How to think outside of the box

[know_yourself_1234]

I recently read about "thinking outside of the box", and noticed in some way how much I was off track regarding this idea, and wanted to ask you some questions, your advices on the subject.

I understood it as a generic state of mind that I link to psychologic sanity. The kind of state which would help to achieve some kind of "psychological immunity".

What are, do you think, the primary stuff that holds us inside of a "box thinking"?

How is a "inside of the box" thinking brain wired? Why? Do we find the exact same programs in every person who is not able to / who does not "think outside of the box"?

How would such a person behave? Are there specific traits/attitudes which comes along?

I understood that when "thinking inside the box", I do not notice that I am, actually, in the box. I do not know/see that there is something "else" (the opportunity to "think outside of the box"!) much more relevant, much more helpful and aligned with objective reality.

Thanks for your insights!

 

[Buddy]

Re: How t think outside of the box

I recently read about "thinking outside of the box", and noticed in some way how much I was off track regarding this idea, and wanted to ask you some questions, your advices on the subject.

I understood it as a generic state of mind that I link to psychologic sanity. The kind of state which would help to achieve some kind of "psychological immunity".

What are, do you think, the primary stuff that holds us inside of a "box thinking"?

The walls or boundaries, formed by seeing only the obvious elements of a subject and not seeing how the subject connects with everything else.

For example: you want to think about diet, what it means to you or how it can improve your life but you only think about food choices, types of diets, calories, carbs and fat and how they relate to body weight and body image. That would constitute a 'box' to me. Thinking outside that box you would also consider how diet might improve or effect quality of thought, physical energy for work and play, emotional stability, improvement in relationships, more interest in outdoor activity, better loving with your partner, better mood in general, decreased medical expenses over the years, stuff like that. Try to see more and more connections to everything you can think of. That's just one way to look at it, IMO.

How is a "inside of the box" thinking brain wired?

Into compartments, non-literally speaking.

Why? Do we find the exact same programs in every person who is not able to / who does not "think outside of the box"?

Because we all have so much in common in the way we're raised and educated, I suspect.

How would such a person behave? Are there specific traits/attitudes which comes along?

? It's not clear to me what 'such' person you mean.

 

[obyvatel]

Re: How t think outside of the box

I recently read about "thinking outside of the box", and noticed in some way how much I was off track regarding this idea, and wanted to ask you some questions, your advices on the subject.

I understood it as a generic state of mind that I link to psychologic sanity. The kind of state which would help to achieve some kind of "psychological immunity".

Thinking outside the box usually refers to unconventional thinking which leads to creative problem solving. A similar term is lateral thinking .

Psychological immunity, imo, is more related to critical thinking than lateral thinking.

[quote author=know_yourself]
What are, do you think, the primary stuff that holds us inside of a "box thinking"?
[/quote]

Laziness - it is easier to think and do things the way it has always been done
Narrow specialization in specific skill sets



[quote author=know_yourself]
How is a "inside of the box" thinking brain wired? Why? Do we find the exact same programs in every person who is not able to / who does not "think outside of the box"?
[/quote]

Steven Mithen's "cathedral analogy of the human mind" (discussed in his book "Prehistory of the Mind") provides a model which may be relevant to this topic. It is briefly described
here.

Also some scientists have identified critical thinking to be more left-brain oriented and lateral thinking to be more right brain oriented.

[quote author=know_yourself]
How would such a person behave? Are there specific traits/attitudes which comes along?
[/quote]

I would guess openness, curiosity, persistence, drive towards improvement.

 

[Phill4]

Re: How t think outside of the box

I think the concept "thunking outside the box" is a shortcut term for what it implies, i see many people use this phrase very often, though they are not free or outside the box themselves and use it in the contexts of the given situation/conversation.


I think it involves more than what is commonly understood. I consider it inappropriate concept as it deflects many components of the many mechanisms of the psychic of people.


For example, think outside the box precedes you thinking is inside the box, and not seeing the many possibilities and alternatives to a situation
i.e. constricting the possibilities and probabilities narrowing it to a squared reality where no other options are available. What holds us into constricting the possibilities are other sets of thinking habits and emotional responses, that follow another and so on.

stepping out of the box or bubble grant you the ability to see the possibilities to a problem in an open manner. And how to open our minds to the infinite possibilities of the universe becomes the question. We can only step out of the box by understanding how to open our minds to the possibilities. And that is by elevating our awareness in all directions.

Thought loops and programs are better concepts IMO for self study as they are more precise in their definition. As it is these thought loops and programs and conglomeration of habits that keeps us in a patter of thinking and existing (box or boxes).

