Brilliant Thinkers Relish Ambiguity

Brilliant Thinkers Relish Ambiguity

Brilliant thinkers are very comfortable with ambiguity – they welcome it. Routine thinkers like clarity and simplicity; they dislike ambiguity. There is a tendency in our society to reduce complex issues down to simple issues with obviously clear solutions. We see evidence of this in the tabloid press. There have been some terrible crimes committed in our cities. A violent offender received what is seen to be a lenient sentence. This shows that judges are out of touch with what is needed and that heavy punishment will stop the crime wave. The brilliant thinker is wary of simple nostrums like these. He or she knows that complex issues usually involve many causes and these may need many different and even conflicting solutions.

Routine thinkers are often dogmatic. They see a clear route forward and they want to follow it. The advantage of this is that they can make decisive and effective executives – up to a point. If the simple route happens to be a good one then they get on with the journey. The downside is that they will likely follow the most obvious idea and not consider creative, complex or controversial choices. The exceptional thinker can see many possibilities and relishes reviewing both sides of any argument. They are happy to discuss and explore multiple possibilities and are keen to challenge conventional wisdom. People around them and subordinates can sometimes consider this approach to be frustrating and indecisive.

Albert Einstein was able to conceive his theory of relativity because he thought that time and space might not be immutable. Neils Bohr made breakthroughs in physics because he was able to think of light as both a stream of particles and as a wave. Picasso could paint classical portraits and yet conceive cubist representations of people.

How can you welcome ambiguity? First by admitting that there are few absolute truths and that for most common beliefs the opposite view might also be true. If the general view is that you can either get high quality or low price the brilliant thinker will ask, ‘Why can’t we get both? How can we deliver great quality at really affordable prices?’

Cognitive dissonance is the concept of holding two very different ideas in your mind at the same time. This is something all the great composers do when they think of two melodic themes and how they can intertwine, adapt and combine them. We would find it very difficult to whistle one tune while thinking of an entirely different one but that is the sort of thing that Beethoven or Mozart would consider trifling. When we mull over the interaction of two opposing ideas in our minds then the creative possibilities are legion. A wind-up clock and an electrically operated radio are two very different concepts but by imagining their combination Trevor Bayliss was able to conceive of the clockwork radio. Most of us would dismiss such an idea out of hand. It seems incongruous to have a large mechanical winding device inside a small radio. And we can immediately see the drawback that the programme we were listening to would stop when the winder ran down so that we would have to get up and wind the thing again. That appears a very tedious operation. But Bayliss saw beyond these limitations and considered the needs of people in the developing world who did not have access to reliable mains electricity and who could not afford batteries. For them winding up a radio is a minor inconvenience. The clockwork radio has transformed their lives.

If we want creative solutions and real innovations then we should welcome ambiguity. We should explore the possibilities of two different things interacting together. We should let opposites play.

  • Stephen Young

    This is popcorn philosophy.

    Even your definition of cognitive dissonance is way of the mark. If you can’t even grasp or do your research properly about simple psychological theories, you should stay out of philosophy.

  • Jack R

    Unlike the commenter above, I don’t know anything about psychology or cognitive dissonance, but I do know my way thru a bag of popcorn.

    Anyway, I can appreciate the gist of your article. My boss and I are very different people. I am by the book, I like to see projects in terms of same ol’, same ol’, while he is constantly offering new ideas many of which I consider off the mark completely. However, I find that he can be very creative and that has done wonders for our little branch office. Together we have learned to consider each others ideas – me to be open to creative ways of doing work, him to the ‘reality’ of implementing some of his ideas.

  • http://www.blackbeltguide.com Marc Winitz

    Your comment “Routine thinkers are often dogmatic” I find to be exceedingly true. Simply stated, they don’t wish to, or have the energy to, look at things another way so being dogmatic is a very accessible crutch. A very large number of people fall into this group. I think this post is well thought out.

  • Pawel

    Ambiguity in thinking defines the meaning of “thinking”. Applying simplistic solutions to common problems is not thinking, it’s just following some more or less defined processes or thinking schemas. There is one “danger” associated with real thinking I can see: when to stop thinking and start implementing. At least I have such problem quite often…

  • Nelson

    I completely agree with the first poster. I understand what the writer is trying to get at, but I think he’s confusing ambiguity and lateral thinking.
    Most of his examples are really products of lateral thinking.

    Also, he doesn’t tell us HOW we should welcome ambiguity. There’s no point in promoting an idea if you don’t offer any thoughts on how to do it. Examples aren’t enough.

