is strictly controlled and managed. If unconventional thinking prefers to use chaos, then this is controlled chaos, and not chaos as a consequence of the lack of control. Along with this, the logical faculty of the mind always involves carefully developing and ultimately evaluating a new idea whenever it appears. The difference between template and unconventional thinking is that with template thinking, logic controls the mind, whereas with unconventional thinking, it serves it. Does a person’s ability to think invariably, or do his abilities depend on his interest and opportunities for their development? Only a small number of people have a natural inclination to think outside the box, but anyone can develop certain skills in this kind of thinking if they want.

Typically, Orthodox education does not set itself the goal of developing unconventional thinking skills in a person. Moreover, it deliberately impedes their development by tailoring its requirements to the exam framework.

Unconventional thinking is not some kind of magic formula that, once memorized, can be successfully applied in the future. It is just a habit, a mindset.

The various techniques described below are provided to introduce the reader to the process of thinking outside the box; they do not pretend to solve all problems. And there cannot be a sudden transition from belief in the omnipotence of template thinking to belief in the absolute usefulness of unconventional thinking. Thinking outside the box is a matter of knowledge and practice, not revelation.

Chapter 22 THINKING This chapter examines the three main uses of mind maps in expressing your own thoughts in writing, such as preparing and writing essays, exam papers, projects and reports. Writing essays at that time