OppThink and Opportunity Cost

One economics topic I always found intriguing is "Opportunity Cost" (I'll refer to it as OppCost). Since you cannot do two things at once (although cellphones and other technologies are helping to change that), when you choose to do X you typically lose the opportunity to do Y.

For example, if you take a job at Xerox, you can't simultaneously work at Yahoo. If offered a job by both companies, you would weigh the benefits of one job against the benefits of the other (and the second job's benefits make up the OppCost of taking the first job). In this example, the things you would gain from taking Yahoo's offer is the OppCost of taking Xerox's offer. Similarly, the things you would gain from taking Xerox's offer is the OppCost of taking Yahoo's offer.

Here is another example in the arena of investing: "A person who invests $10,000 in a stock denies herself or himself the interest that could have accrued by leaving the $10,000 in a bank account instead. The opportunity cost of the decision to invest in stock is the value of the interest. A person who sells stock for $10,000 denies himself or herself the opportunity to sell the stock for a higher price in the future, inheriting an opportunity cost equal to future price minus sale price." (source: Wikipedia)

In general, when deciding whether or not to do X, you should weigh the opportunity cost of doing X -- that is, add up all the things you give up if you decide to do X.

OppThink and Opportunity Cost (OppCost) are obviously related concepts. The OppCost of X is the value of "the opposite of X" -- where I define opposite here as all the things you can do if you don't do X. OppCost is another example of how looking at "opposite situations" or "opposite activities" can have great value.

One of the biggest benefits of applying OppThink in the realm of OppCost comes when you discover that the OppCost of doing something is too great. For example, suppose a man's OppCost of taking a 70-hour a week $700,000 per year job is a great loss of time he would have spent with his children (which to many parents is priceless - that is, infinite cost). In this example, the man should not take the job, even with its high salary, since the OppCost is even higher.

OppGames: Clever "20Q" Gameshow is Opposite of 20 Questions

As you may know, the game of 20 Questions involves person A thinking of a person, place or thing, and person B then asking a series of questions in order to narrow down the possible choices until one object - and one only - matches all the clues gathered so far. And B must whittle down the choices in 20 questions or less.

But how can you translate that into a watchable and fair gameshow? Well, it has kinda been done before, in a show I liked as a kid called "What's My Line?" In this case, it was always a person. The problem was that the host often had trouble answering, since there was no control over what the celebrity panelists could ask. Of course, that could lead to fun and humor, but the downside is the potential for throwing off the panelists by having a confused host say "Maybe" when it really was a "Yes", or misunderstanding what the panelist asked.

Cut to 2009, and the folks behind the new 20Q gameshow (to air on GSN) decided to come up with a fun and fully fair version of the game. They decided to DO THE OPPOSITE of games like 20 questions, 20Q (the hit handheld game) and What's My Line.

What's the opposite, you ask?
Instead of asking questions to get clues,
the players are just GIVEN A SERIES OF CLUES.

In this new gameshow, the players get to see one clue at a time, up to 20 of them. Players decide when they have enough clues to give an answer with certainty (or close to it). Of course, there is risk in answering incorrectly (you may get eliminated), so you have to balance waiting for more clues versus getting in with a right answer before the others.

Since the key element of "Players ask questions"
has been reversed to "Players get answers",
I submit that the TV version of 20Q is an excellent example of OppThink in the game domain. The new gameshow is basically "20 Questions In Reverse."

OppWords List: Reverse Verbiage

Parayesia: The belief that people are out to get you (to a better place).

Frienemy: an enemy you convert into a friend (or treat as a friend even if you disagree).

Willusion: an imaginary thing (e.g., obstacle) that disappears when you apply your will to defeat it.

Plemptyful: the state of X being full of potential creation even if X seems to be empty.

Abutdance: the dance of turning around all the "but"s surrounding a decision and seeing the abundance side of things instead.

OppThink Quote from J.D. Salinger on Paranoia in Reverse

"I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy." - J. D. Salinger.

Do you see the glass as half empty, or half full? Salinger obviously believes the latter.
In fact, I would like to coin a new OppThink word (OppWord) in honor of this quote:

Parayesia: The belief that people are out to get you (to a better place).

OppWords: Reversals of Fortune (aka Look the Other Way)

'STRESSED' spelled backwards is 'DESSERTS'.

Something to think about.

OppThink Quote from Vince Lombardi on Winning and Losing

Vince Lombardi - "We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time."
Another famous quote worth learning from.