    A poor article.

  • http://www.timelessinformation.com Armen Shirvanian

    Hi Paul.

    I certainly feel that ambiguity is only for the few that can handle it. Simple solutions don’t usually take care of the complete package.

    While it is harder to see both sides of any argument, and the gray areas that are in place in each issue, the higher-level thinker puts the effort in to grasp them.

    I’ve noticed that I only like ambiguity when I am fully in control or knowledge of something. The ambiguity is then like entertaining variety.

  • http://theinvisiblementor.com Avil Beckford

    Paul,

    The best innovations in history are a result of cognitive dissonance, someone made the impossible possible. When I finished reading your post, I started to combine situations in my life that are at odds with each other. I am ready to make the impossible, after all you wrote this post for me to apply it.

  • http://mildlycreative.com Ken Robert

    Whether or not you got your terms right, I still enjoyed the article. I’ve always liked the idea of replacing either/or with both/and as often as possible.

  • Naumadd

    I enjoyed the article and see a lot of simple truth in it. It stands rather obvious to me that the central conflicts of our time are, in fact, battles between inflexible thinkers and flexible thinkers, i.e., conservative vs. liberal, theist vs. atheist, traditionalist vs. progressive, etc. I’m certain there are abundant potential examples to add to the list. The main point in all of it is this: context is always changing and one’s thinking must adapt to remain beneficial to one’s own life. When one’s thinking cannot or will not adapt, when it becomes inflexible, one’s own mind becomes a liability rather than an asset. Call persons who fit into this spectrum whatever you like, but it’s plain who and what they are when you observe them. The question is: do you know where YOU fit on that spectrum? Is your own thinking of genuine benefit or a genuine liability in your life? Are you flexible or inflexible, adaptive or maladaptive?

  • http://www.gregstrosaker.com Greg Strosaker

    While ambiguity is a reality of the world we live in, a successful thinker of any kind should always seek ways to resolve ambiguity before making major decisions. Having a tolerance for ambiguity should not serve as an excuse to avoid doing the ground work necessary to gather whatever data and document whatever assumptions are necessary to make sound decisions. I discuss this very topic in a recent blog post at http://gregstrosaker.com/2010/01/developing-a-tolerance-for-ambiguity/.

  • http://withinthebody.blogspot.com Travis@withinthebody

    We should keep our minds open to all possibilities.

  • Doug

    The author asks us to explore the “possibilities of two different things interacting together,” unless of course those two things happen to be ‘brilliant’ and ‘routine’ thought, in which case we should exercise the first and not the latter.

    Seeing a problem as an arrangement of two equal-but-opposite sides isn’t brilliance. In fact, it’s not even ambiguity. It’s a rigid dichotomy that presupposes the boundaries of the entire argument. Any possible position becomes merely a point on a fixed spectrum.

    This kind of mindset does not point to innovation.

    The author’s own dichotomy of brilliant-routine thought is a fine example of this: he begins with the assertion that brilliant thinking is ambiguous and complex, routine thought then necessarily becomes clear and simple. Clarity and simplicity both require great intellectual effort, but for the author’s purposes they must be cast aside. The essay commits suicide before it even gets past its first sentence.

  • http://blog.self-improvement-saga.com/ Nea | Self Improvement Saga

    I truly enjoyed the article. Its hard for many people to admit they follow the typical, mundane, to-be-expected thought process. Unfortunately, this is barely thinking at all. I think its healthy to challenge yourself to think differently, to explore alternatives that don’t match what seems obvious based on what you’ve learned (or what you’ve been told) thus far.

  • http://www.transformationscience.wordpress.com Omar

    You can’t grow by entertaining one perspective.

  • Steve Mah

    It seems that “brilliant thinkers welcome ambiguity” may mean “the thoughts of brilliant people are ambiguous to me, because I am a routine thinker.”

  • Pingback: Brilliant Thinkers Relish Ambiguity | Disinformation

  • http://deoxy.org Sir Benjamin the 2956th

    “there are few absolute truths” ~ few haha.. if there are ANY at all

  • http://www.planetofsuccess.com SteveLas

    You have made some really interesting observations in your article about Brilliant Thinkers.
    While I was reading the article I found myselve to be a mixture between a Routine Thinker and an Exceptional Thinker, without any sort of brilliance.. ;-)

    But very very interesting article, indeed. Thanks for your effort of pointing that out.