Psychological immunity is more like a perfection state, there are intellectual type people who are not immune to the effects of emotional imbalances, yet they seem like no detail escapes to them outwardly, but the emotional side is intertwined with the intellect, as we have emotional reasons that contradict intellectual reason, and this side can't be neglected in order to reach intellectual freedom.

 

[know_yourself_1234]

Re: How t think outside of the box

? It's not clear to me what 'such' person you mean.

I was thinking about a generic person who would have the "inside of the box" thinking! Sorry for my English.

 

[Buddy]

Re: How t think outside of the box

? It's not clear to me what 'such' person you mean.

I was thinking about a generic person who would have the "inside of the box" thinking! Sorry for my English.

Ok, no problem, thanks. Concerning behavior traits, people who think "inside the box" tend to think, talk and behave in ways we sometimes describe as boring, typical, usual, like everybody else. They may even have an attitude that their knowledge in a certain area is complete since they can't think of anything else to go with it. They generally lack an ability to take something they learn in one area and apply it in other areas to increase their intelligence. Inside-the-box people see a fire extinguisher and think how it is used to put out fires and that's all that's in their head. Also they may look at an office chair and compare it with others they have seen, draw a conclusion whether they like it or not and that's about all that's in their head concerning office chairs.

An out-of-the-box thinker might have behavior traits that some call annoying. They also may be creative and not limit themselves to just what they've been told or have read about a particular subject. They may take that office chair and fire extinguisher out to the street, sit in the chair (it has wheels) and use the fire extinguisher to propel themselves like a jet engine or something. Yeah, they will probably get in trouble, but they are definitely not thinking inside-the-box.

Again, this is just one way to look at the subject. obyvatel mentioned lateral thinking and Steven Mithen's "cathedral analogy of the human mind" which also links into this. And Richard Feynman has some interesting stories that compare and contrast "box thinking" in his books: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"

 

[RedFox]

Re: How t think outside of the box

Ok, no problem, thanks. Concerning behavior traits, people who think "inside the box" tend to think, talk and behave in ways we sometimes describe as boring, typical, usual, like everybody else. They may even have an attitude that their knowledge in a certain area is complete since they can't think of anything else to go with it. They generally lack an ability to take something they learn in one area and apply it in other areas to increase their intelligence. Inside-the-box people see a fire extinguisher and think how it is used to put out fires and that's all that's in their head. Also they may look at an office chair and compare it with others they have seen, draw a conclusion whether they like it or not and that's about all that's in their head concerning office chairs.

Which to my understanding is mostly system one thinking, that is automatic behaviour devoid of any objective observer.
Schools are designed to teach people to 'repeat' what they learn rather than understand, question, reflect or consider things. i.e. engage system two thinking. So this will also have an impact (the box here is lack of training/practice in engaging system two and social constraint).

An out-of-the-box thinker might have behavior traits that some call annoying. They also may be creative and not limit themselves to just what they've been told or have read about a particular subject. They may take that office chair and fire extinguisher out to the street, sit in the chair (it has wheels) and use the fire extinguisher to propel themselves like a jet engine or something. Yeah, they will probably get in trouble, but they are definitely not thinking inside-the-box.

Obyvatel's mention of lateral thinking applies here I think. If someone is practiced in lateral thinking it will become just as automatic as just repeating behaviour by rote. Their system one automatic mind is programmed to think laterally.
This kind of 'thinking outside the box' can also have an element of social rebelion to it, which again goes outside the box of the first example. The down side is if done automatically, the person will be quite abrasive and/or socially awkward. They lack external consideration.
So whatever the skill in this area, without self observation and engaging system two thinking it's still a box (in Work terms) even if it is labeled 'thinking outside the box'.

 

[lainey]

Re: How t think outside of the box

IMO we can only think the way we think until we teach ourselves otherwise, and to do that it takes other people with different ideas and ways of thinking from our own to teach us or give is ideas as to how to do that.
So to me, to think outside the box takes two or more people to introduce new ways of thinking to each other.

 

[BHelmet]

Re: How t think outside of the box

First, I would like to offer that most of what passes for 'thinking outside the box' is just thinking in a different shaped box with different boundaries but it is, in fact, just another box.

What defines 'box' and what defines 'thinking'?

I suggest that the 'box' is a set of assumptions tha leads to some generally accepted choices and options that results in a certain pattern of thought. So, unless we freely and impartially examine these underlying assumptions that we are often unconscious of, we are confined to a box, or a set of boxes.