Here, Vince took the OppBelief of what most people would have just accepted (that is, "We lost the game"); the opposite is, of course, "We didn't lose the game."

Vince could be very convincing.
But how could he possibly justify this OppBelief?

With a supporting belief. And he found one: "Time ran out."
This is true, time did run out.

In other words, Vince's team would've won the game if they'd had more time to play.
If the game was 5 quarters instead of 4, they would have won, for example.
So now he can truthfully tell his team: don't think of yourselves as losers today.
Think of yourselves as winners who just needed a little more time to prove it.
You're not flawed - the game itself is flawed (for being too short)!
A great shift in mindset, courtesy of a little OppThinking.

Thanks, Vince. You're still invincible.

Small vs. Big OppThink: Levels, Zones and OppKnocks

One of the main ideas I hope to get across in this book is that there are always multiple levels and zones in our thinking, or the thinking within an organization. We need to know when to operate on one level or in one zone, and when to jump to another that is more relevant or useful.

Example: X and Y may be opposite beliefs or actions on Level L or in Zone Z.
There may be value in deciding which is best to adopt.
But it could be that deciding between X and Y is itself a wrong or wasteful/useless action.
A better action may be to forego or discard this decision altogether and jump to a different area of thinking, a more relevant level or zone.
(I use level for up/down movement -- higher and lower areas;
and zone for lateral movement -- different areas on the same level.)

Specific examples: why spend time deciding on leather versus cloth seats on a new Ford car before deciding whether you want to buy a new car at all? Why shop for homes in LA if you have not finalized a decision about whether to stay in LA or move? Solve the "higher choices" first before moving to "lower issues". OppThink can be applied to both the higher-issue questions and the detailed questions.

Similarly, learn to be adept at identifying OppKnocks -- moments when opportunity knocks and you can leap to another (better) level or zone. Knowing when to take opportunities to leap to better levels/zones when they present themselves also entails knowing when to abandon OppThinking that is no longer relevant based on the new data. If new data (an opportunity) says "I can move to NY for a great new job starting next Monday," then you can stop bickering with your roommate about chores for next Tuesday. The point is now moot. Move your reasoning and OppThinking attention to the new level or zone ASAP, and leave old levels/zones behind.

Summary:
Use OppThink methods to decide what is the right "zone of debate" or "area of OppThink operations" -- then go down to OppThinking specific beliefs when the time is right.

# # #

Another example: It occured to me that manipulation of OppThink beliefs applies to politics. A skilled (some might say devious or evil) politician P might try to get the press arguing about beliefs X and Y when in fact P could care less about these opposing beliefs. P may be hoping to distract the press and public from P's real agenda, which lives in a different level or zone of thinking, and which should be debated.

Knowing about and learning to identify Small OppThink versus Big OppThink can hopefully help us identify with politicians like P -- or any folks wanting our vote, our money, our attention -- are trying to distract us from what is truly important.

Yin Yang and OppThink

From Wikipedia:

Many natural dualities - e.g. dark and light, female and male, low and high - are cast in Chinese thought as yin yang. Yin and yang are complementary opposites within a greater whole. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, which constantly interact, never existing in absolute stasis. ... Yin and yang are thought to arise together from an initial quiescence or emptiness ... and to continue moving in tandem until quiescence is reached again. For instance, dropping a stone in a calm pool of water will simultaneously raise waves and lower troughs between them, and this alternation of high and low points in the water will radiate outward until the movement dissipates and the pool is calm once more. ... Yin yang describe opposing qualities in phenomena. For instance, winter is yin to summer's yang over the course of a year, and femininity is yin to masculinity's yang in human relationships. It is impossible to talk about yin or yang without some reference to the opposite.

But how can the concept of Yin Yang be applied to our lives?
Why is it beneficial?
Here are some examples.

Predictive Power and Hope

Recognizing a Yin Yang relationship between two opposites can help you predict what is coming next in your environment. For example, once ancient humans realized that summertime would eventually be replaced by its opposite, winter, they could plan for this by gathering food and storing it during summer and fall's plentiful hunting/gathering seasons in preparation for winter's inevitable return.

Also, the knowledge that winter is always replaced eventually by its opposite, summer, gave hope during winter's darkest hours. Hopes keep dreams alive, and help us survive mentally trying times.

