Advertising
Advertising

Published on August 23, 2017

The Power of Deep Thinking: Essence of Creativity

The Power of Deep Thinking: Essence of Creativity

True or False: “This sentence is false.”

What was your answer to the question above? Did you quickly fire off an answer or did you have to think about it and then think about it some more?

Imagine for a moment that you could put on a set of inverted goggles and see the world through an entirely different lens. On one hand, you would literally see differently, but you might not view the world differently. If we look deep enough and allow ourselves to observe from a new lens, we will. Thomas S. Kuhn remarked in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,[1]

“What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual conceptual experience has taught him to see.”

The power of deep thinking is the essence of creativity. By learning how to think differently and deep, you will find that it is not only your creative thinking, but your critical thinking skills that vastly improve. This leads to higher levels of thinking and powerful problem-solving skills that you simply did not have before.

Let’s take a look at what deep thinking is, why you should learn about it, and what it will do for you.

How Do You Know That You Know the Stuff You Think You Know?

Have you heard the saying, the more you know the less you know? If you haven’t, take a moment and think about that phrase. By looking at the Theory of Knowledge, we can pose the following question: How do you know that you know the stuff you think you know?

Let’s look at an example. Solve the following: 2 + 2 = ?

    I am hoping you answered 4! Yet, let’s take a look at another way to look at this. In Plato and Platypus Walk into a Bar by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, we find the following story.

    A western anthropologist is told by a Voohooni that 2 + 2 = 5. The anthropologist asks him how he knows this. The tribesman says,

    “By counting, of course. First, I tie two knots in a cord. Then I tie two knots in another cord. When I join the two cords together, I have five knots.”

    Deep Thinking Is Thinking About Thinking

    Rene Descartes famously stated, “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am” where he believed thinking as the essential characteristic of being human.

    In Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense, Steve Hagen discussed that Descartes arrived at the cogito through an experiment in radical doubt to discover if there was anything he could be certain of; that is, anything that he could not doubt away.[2] Hagen commented,

    “He started out by doubting the existence of the external world. Then he tried doubting his own existence. But doubt as he would, he kept coming up against the fact that there was a doubter. Must be himself! He could not doubt his own doubting.”

    Essentially, Metacognition is awareness of one’s awareness. It is thinking about thinking or cognition about cognition.

    1. Meta means Beyond
    2. Cognition means Thinking

    Thus, Metacognition means Beyond Thinking.

    To be aware, it refers to the ability of the mind to stand back and watch itself in action. Here, we are able to examine the way we learn, remember, and think. The knowledge of how we process information gives us the opportunity to change how we process it. [3]

    Can We Really Know What Anything Is?

    Hagen poses the following question in his book Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense: Here it is, but what is it? Do we truly know what something is?

    Hagen remarks,

    When we try to answer this, have we merely answered the question “how do we conceive of it?” or “what do we call it?” Some deeper question remains.

    For example, if I say, “Here, in this cup, is water,” you may ask, “What is water?” But as scientists we might wish to point out, “Water is hydrogen and oxygen.” Thus, by using scientific methods it seems we can discover what water is “made of.”

    With confidence we say, “What is really in this cup is hydrogen and oxygen, combined and transformed into this unique substance we call ‘water’.” But the questions continue.

    Hagen concludes, “What is hydrogen? What is oxygen? And so we look again, using scientific methods, and say, “Hydrogen is an element made of atoms, each consisting of a single proton and a single electron.”

    Advertising

    But still the questions remain: what are atoms? What are protons and electrons? It seems that we’ve started on a never-ending regression. At no time do we ever really get to the other end of the question: “What is water?” We can name the mind object, even break it down and name its parts, but we still don’t really answer the question.”

    Reading this passage leaves me to ask myself: can we ever really know what anything is? Let’s look at another example from Hagen.

    He illustrates just how strange our world is through the conversation between a physicist and a philosopher:

    Physicist: …and so we conclude an electron is a particle.

    Philosopher: But you also claim an electron is a wave.

    Physicist: Yes, it’s also a wave.

    Philosopher: But surely, not if it’s a particle.

    Physicist: We say it’s both wave and particle.

    Philosopher: But that’s a contradiction, obviously.

    Physicist: Are you then saying it’s neither wave nor particle?

    Philosopher: No, I’m asking what you mean by “it.”

    A Gap in the Stream of Consciousness

    You might be wondering what the difference is between Metacognition and Cognition.

    Advertising

    • Cognition. This is the process of acquiring knowledge for understanding. Cognition is thinking.
    • Metacognition. This relies on awareness and control of cognitive processes. Metacognition will help you find gaps in your learning and thinking. However, you must have acquired some previous knowledge about a topic prior to Metacognition. As mentioned earlier, Metacognition goes beyond just thinking… it is thinking about thinking.

    Now that you have an understanding of the fundamental principle behind deep thinking, let’s take a look at how to develop it.

    In the book The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle,[4] we learn the following lessons.

    Constantly Observe Your Mind Without Judging Your Thoughts

    Here we should ask one simple question, “What will my next thought be?” Try it. Can you think of your next thought? Probably not.

