This book comes across as arrogant and lazy. De Bono labours his point over and over until it sounds a bit like a primary school principal discplining kids. Material is often repeated throughout the book and the writing is sketchy and jumps over the place. It's like he jotted down some ideas and mashed them together into a book. This is his first book I've read but I sincerely hope his other books are better written. The most disappointing and ironic thing is that he states in the book that perception is important, yet he has obviously not paid any attention to how his words will be perceived by the readers!
I began with that crushing criticism because it's warranted and seems like a lack of respect to readers who spend money to buy his book, but there are some good ideas in the book if you haven't heard of De Bono or his ideas before. I first came into contact with De Bono as a primary school kid where we were trained in the Six Thinking Hats and some perception thinking skills. I actually use some of his techniques myself, I certain think having a "software" as he calls it, or a method to approach thinking is a good idea.
His main point of the book is to convince readers that challening our way of thinking is to paraphrase, more important an issue than climate change. He argues that traditional thinking is based on that of the G3 - three famous philosophers Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. He says that critical thinking is based on judgement, and hence is not good enough by itself, because it closes our minds to other possibilities.
However as mentioned before he does himself a huge disservice through his writing style. His main source of evidence are anecdotal examples used to illustrate how effective his system of thinking works. He doesn't reference and doesn't cite sources, because he feels he doesn't need to as the ideas are his own. I appreciate the point he is making, good ideas don't need to conform to traditional academic or educational structures, however it does make his points less convincing.
I think he would have been better off if he had used the examples of "bad thinking" (my term) and shown some better ideas that he had thought up which were practical. He does this at least once in the book for democracy but I was very underwhelmed by his idea. Of course he is not suggestion he is the bastion of creativity, but rather than his technique can help people be more creative.
I think there is value in looking at creativity and thinking from his perspective. He has a lot of practical tools for improving thinking, but they are covered in other books of his. He tends to oversell a bit in this book and as a result I would say that there are probably better De Bono books out there for someone who is genuinely interested in improving their brain/ creativity power.
Overall a rating 3 out of 5, a solid enough introduction to what he is about.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Sing
Sing
Sing a long a ling-ling
Time to put on some bling bling
See if we can't flaunt the flaunt the flaunt
Sing
Smile
Smile when the road stops
when we meet the crest and pop!
and take the plunge
Smile
Laugh
Laugh a loud
meet a crowd
See if we can spot a cow
Laugh
Dance
Twirls in silence
Twirls of wonder
See if we can't spin beyond the world
Dance
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Perception - Australian Politics
Perception is important. It defines our thought process, our feelings and emotions onto any given event. The recent climate tax "debate" in Australia shows a lot about perception in Australian society. The perception can be deduced that the country is polarised in some ways between the "climate change deniers" and "leftist hippies". Of course the reality is much different, but its helpful for the press and those they serve to portray it in this manner.
The shallowness of the debate (and Australian politics in general) can be seen when you see posters like "Bob Brown's Bitch". The reality is those people (on both sides) have very little knowledge of climate change, the economics behind the climate "tax". Instead they rely on their self constructed perceptions of the world to form their opinions on this matter. And in truth, that is how we construct all realities.
Those that belief that climate change is a hoax, are often the ones that hate asylum seekers, and often the ones that are against immigration. Personally I think this reflect their negative personalities. These people are often older, people who have struggled and are bitter at how things have gone. Their perception is tightly wrapped around their personal identities as "real" Australians. These people are typically of lower socio-economic standing, although that is not necessarily always the case. It is sufficient to associate yourself with this "class".
They are, let's face it, not having the greatest time after the GFC (who is, apart from our corporate overlords?) This group of people have legitimate reason to question why things seem to be getting tougher and tougher for them. And the scapegoat is often on things/people they don't understand. You fear what you don't understand. So hence the antagonistic response to immigrants, asylum seekers, and most recently, climate change.
This identity is exploited by the Liberal party, who claims to champion their cause. The perception suits. This is the conservative backwards looking party, whose most successful leader modeled himself after the previous most successful leader, who served in a completely different era. This is the party that has no new ideas, but draws on Australia's mythical golden past. Such ideas are attractive to those who resist change. This perception is helpful - it helps blind the people whilst the real people in power, behind the media and large corporations, make their profits.