Real 'thinking', is a somewhat rare commodity. Many thoughts pass through our minds and we may think that we are thinking. But are we? Obvyatel made the comment that laziness is a source of the lack of real thinking and this is true, but I think it is only part of the picture. Why are we lazy in our thoughts? Real thinking takes work. Real thinking may result in observations and conclusions that bring to light stuff we don't want to face; lessons we are reluctant to deal with. (because that stuff is discomforting; and may require us to change; and may require actions that are difficult and realizations that destroy our cozy illusions about both the world and ourselves)

What about these underlying, and often unconscious assumptions? Of course, they are different for each person. e.g., accepting the fact that humanity is living in a 3D STS box which is dominated by a 4D STS presence is outside the usual box. Most people resist this box. Why? If we ARE living in a negatively-skewed, controlled environment, it means we are not really in control of our lives to the extent we would like to believe AND we are subject to unseen influences. And so there can be the thought: "this is not how I would like things to be. If I am living in a sort of matrix control system, I am not really free." So, part of that box is the assumption 'I should be free and it is wrong that I am not', 'life shouldn't be such a struggle' etc. The mirror side of this equation is the assumption "I shouldn't have to work or be responsible'. (which is quite self-centered and immature, but it is just a reflection of the STS nature of this world and our lower centers)

What I am trying to say is that I think our boxes are not so much the result of a lack of creative thinking but a result of certain unacknowledged 'payoffs' we we are getting by remaining attached to our boxes. And part of what 'the work' is about is to become aware of what creates and defines our personal boxes which influence our interactions with all the other perceived boxes. So often it all comes back around to 'know thyself', doesn't it?

 

[know_yourself_1234]

From https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26334.msg315395.html#msg315395 :

Which to my understanding is mostly system one thinking, that is automatic behaviour devoid of any objective observer.

I am currently trying to absorb the info there... Big thanks Redfox... I am a kind of geek, simple mind, who like to get to the root of the issue, written in the "a+b" way, and you pointed me out to the thread called "Thinking, Fast And Slow", with many cool very concrete examples. Found my oasis!

In rough order of complexity, here are some examples of the automatic activities that are attributed to System1
* Detect that one object is more distant than another
* Orient to the source of a sudden sound
* Complete the phrase "bread and ...."
* Make a "disgust face" when shown a horrible picture
* Detect hostility in a voice
* Answer to 2+2=?
* Read words on large billboards
* Drive a car on an empty road
* Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master)
* Understand simple sentences
* Recognize that a "meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail" resembles an occupational stereotype

I feel terrible because I could easily tick most of these suggestions. I think that I have the ability to perform these tasks, and was very proud, really convinced that there were "good skills" one would like to master. I was thinking that these skills were "personal-developped-skills", so reading about it this way is kinda cold shower effect... I thank you much! I now know that it is kinda wrong, and that there is something else :)

If I am living in a sort of matrix control system, I am not really free.

(What follows are my subjective thoughts; it's maybe high baked noodles.)

Has earth ever been this way? Because if this is a consequence of STS beings arriving there, there was something before, which is more true in terms of "objective source".

So I would tend to articulate my thinking the following way:

"People are naturally free, and whatever STS alien came and whatever they did, it does not take out the fact that speaking about the objective state of things in terms of being controlled seems wrong, because it is a consequence, a kind of alteration, even if the consequence looks like an extermination camp".

So stopping there on the STS aspect would be a "step".. The fact that these aliens have to respect and bow to some universal laws shows me that they are not absolutely powerful, and it gives them less credit.

Even if they do have much and much control in the worst ways possible, I think it is not the question. because if I really would like to know who I am, I would have to go to the source, as far back as possible, so I would cross the timeline of STS arrival on earth, so I would find myself studying much more interesting things (true creation processes, not what dumb entities do when provided with some bits of power) !

I mean it does not change who people are; it just adds some stuff to an existing basis.

So that the ultimate goal would be to reach the "first knowledge". I mean, even if the main control resides in free-will, it's just that, control over free-will. I am maybe trying to give less/no credit to the control system, because, in the end, it is maybe not "the real topic". I wish I could disempower it a bit, because it's not all that exist, after all.

Hope I am not off-tracking the conversation there, but may I ask your thoughts about my "theory"? Did I discover a famous noodle-baking recipe?

Thank you for your help.

 

[axj]

Castaneda's concept of the assemblage point may be useful here. The basic idea is that once you are able to move the assemblage point, your perception changes and you can see things from a different perspective. It seems that such a "fluid" assemblage point is the best way to see something from different perspectives, which in turn can result in unusual ideas or thinking "outside the box".