    By continually asking this question, you can delay the arrival of your next thought. This is due to what is called the quantum zeno effect, where we can freeze our current state by observing it. Essentially, there can be no change while you are watching it.

    Life Is Simply a Series of Present Moments

    Here we are informed that the past is simply all the present moments that have gone by. Tolle posits that the only important time is the present, for which we think about the least. Furthermore, the present is simply future present moments waiting to go by.

    Imagine leaving your body and watching yourself think. Think of this as a mental movie where your goal is not to judge the actors, but to simply observe them.

    Tolle refers to entering into the Now or the Present as creating a gap in the stream of mind. Asking yourself the question What will my next thought be?” creates that gap and allows you to dis-identify from your mind. Once you do this, you have elevated yourself above thought. This is Enlightenment.

    Stages of Deep Thinking

    Before we look at strategies you can use to become a deep thinker, let’s briefly look at the stages of deep thinking known as the Three Levels of Thought. [5]

    • Level 1: Lower Order Thinking. The individual is not reflective, has a low to mixed skill level, and relies solely on gut intuition.
    • Level 2: Higher Order Thinking. The individual is selective on what to reflect on, has a high skill level, yet lacks critical thinking vocabulary.
    • Level 3: Highest Order Thinking. The individual is explicitly reflective, has the highest skill level, and routinely uses critical thinking tools.

    Strategies to Become a Deep Thinker

    To enter into the Highest Order Thinking, try the following strategies.

    Increase Self-Awareness by Thinking About Thinking

    Imagine you could become aware of how you learn. We know that we must have a baseline of previous knowledge about something to use Metacognition. Think of your Intelligence as what you think and Metacognition as how you think. Let’s look at a series of questions you can ask yourself by using the Elements of Thought.[6]

    • Purpose. What am I trying to accomplish?
    • Questions: What question am I raising or addressing? Am I considering the complexities in the question?
    • Information: What information am I using to get to my conclusion.
    • Inferences: How did I reach this conclusion? Is there another way to interpret the information?
    • Concepts: What is the main idea? Can I explain this idea?
    • Assumptions: What am I taking for granted?
    • Implications: If someone accepted my position, what would the implications be?
    • Points of View. From what point of view am I looking at this issue? Is there another point of view I should consider?

    Challenge Current Learning Methods Through Meta-Questions

    Meta-Questioning is higher order questions we can use to explore ideas and problems. Here are some examples.

    • Why did it happen?
    • Why was it true?
    • How does X relate to Y?
    • Why is reasoning based on X instead of Y?
    • Are there other possibilities?

    Let’s look at a practical example.

    Advertising

    • When you say: “I can’t do this.” Change this to: “What specifically can I not do?”
    • You say: “I can’t exercise.” Then ask: “What is stopping me?”
    • You say: “I don’t have time.” Now ask yourself: “What needs to happen for me to start exercising?”
    • You discover: “What time wasters can I eliminate in order to create more time to exercise?”
    • Then imagine how you could start exercising: “If I could exercise, how would I do it?”

    View the World Through Different Lens

    Here is a technique you can use to foster a deeper understanding of a problem—Four Ways of Seeing:

    • How does X view itself?
    • How does Y view itself?
    • How does X view Y?
    • How does Y view X?

      Try to apply the technique like this: suppose we are in the United States looking at a foreign country. First, draw four boxes, then list the questions. Second, start answering the questions.

      • In box #1 ask: “How do we see the United States?”
      • Box #2: “How does China see themselves?”
      • Box #3: “How does China see the United States?”
      • Box #4: “How do you see them?”

      Thought Experiments

      One last technique you can use to become a deep thinker —Thought Experiments. This is a device of the imagination used to investigate the nature of just about anything. [7] Thought Experiments seek to learn about reality through thinking:

      • Visualize a situation and set it up in your imagination.
      • Let it run or carry out some type of operation.
      • See what happens.
      • Draw a conclusion.

      The team at Stanford describes this using the following example: Since the time of Lucretius, we’ve learned how to conceptualize space so that it is both finite and unbounded. Let’s see how this Thought Experiment can work.

      • Imagine a circle, which is a one-dimensional space.
      • As we move around, there is no edge, but it is nevertheless finite.
      • What can you conclude? The universe might be a three-dimensional version of this topology.

      Think Deep, and You Will Think Creatively

      Thinking deep will change how you think, feel, and view the world. When you understand this concept, you will start to think beyond simple beliefs.

      “When the root is Deep… There is no reason to fear the wind.”

      Deep Thinking will change how you think, feel, and view the world. When you understand this concept, you will start to think beyond simple beliefs.

      By applying all the skills mentioned in this article, you will be able to think deeper and explore more possibilities.