I mean a good example of policy working in contrast to perception is that this is the Liberal party that offered tax cut after tax cut to these people. It's a wonderful vote earning technique, except it doesn't make too much economic sense. The reality of course, is those tax cuts, have cost Australia in the form of public infrastructure, roads, hospitals. Things that are then blamed on state governments. The Liberal party federally could not lose as they couldn't be blamed for problems they help cause. The perception however, that the Liberal party is one that gives back, was very helpful for them to retain power.
On the other side, perception is that Labor is generally the more "socially" equitable of the two parties. The problem has been that Labor has been a victim of its own perception. Those on the left find it too centrist. Those on the right perceive it as too hippy. Hence Labor seems to be either/ or. It doesn't seem to fit.
Rudd won on the perception that he was the socially equitable prime minister that was willing to tackle social issues and make Australia more equitable. This is the same campaign waged by Obama in America. The perception of "change" helped both these leaders win elections. It can be said that the reality of Rudd and Obama was quite different to the perception of them.
This is the state of modern politics. As long as the people perceive you as representing their ideals and values, then you have their vote. This is why democracy doesn't work. It's about selling the political iamge to convince 50.1% of people to vote for you every 3 years or so. The real issues and problems behind them don't matter. What counts is perception.
My words are summed up perfectly (better in fact) by this cartoon.
The shallowness of the debate (and Australian politics in general) can be seen when you see posters like "Bob Brown's Bitch". The reality is those people (on both sides) have very little knowledge of climate change, the economics behind the climate "tax". Instead they rely on their self constructed perceptions of the world to form their opinions on this matter. And in truth, that is how we construct all realities.
Those that belief that climate change is a hoax, are often the ones that hate asylum seekers, and often the ones that are against immigration. Personally I think this reflect their negative personalities. These people are often older, people who have struggled and are bitter at how things have gone. Their perception is tightly wrapped around their personal identities as "real" Australians. These people are typically of lower socio-economic standing, although that is not necessarily always the case. It is sufficient to associate yourself with this "class".
They are, let's face it, not having the greatest time after the GFC (who is, apart from our corporate overlords?) This group of people have legitimate reason to question why things seem to be getting tougher and tougher for them. And the scapegoat is often on things/people they don't understand. You fear what you don't understand. So hence the antagonistic response to immigrants, asylum seekers, and most recently, climate change.
This identity is exploited by the Liberal party, who claims to champion their cause. The perception suits. This is the conservative backwards looking party, whose most successful leader modeled himself after the previous most successful leader, who served in a completely different era. This is the party that has no new ideas, but draws on Australia's mythical golden past. Such ideas are attractive to those who resist change. This perception is helpful - it helps blind the people whilst the real people in power, behind the media and large corporations, make their profits.
I mean a good example of policy working in contrast to perception is that this is the Liberal party that offered tax cut after tax cut to these people. It's a wonderful vote earning technique, except it doesn't make too much economic sense. The reality of course, is those tax cuts, have cost Australia in the form of public infrastructure, roads, hospitals. Things that are then blamed on state governments. The Liberal party federally could not lose as they couldn't be blamed for problems they help cause. The perception however, that the Liberal party is one that gives back, was very helpful for them to retain power.
On the other side, perception is that Labor is generally the more "socially" equitable of the two parties. The problem has been that Labor has been a victim of its own perception. Those on the left find it too centrist. Those on the right perceive it as too hippy. Hence Labor seems to be either/ or. It doesn't seem to fit.
Rudd won on the perception that he was the socially equitable prime minister that was willing to tackle social issues and make Australia more equitable. This is the same campaign waged by Obama in America. The perception of "change" helped both these leaders win elections. It can be said that the reality of Rudd and Obama was quite different to the perception of them.
This is the state of modern politics. As long as the people perceive you as representing their ideals and values, then you have their vote. This is why democracy doesn't work. It's about selling the political iamge to convince 50.1% of people to vote for you every 3 years or so. The real issues and problems behind them don't matter. What counts is perception.
My words are summed up perfectly (better in fact) by this cartoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)