of the hats

assalamualaikum...peace to all..


I just finished reading a book with the title "the 6 thinking hats" written by edward de bono..It is only the second voluntarily-read, written-in-complete-english-sentence book that I have ever finish reading in my life..believe me, I am not exaggerating here.A novel titled "Kite Runner" by Khaled Hossainie is my first.of which took me about a year to finish it (eventhough it is a very awesome novel and i would recommend book lovers to read it).....apparently, me being a head librarian back in high school and my current status as a medical student do not make me much of a reader...

Anyway, I actually want to write a tad about this latest book that I just read.It might be quite a boring and long post, but this is just to refresh myself of what I have just read so that I wont forget the lessons that I got from the book easily.The author put forward a very appealing concept of thinking and ways of looking into certain issues.

It is described in the book that 'argument', which has been the main source of progression for Western countries until it reaches today's level, actually was never designed to be constructive. We can always argue to find a better solution for a problem. However, in an argument, theres always going to be one who wins and one who loses. And for those who lose, their ideas and opinion usually would be crushed completely, never to be heard or seen again.

People argue for many things.But in almost every argument, the main purpose is to satisfy one's ego.To satisfy the need of showing to others that we know more than them.To satisfy ones desire to win. We might not notice this as it is a very subtle feeling.As a result, even if we might come across of points that would support the opposition's stance, we would just keep silence and try really hard to think of other points or facts that would support ours instead.Indeed, the author himself acknowledged that there might actually exist a real need to satisfy our own ego.

That, and lots of other destructive nature of argument described by the author shows that theres a need for alternative ways of thinking.As such, he invented the 6 thinking hats method.In this method, we can use our capacity to think in a team to the fullest.The method is all about using parallel thinking.Parallel thinking can be explained by using this metaphor:


Four men are sent to four different sides of a building.one to the front, one to the back, and the other two at either sides. each of them would give a different description on how does the building looks like.and yes, each of their description is correct.different, but completely right.

In parallel thinking method, all the four men would be sent to each side of the building together at the same time.thus, in a particular time, all of them will be looking at the same part of the building, before all of them moving on to the other part.in the end, all of them would have seen all the four sides of the building and will come with an agreement with even better details.


As in the 6 thinking hats method, the 'hats' are:


Using the method, each people in a discussion group could only think according to the type of hat used in a particular moment.for instance, one can only think about the risk and drawbacks of a proposed suggestion when the black hat is in used. Nobody is allowed to tell their emotion, or propose possible benefits yet at that time. They can do that only when the associated hat is used.

As a consequence, people can use their thinking ability to the fullest.even if it is just to satisfy their ego or to show off.for at least they are doing it in a way that would benefit others as well.by giving as much points as they could in each 'hat' used. Also, this method would help people to focus in doing their thinking as it is suggested that human mind work better if it is focused on one thing only. for example to look for just pros.instead of both pros and cons simultaneously.

This method has been used by various big companies when they are doing their general meetings and has been proven to be very brilliant.

However, I personally think that it is also possible for the method to be used in other field, such as politics-Politics people have been using argument as their main way to achieve an agreement since mankind's first existence.

I wonder how the parliament would look like if they are to use this parallel thinking method to formulate policies for the betterment of the citizens...maybe then there would not be much of drama in the parliament.Even the lively Malaysian parliament will become very lame instead...........oh damn it.