      Featured photo credit: Stocksnap via stocksnap.io

      Reference

      [1]Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
      [2]Steve Hagen: Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense: An Inquiry Into Science, Philosophy and Perception
      [3]ThePeakLearner: What is Metacognition? 3 Key Points to Remember
      [4]Eckhart Tolle: The Power of Now
      [5]Thinker’s Guide Library: Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
      [6]Thinker’s Guide Library: Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
      [7]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Thought Experiments

      More by this author

      Dr. Jamie Schwandt

      Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt & Red Team Critical Thinker

      Being Self Aware Is the Key to Success: How to Boost Self Awareness How to Upgrade Your Critical Thinking Skills for a Sharper Mind 10 Brain Training Hacks to Increase Your IQ, Focus and Creativity How to Be a Maverick and Develop a Maverick Mindset Learn How to Learn: How to Understand and Connect Difficult Ideas Easily

      Trending in Productivity

      1The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It? 210 Best Time Management Books Recommended By Entrepreneurs 3What Is Procrastination (And the Complete Guide to Stop Procrastinating) 46 Simple Steps to Make Progress Towards Achieving Goals 5Secrets to Organizing Thoughts and Ideas (So You’ll Never Lose Ideas!)

      Read Next

      Advertising
      Advertising

      The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

      The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

      It’s a depressing adage we’ve all heard time and time again: An increase in technology does not necessarily translate to an increase in productivity.

      Put another way by Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics,

      “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

      In other words, just because our computers are getting faster, that doesn’t mean that that we will have an equivalent leap in productivity. In fact, the opposite may be true!

      New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008 that stated, “Statistical and anecdotal evidence mounts that the same technology tools that have led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.”

      There’s a strange paradox when it comes to productivity. Rather than an exponential curve, our productivity will eventually reach a plateau, even with advances in technology.

      Advertising

      So what does that mean for our personal levels of productivity? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here’s what you should know about the productivity paradox, its causes, and what possible solutions we may have to combat it.

      What is the productivity paradox?

      There is a discrepancy between the investment in IT growth and the national level of productivity and productive output. The term “productivity paradox” became popularized after being used in the title of a 1993 paper by MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business.

      In his paper, Brynjolfsson argued that while there doesn’t seem to be a direct, measurable correlation between improvements in IT and improvements in output, this might be more of a reflection on how productive output is measured and tracked.[1]

      He wrote in his conclusion:

      “Intangibles such as better responsiveness to customers and increased coordination with suppliers do not always increase the amount or even intrinsic quality of output, but they do help make sure it arrives at the right time, at the right place, with the right attributes for each customer.

      Just as managers look beyond “productivity” for some of the benefits of IT, so must researchers be prepared to look beyond conventional productivity measurement techniques.”

      How do we measure productivity anyway?

      And this brings up a good point. How exactly is productivity measured?

      In the case of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gain is measured as the percentage change in gross domestic product per hour of labor.

      But other publications such as US Today, argue that this is not the best way to track productivity, and instead use something called Total Factor Productivity (TFP). According to US Today, TFP “examines revenue per employee after subtracting productivity improvements that result from increases in capital assets, under the assumption that an investment in modern plants, equipment and technology automatically improves productivity.”[2]

      In other words, this method weighs productivity changes by how much improvement there is since the last time productivity stats were gathered.

      But if we can’t even agree on the best way to track productivity, then how can we know for certain if we’ve entered the productivity paradox?

      Possible causes of the productivity paradox

      Brynjolfsson argued that there are four probable causes for the paradox:

      Advertising

      • Mis-measurement – The gains are real but our current measures miss them.
      • Redistribution – There are private gains, but they come at the expense of other firms and individuals, leaving little net gain.
      • Time lags – The gains take a long time to show up.
      • Mismanagement – There are no gains because of the unusual difficulties in managing IT or information itself.

      There seems to be some evidence to support the mis-measurement theory as shown above. Another promising candidate is the time lag, which is supported by the work of Paul David, an economist at Oxford University.

      According to an article in The Economist, his research has shown that productivity growth did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s.[3] This was partly because it took until 1920 for at least half of American industrial machinery to be powered by electricity.”

      Therefore, he argues, we won’t see major leaps in productivity until both the US and major global powers have all reached at least a 50% penetration rate for computer use. The US only hit that mark a decade ago, and many other countries are far behind that level of growth.

      The paradox and the recession

      The productivity paradox has another effect on the recession economy. According to Neil Irwin,[4]

      “Sky-high productivity has meant that business output has barely declined, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers…businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.”

      This means that more and more companies are trying to do less with more, and that means squeezing two or three people’s worth of work from a single employee in some cases.

      Advertising

      According to Irwin, “workers, frightened for their job security, squeezed more productivity out of every hour [in 2010].”

      Looking forward

      A recent article on Slate puts it all into perspective with one succinct observation:

      “Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve people’s quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were.”

      Still, Brynjolfsson argues that mismeasurement of productivity can really skew the results of people studying the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.

      “Because you and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we’re not listening to less music. There’s more music consumed than before.

      On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it’s not disappearing. It is disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music.”

      Perhaps the paradox isn’t a death sentence for our productivity after all. Only time (and perhaps improved measuring techniques) will tell.

      Featured photo credit: Pexels via pexels.com

      Reference

      Read Next