In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about human nature and the meaning of “the human journey” and this information challenges the institutions that we have created based on many of these assumptions – our educational institutions, our business practices and our Governing Institutions. So could our new coalition Government with its brief beyond traditional Party Dogma be a seed for the start of such a revolution in our thinking?
On 05.17.10, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about [...]
On 11.15.09, In Know-What/Why, Me, by Barry Mapp
For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.
For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known [...]
For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.
For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known and respected are you a Leader? Maybe these are necessary characteristics but surely not sufficient.
A Thought leader in my book will be someone well differentiated from a trusted “Thought Follower”.
This means that every true “Thought Leader” must also be an iconoclast in their field. Most Blogs for example are full of interesting content but nearly all reflecting the thoughts of others or opinions about thoughts of others. The Thought Leaders will be the one’s who are challenging much of the current thought, not simply regurgitating it.
When Einstein said that we won’t solve the problems of today by the same thinking that created the problems, he was obviously suggesting that in order to solve the chronic problems of the day we need to think differently and from a higher, wider or different perspective. Not “more of the same” thinking or “this worked for me thinking” or the “solution is obvious thinking”.
It’s interesting how many of my “Thought Leaders” are, or were, Physicists. It was Bohm for example who devised a way (Bohm’s Dialogue) of allowing new thoughts and new solutions to emerge from a group. It was Deming who identified that Western Management not worker malaise was the biggest threat to continual improvement in Business. It was Eli Goldratt and his Theory of Constraints that helped manufacturers remove broken links from their value chains and improve performance and profits. Each of these Physicists were looking at issues from outside of the current paradigm. And of course Einstein was a Physicist as well.
So how many people calling themselves “Thought Leader” could also be described as “Iconoclast” coming up with thinking that challenges the grey cells? For me a Thought Leader will be someone – if they do nothing else- makes you stop and think! Also an Iconoclast Thought Leader is unlikely to be “thinking with the majority” and therefore will not always be popular.
Oh and someone has just asked me “Are you a Thought Leader”? Well I’ll let you decide. Here are some of my recent ramblings intended to make you think about your thinking and to signpost possible different directions that your thinking could take in order to find new solutions
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/it-strikes-me-that-a-lot-of-wh/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/iconoclasts-stand-a-very-good/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/thinking-in-different-ways-2/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/what-makes-a-“creation-company”/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/08/how-rewards-sabotage-creativity/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/10/unintended-consequences-what-do-very-large-bonuses-attract/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/11/bonus-culture-proud-to-win-a-cabbage-not-the-cash/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/235/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/three-new-words-for-the-21st-century/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/lessons-for-science-from-the-mesmer-experience/
http://barrymapp.com/?s=thought+leader
On 07.16.09, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp
Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find [...]
Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find long-term effective solutions.
“We cannot solve the problems of today with the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place”
Albert Einstein (He said words to this effect many times over his lifetime)
What did Einstein mean by this? Well I guess using my terminology from the previous few blogs on this topic he did not mean crowing cockerel thinking, nor flat world thinking, not even earth around the sun thinking. Neither of these three ways of thinking would cut the mustard for Einstein.
So lets look at three further levels of thinking that would ‘cut the mustard’
Here are the three levels of thinking that our human brain was wired to do, ways of thinking that clearly differentiate us from the abilities of reptiles and other mammals.
(1) “Out from my Existing World” Thinking
This is thinking where the thinker takes a (one dimensional) step out from their current set of beliefs (or paradigm) about how the world (and everything in it) works. So rather than staying ‘imprisoned’ within the assumptions, beliefs, and theories of the existing system (my current world) to take a step outside/above and look from a different viewpoint or perspective. This level of thinking is sometimes described as ‘out of the box’ or ‘lateral’ thinking
(2) Multiple Perspectives Thinking (MPT)
MPT occurs when you can suspend you existing assumptions and start to scan ‘reality’ from multiple perspectives or ‘viewing points’. For example when you are in dispute with someone you can look to hold three different perspectives in your head and view the situation from each. What is your thinking on this issue, what are the likely thoughts the other person has, and what would a third person who no axe to grind think about this situation. By viewing this issue from three perspectives gives insights not possible from just one. Anyone acquainted with W. Edward Deming’s ‘System of Profound Knowledge’ will appreciate that Deming created a tool that let’s us view any issue through the lens of four different perspectives. When we do this we get a good sense of the unintended consequences that we might ‘cause’ by simply taking a ‘one perspective’ viewpoint.
This type of thinking is greatly enhanced when we are in multilogue. Here we listen and share information in a particular way and sitting with people who hold widely differing perspectives. Everyone in the room suspends their existing assumptions and then as the multilogue progresses they seek to hold the totality of thoughts and ideas in their heads. And then (and only then) from a state of nothingness (shown by absolute silence) there begins to emerge through the vehicle of the group, new thoughts and ideas. In a society that is not used to sitting in the silence, multilogue is tricky to achieve (Many of us seem to be threatened by it)
However there are however tools and techniques that will allow us to achieve this type of thinking whilst working on our own and Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is one such tool.
(3) Meta-Thinking
This is our ability to think about thinking. To be able to think and to challenge our own thinking and the thinking of others. It appears that we are the only life-form on this planet to be able to ‘meta-think’ and it is this one ability that has made us so successful. All the great major breakthroughs in human advancement have come about through this ability. We cannot achieve any of the other five levels of thinking without having this ability. Yet what are we most likely to do when we have a problem? Think-about-our-thinking or sit and watch a reality TV programme?
It is sad to know that the three levels of thinking described here (each of which lift our abilities above that of reptiles and mammals) are so rarely used to focus and seek solutions to the challenges we have today. Einstein would not be happy. If you live in the midlands and you want to jump-start your thinking and creative ability I have some upcoming workshops on these topics in Birmingham and Worcestershire
Coming Next: Black and White thinking – the curse of our society
On 07.07.09, In Me, by Barry Mapp
On Science and Healing (2)
(adapted from an article “The Science of Healing and the Healing of Science” published in Resource Magazine September 2005, Author: Barry Mapp)
Most people would agree that science has rarely taken healing and healers seriously. Therefore science has never properly researched or investigated the phenomena that may be at work.
Science therefore has [...]
On Science and Healing (2)
(adapted from an article “The Science of Healing and the Healing of Science” published in Resource Magazine September 2005, Author: Barry Mapp)
Most people would agree that science has rarely taken healing and healers seriously. Therefore science has never properly researched or investigated the phenomena that may be at work.
Science therefore has a major “blind-spot” in its knowledge base, possibly ignorant of a whole range of naturally occurring subtle phenomena that happen within and between living things. Coincidently, science appears “stuck” between two apparently conflicting paradigms.
On the one hand the science writers tell us how Quantum Ideas have long replaced Newtonian Thinking. On the other hand, at the cultural and grass roots level of scientific research and practice (particularly the biological sciences), we see that this “old” paradigm is still predominant.
Little has changed since the 1700’s when healers were often labelled as witches or charlatans. At the start of the 21st century we appear a little more accepting of healing though not because of scientific understanding or study, but rather through positive patient experiences and “word of mouth” testimonial.
So today we can see healers at work in Hospice or Cancer Care Units, but rarely in medical and surgical wards, where the healers could potentially save the NHS millions, if not billions, of pounds a year.