The seminal book that introduced a new way of reasoning and decision making. "Dr. de Bono does not claim to be able to turn us all into Miltons, Da Vincis, and Einsteins. . . . The Muse never appears to most of us--hence the value of this book."--Times Educational Supplement

Six Thinking Hats by De Bono Edward

Very insightful book.
I'm puzzled by the negative reviews on this book. The author is very lucid. Some critics, which you can find on wikipedia, note that he hasn't attempted to "prove" his position. That's not the author's point. By definition, he isn't indulging in linear or logical thought. If he were to concede to his critics, he wouldn't write the book. The critics have missed the point. His examples supply, not proof, but circumstantial evidence supporting his theory. In a court of law, sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence. Since when is such evidence inadmissible in an argument anymore than it is in the courts of old? It's been used for centuries with the courts and with famous mathematical statements known as "conjectures." Pure mathematical thought doesn't say anything about the world because it is constituted of tautologies. If you want to say something about the world, as the author does, you are by definition departing from purely formal thought and therefore purely formal rigor in your demonstrations. I thought the homely examples by the author were good. For example, he discusses the feature in European liquor manufacturers of fruit contained in a bottle of liquor. How did it get there? Was the bottom attached? No. There is no visible weld. Was the fruit pushed inside? No. It's too wide for the bottle neck. Solution? Insert the small bud of the fruit into the bottle and let it grow there. The glass operates as a small green house; therefore, it won't interfere with the growth of the fruit. With regard to the conundrum PO, the author is explicit on page 225. "Logic could be said to be the management of NO. . .The concept of lateral thinking is insight restructuring and this is brought about through the rearrangement of information. Rearrangement is the basis of lateral thinking and rearrangement means escape from the rigid patterns established by experience. The rearrangement process is incorporated in the concept of the (re) laxative. The laxative is a rearranging device. It is the means whereby one can escape from established patterns and create new ones. The concept of the laxative is crystallized into a definite language tool. The language tool is PO. . .The whole concept of lateral thinking is concentrated in the use of this language tool. Lateral thinking could be said to be the management of PO just as logical thinking is the management of NO. . .PO is to lateral thinking what NO is to logical thinking." My only misgiving with the author is his seeming overemphasis of the use of tilde in its use in logic. Maybe he's right. However, proof by the use of contradiction or excluded middle isn't the only proof used in formal thought. There is other forms of proof. Yet, he insists all of logic can be summed up as a manifold use of the operator "tilde." If I recall, Russell and Whitehead failed in trying to reduce all of formal thought to a few logical operators, let alone one operator, such as the tilde, in their book Principia Mathematica. Godel "proved" you cannot do that. Nevertheless, the author is adamant that all logic is, one way or another, the management of the single operator "tilde." He does so in order to create his dichotomy between logical thinking and lateral thinking which is given expression in juxtaposing NO and PO. He wishes to assign to PO a distinct language, which is sort of self defeating since language, as linguists note, has a tendency to resolve itself into linear thinking, not necessarily of the subject and predicate variety. I wouldn't worry too much about PO or understanding it. There is probably nothing there to understand. Perhaps PO visited the author after one of those binges involving too many of those liquor bottles with the fruit inside. Perhaps PO is a genie the author mistook for a fruit. Or maybe PO is the clerk at the local 7-11 of whom the author recognizes as possessing the wisdom of a sage. The known reports indicate that PO and Squiggly had a nasty divorce and PO lost everything. This explains his fate in being reduced to a 7-11 clerk. It also explains why PO and Squiggly are irreconciliable. De Bono wants to continue to being friends with both PO and Squiggly; however, his allegiance obviously favors PO as the better friend. The author certainly has a Freudian sense of PO. Why should he use the metaphor of "laxative" in describing PO? What does loosening up one's thinking have to do with loose bowels? Is he suggesting that a trip to the drug store is our solution to writer's block? Did PO recommend a laxative to the author on the second isle, next to the bathroom tissue, whereupon the author, upon consumption of it, exclaimed "Eureka?" Is 7-11 destined to rival the baths of Syracuse in its place in academic folklore? Will laxatives prove to be the solution to American foreign policy difficulties. Will ex-lax replace diplomas? The author raises some very provocative questions.