Talk:Lateral thinking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Add a clearer definition
I didn't think the current definition is very clear. I looked it up in the Longman dictionary, and I paraphrased it. What do you think of this definition:
Lateral thinking is a method of thinking where you make use of your fantasy to associate things who seem unrelated.
- I (where I=rursus) think: pretty good, and pretty fit to be the first paragraph of the article - however, I have gotten the impression that lateral can also refer to the quality of certain persons being extra "gifted" ¹) to associate/synthetize seemingly unrelated things.
- ¹) I know this so called "gift" to be something like a curse. But that's my personal reflection.
- ..said rursus
Lateral Thinking is a method of thinking for cutting across established patterns of thought.
DannyStevens 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of these examples are absolutely ludicrous. Aliens coming and blowing up the planet? Shouldn't we remove that and the two examples that follow?
Not really any more ludicrous than the rest of them, imo. I added the last 8 or so just to make the point. Someone deleted the last one already ( which was: maybe lateral thinking is bullshit and you are wasting your time reading about it).. But whatever, delete them if you want. - miike
I agree... the examples get a little out there. I'm not an expert on lateral thinking, but to me they looked rather strange. In the event that they are in fact good examples of lateral thinking, then maybe a better explaination at the top would serve some good. Forezt 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some say
Some believe that lateral thinking is a powerful unifying process of thought, which remedies many of science's fragmented, 'detail obsessed' sects. The american Philosopher Phaedrus was reported by some to be a 'pathological lateral thinker', who 'nearly succeded' in unifying Eastern and Western Philosophies. The Metaphysics of Quality- his own field, is purportedly a fruit of his 'lateral drifting' between fields of psychology, sociology, evolution, logic and metaphysics.
Some say that the Metaphysics of Quality, once solved, will unify disparate fields of thought. Some say.
[edit] Examples
I removed the following examples, because I think they are trick problems, not examples of lateral thinking. -- Reinyday, 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- How long would it take to dig half a hole?
- You can't dig half a hole.
- If one egg takes three minutes to boil, how long do two eggs need to cook?
- About three minutes (the energy needed to get the eggs to cook is small in comparison to the energy needed to get the surrounding water to boil)
- If a knot in a 5-foot rope takes five minutes to undo, how long would a knot in a 10-foot rope take to undo?
- Also five minutes (the length of rope usually has nothing to do with the complexity of the knot, and at most more rope might need to be pulled through the knot, but this will not double the overall time).
- Just because doubling the length of the rope doesn't double the time doesn't mean that it wouldn't increase it a little bit.
[edit] A standards note...
The example: The problem is that Tom won't come to the mountain, is non-standard acc2 international folklore - it should be: The problem is that *Muhammed* won't come to the mountain
... said Tom (rursus) (who didn't decide whether to come to the mountain, or not - which mountain BTW?)
[edit] A mess!
This article is a mess. I think that it should include a section about lateral puzzles. 80.55.2.254 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it so ?? Topu
Do you mean those questions where you have to find an explanation for a weird event? An example is "Why was a man in full scuba gear found dead in a forest?" --64.175.42.169 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples?
I think there should be more examples here to clarify the concept. Needs simplification with examples. Thanks. Topu
[edit] Men Digging A Hole
The examples are terrible. In the example about 2 men digging a hole, assuming that the relationship between men and speed of digging is linear is an unsubstantiated assumption, not a mathmatical relationship implied by the problem. There is not enough information to define a linear relationship. The "examples" of lateral thinking are merely explanations as to why the relationship probably isn't linear.
--64.175.42.169 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Another thing, if they stopped early then they wouldn't have been digging for the whole two hours like the problem said.
-
- It's the same hole, same size. BonniePrinceCharlie 15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More Queries
If u need to Add more querries u can do here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.56.243.162 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