A similar thing can be said about Boom and Bust cycles in our economy. At the height of the housing boom, in the middle of this decade, many were predicting a big bust to come. Smart people were able to heed this advice and avoid devastating losses. Similarly, smart investors know that the down times are the periods of opportunity, since in general a boomtime nearly always returns, based on general past trends. Yes, some individual investments may stay down forever, or go belly up, but taken as a whole, the housing and stock markets always recover eventually from bust times, and always come down from irrationally exuberant boom times. The wise OppThinker looks for such Opportunity Openings and jumps in to benefit from them.

Another example: relationships with the opposite sex. Losing at love can be handled better if you know that, eventually, love will return. Doesn't it seem that, just when dating seems to be in its darkest days, you meet that perfect person?

Of course, this does not happen to everyone, every time. It is not a hard and fast law of nature. But remember one of the general ideas behind Yin Yang: within everything is the seed of its opposite. This is what keeps me cautious and prudent when things are going great, and hopeful when they're not.

Stone Soup Story: Using OppThink to Transform Scarcity into Plenty

Many of you may have read or heard about the "Stone Soup" story. I heard a version on the radio not long ago here in Los Angeles. An entry on Wikipedia describes it as follows:

According to the story, some travelers come to a village, carrying nothing more than an empty pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of their food stores with the hungry travelers. The travelers fill the pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire in the village square. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what they are doing. The travelers answer that they are making "stone soup", which tastes wonderful, although it still needs a little bit of garnish to improve the flavor, which they are missing. The villager doesn't mind parting with just a little bit to help them out, so it gets added to the soup. Another villager walks by, inquiring about the pot, and the travelers again mention their stone soup which hasn't reached its full potential yet. The villager hands them a little bit of seasoning to help them out. More and more villagers walk by, each adding another ingredient. Finally, a delicious and nourishing pot of soup is enjoyed by all.

Look at how the story, when you analyze it, really is an excellent example of OppThink :

This fable can be thought of as "The Emperor's New Clothes" in reverse, where nothing is revealed to be something, after all. The original stone was only a pretext to start the villagers sharing in a way that they would not have considered without the catalyst of the "stone soup" that they thought they were improving.

Here is an OppThink way of looking at this story:
When something (S) of no real value (value=0)
is thought to have value=V by person X,
X may be willing to increase the value of S to V+X.
For every N persons (X1 to Xn) who think this way upon seeing S,
the value of S increases from 0 to V+X1+X2+X3+...+Xn.

Or, put another way (namely, English):

When nothing is thought of as something,
others want to make it an even better thing,
until it may eventually contain everything!

Now, just for fun, here's a Web 2.0 version of this:

When (a new website) is thought of as (the next big thing),
others want to make it an even (bigger site with more members/content),
until it may eventually contain (millions of members and user-generated contributions)!


# # #

Here is another OppThink way of looking at the Stone Soup fable:

If you want to ask a person (P) for something (e.g., X=soup),
don't use the approach that you are asking P for X.
This is scarcity thinking.
Do the opposite.
Start with success thinking.
Do use the approach that you are sharing X with P!
Although you have no food now (Soup=0), use an OppThink pitch:
"add a little to my Soup now, you'll get a big bowl of Soup later."
In short, you're not asking P for food, you are offering to share food to P!
The mindset has been OppThinked from desperate scarcity to hopeful plenty.
P just needs to share a little garnish, or a little seasoning, or small food item.
P feels no pain in donating a little something, and P can even get some delicious food back.
If many people do this, the soup gets hearty, huge, and a heaping bowl can be given to all.

Note that last "if".
The stone soup approach needs the cooperation of many people in order to succeed.
Many people contributing small items to the non-existent soup makes a sensational soup.
This shows the power of group cooperation to achieve great results.
(And, by the way, it's the secret of a great potluck dinner, too!)

Analogy: all this can also apply to Web 2.0 social networking websites.
The more people sign up and contribute content to them, the more value the networks have,
which in turn leads to even more signups and content, hence even more value, and so on.
In short, it is a positive feedback loop.

Bottom line:
Given a powerful idea
and many people who believe in that idea,
who contribute things to build the idea into a real thing,
very useful creations (whether websites or inventions or dinner) can be achieved.

Two OppBeliefs That Helped Me Write This Book

I was a bit stalled at first. Blocked. The reason: I held the following belief:
"I cannot write a book like this one, which seems so immense a topic."

Then I rewrote this belief in a more specific way, honing in on my main fear:
"I cannot write a book in one big chunk."

Then I took a look at the opposite belief (OB):
"I can write a book in many small chunks."

And thus this blog, with its many short bursts, was born.
And has been enabled me to see how I could write this book, one post at a time.

