January 21, 2012 § Leave a comment
How witty and inspiring. However, I can’t help thinking he needed more time (or may be I just want some more). Especially on the methods of appreciating the arts and all, this YouTube clip is being plagued with snobbishly biased condemnations that this talk was the worst they’ve seen on TED, failing to see the whole picture and by those who did see, but want to feel good about themselves by picking on his generalisations and somewhat oversimplified suggestions. Well, those people just should need to learn how to take time to digest the ideas presented in front of them – that they’ve chosen to view voluntarily by a physical act of clicking the link in the first place – and be polite to fellow human beings on this communal cyberspace. #
November 11, 2011 § Leave a comment
I suddenly became curious about thinking process of myself. Of course it’s complex. But is there a way for me to explore a little bit more? Say, can I find some relationship of past thoughts or ideas and the actions I took (rather irresponsibly)? I start out by searching ‘thinking process’ on Google. How nice. I love the net. It’s so accessible. Anyway, I didn’t want to read through so like I always do, I clicked on the ‘Images’ tab. Then I find an article from some business website called GBN. It wasn’t a published article or anything but hey, what do I care? As long as I understand the concept, it’s alright. According to the writer, there are five main stages in thinking process as follows.
- Orientation (Focus) = Interviews, focal issues
- Exploration (Dynamics) = Uncertainties, Certainties
- Synthesis (Reperception) = Scenario framework, scenario stories
- Action (Insight) = Implications, options
- Monitor (Foresight) = Early indicators, warning system
I find it fascinating how ‘foresight’ is something that I’d get at the end. So if I think about 100 things, do I get 100 foresights? May be. Something crosses my mind. What if someone would skip one of those steps in thinking and go straight to an action, for example, by ignoring the scenario framework? If something good would happen, I’ll still be able to monitor then get some ‘foresight’, then I’d still re-examine the situation and fill the gaps in that thinking process. If something bad would happen, I indicate to myself, again, through the monitoring for future reference. Hmm. I’m just rambling. But I do get the point. In this model there’s always a safe in each step except for the focussing part. For example I explore something and if it turns out to be something I don’t like (of which I would not know until I try to see what it really is), I would stop there. Wait. But there are some stuff I do regardless of my liking. If I don’t like that something, I would’ve experienced beforehand. So I’d have some ‘foresight’. But after going through some scenarios inside my head, I still go ahead against my liking. Ah, I get it, but it’s hard to put these down in words. Anyway, I get the concept now.
So, I was going to stop there. But there shouldn’t only be this model of thinking process. Hence I searched some more. Bang. This time, it’s a bit more realistic. With the following diagram I see that my brain works more like this, rather than the first model. They’re not so different, but I just like the inter-connectivity of this one. Plus, the diagram give the answers to my question of the ‘skips’ along the way.
Ah, so it seems. If I think about one specific thing for a long-long time, I’d get more understating, observation, perspective, idea and feedback.
So what do all these mean to me? I think I observed and understood but had wrong ideas. I didn’t have any perspectives. I bulldosed along with those ideas and failed in prototyping. Aye, I’m making myself sound pathetic. All I could do is to cheer myself up and learn from the mistakes. Although this time, with the ‘healthier’ thinking process. Let’s leave the past in the past. Haha. What a cliche. But it’s one of the ways I take for my self-preservation. #