"The box" in this context is one's usual view of the world, which is held in place by the assemblage point being stuck in one place. To make the assemblage point fluid again requires doing the Work - in particular recognizing and changing one's beliefs, or in general recognizing and changing one's habitual patterns on all levels (habitual behaviours, habitual thought patterns, even habitual moods and emotional states).

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=BHelmet]
What I am trying to say is that I think our boxes are not so much the result of a lack of creative thinking but a result of certain unacknowledged 'payoffs' we we are getting by remaining attached to our boxes.
[/quote]

The idea of "payoff" is useful to organize one's thoughts in this context imo.

[quote author=BHelmet]
And part of what 'the work' is about is to become aware of what creates and defines our personal boxes which influence our interactions with all the other perceived boxes. So often it all comes back around to 'know thyself', doesn't it?
[/quote]

A payoff can be unacknowledged due to ignorance or avoidance. Agree that bringing to light the nature of such payoffs is part of the work. Then, payoffs become more conscious and can be used for practical reasons like making life easier for self and others in certain specific situations by playing a role.

"Know thyself and thy environment" seems to be a more appropriate dictum. The "self" is not static unchangeable entity that can be studied in isolation. It is more practical to study the self considering specific situational and general environmental conditions to understand the nature of the boxes - osit.

 

[know_yourself_1234]

[quote author=BHelmet]
What I am trying to say is that I think our boxes are not so much the result of a lack of creative thinking but a result of certain unacknowledged 'payoffs' we we are getting by remaining attached to our boxes.

The idea of "payoff" is useful to organize one's thoughts in this context imo.

[/quote]

So, thinking in terms like "It will pay in the end" is actually kind of a program?

It looks even like it is the main mechanism for religion, isn't it?

Thank you very much

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=BHelmet]
What I am trying to say is that I think our boxes are not so much the result of a lack of creative thinking but a result of certain unacknowledged 'payoffs' we we are getting by remaining attached to our boxes.

The idea of "payoff" is useful to organize one's thoughts in this context imo.

So, thinking in terms like "It will pay in the end" is actually kind of a program?

It looks even like it is the main mechanism for religion, isn't it?

Thank you very much
[/quote]

The "box", which in this context a metaphor for a certain model of reality involving certain assumptions, is there because it is deemed useful in some way. How a particular "box" is useful is its "payoff", and the reason for its existence.

Regarding religion, yes, it is one such box. Depending on which religion or box we are talking about, the payoffs may vary slightly.

In the mainstream Christian religion for example, every human is a sinner but there has been an external savior who has done all the hard work sacrificing himself thereby redeeming humanity. So the payoff in that box is that personal responsibility for spiritual progress is removed. All that is needed is belief in the doctrine.

 

[BHelmet]

[quote author=BHelmet]
What I am trying to say is that I think our boxes are not so much the result of a lack of creative thinking but a result of certain unacknowledged 'payoffs' we we are getting by remaining attached to our boxes.

The idea of "payoff" is useful to organize one's thoughts in this context imo.

So, thinking in terms like "It will pay in the end" is actually kind of a program?

It looks even like it is the main mechanism for religion, isn't it?

Thank you very much

The "box", which in this context a metaphor for a certain model of reality involving certain assumptions, is there because it is deemed useful in some way. How a particular "box" is useful is its "payoff", and the reason for its existence.

Regarding religion, yes, it is one such box. Depending on which religion or box we are talking about, the payoffs may vary slightly.

In the mainstream Christian religion for example, every human is a sinner but there has been an external savior who has done all the hard work sacrificing himself thereby redeeming humanity. So the payoff in that box is that personal responsibility for spiritual progress is removed. All that is needed is belief in the doctrine.
[/quote]

Yeah I think Obvyatel gets it. My example should have been something more mundane to begin with. Or maybe no example at all. It is the idea that sometimes we think inside a certain box as a way to rationalize our behavior and choices, all the while thinking that the things we think (the box) are completely rational, objective, reasonable and sensible.

Sometimes there appears to be only one logical choice: "what everybody knows". Other times there appears to be a dichotomy: 2 choices. That is another kind of box. And if we can grasp the trinitarian idea, there is a third option: the active/passive/neutral paradigm. And then there is the 4th way. Perhaps if we can see or imagine that there is a data point outside the realm of what we can grasp, we can expand our field of awareness to new possibilities that did not previously exist for us.