# # #

Another stalling factor for me was that I always believed books should be written after creating an outline. In other words, one of my beliefs was:

"I must write my book after creating an outline that I write first."

Then I OppThinked my view into this opposite belief:

"I could write my book before creating an outline that I write last."

This blog enables me to post quick bursts of OppThink thoughts, without worrying about the final outline. That will come later. The result: faster writing/posting of content! I hope you are enjoying it so far.

Quotes: Hear Heraclitus and Alan Watts on Using OppThink to Appreciate Life's Pleasures

He didn't use the term OppThink as far as I know, but he seems to be embracing its usefulness.
He = Heraclitus, ancient smart Greek dude.
Here is a Heraclitus quote I like:

It is by disease that health is pleasant, by evil that good is pleasant, by hunger satiety, by weariness rest.

In other words, by experiencing X (in this case, something of no apparent value)
we can appreciate the opposite of X (something we do value).

Alan Watts is a more recent philosopher who gave many talks in which he too embraced the value of a thing's opposite. A great example he liked to give:
without rests in music, how could we enjoy the notes?

But we can go even further.
Not only can we appreciate musical notes thanks to the rests in between --
the notes cannot exist without the rests!
Without rests, how could we hear notes at all?

In fact, there are many things in our universe which only exist thanks to their opposite.

In the realm of physics, particles can be created only in pairs, with opposite charges.
In other words, one's creation depends on its opposite's creation.

Movie Enjoyment = Conscious + Subconscious OppThink

You may not realize it, but in order to enjoy a film, your brain does a great deal of opposite thinking, on both a conscious and unconscious level.

First the unconscious OppThink: what is film, really? 24 single frames going by your eye each second (or, in the case of video, about 30 fps, but who's counting). In other words, single static images, going by your eye really fast. And there is also the in-between non-information part of film: the blackness between images. Luckily, it all goes by so fast we don't notice the blackness, nor the static nature of what is really in front of our eyes. Fortunately for us, what some might call a "limitation" in our sensory system results in the motion illusion (fast moving images perceived as motion by our brain), which the film industry has cleverly turned into a "benefit" (motion pictures, based on the ability to see motion when there is none). Motion pictures = moving images = movies.

But why do movies move us? How do we get emotionally invested in them? That is where the conscious OppThink comes in: suspension of disbelief. We know, logically, that the people onscreen are actors and not the people they are portraying. Plus, in the digital age, sometimes they are not even people at all! But we suspend all that knowledge -- willingly assume the opposite of the truth -- in order to enjoy the story.

In short, there's a whole lotta OppThink goin' on at the movies.
All of it is key to enjoying a film and "getting into it."

Quotes: THOMAS EDISON, SHERLOCK HOLMES and the OppThink Path to Light Bulb Invention

Thomas Edison is considered by many the greatest inventor of all time. But the road to his most famous invention -- the electric light bulb -- was not Easy Street.

Edison failed time and time again while trying to find a filament that would safely burn for long periods of time. But how did he look at these repeated failures? With an OppThink attitude, of course, as evidenced by his famous quote:

“We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb.”

In other words, Edison took the belief most might have settled on ("I don't have a way to build a light bulb yet") and turned it into its opposite belief, shown above.

Not knowing something is knowledge in its own right. In fact, Edison's light bulb quote is related to one by fiction's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes, who famously said:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

One can take an OppThink view of Edison's search for the light bulb and describe it this way: he eliminated the impossible filaments, and in the end, what was left was the filament that finally did work, and the truth of that successful filament's long lasting light changed our lives forever.

Quotes: BABE RUTH OppThinks Strikes

Babe Ruth struck out. A lot.
Babe Ruth struck out 1330 times over the span of his career.
Nearly twice as many strikeouts as homeruns, which totaled 714.

But the Bambino looked at strikes as opportunities.
In fact, he is known to have said:
"Every strike brings me closer to the next home run."
An excellent example of opposite thinking.

OppThink: Opportunity to Obtain Outstanding Comedy

Some of the best jokes are good because they violate expectations. That is, you expect X (based on the setup) but the punchline delivers the opposite of X.

Put another way, a good comic takes the listener down a path and then turns things around at the end.

When you don't see the punchline coming, the ending punch of the joke's last line can pack a comedic wallop, just as an unexpected punch during a fight can knock you out.

Comedic result: knockout laughs.

An OppThink Formula

O - Observe unreached goal(s).
P - Perceive beliefs that caused goal(s) to remain unreached.
P - Plan out which beliefs to turn into opposite form.
--------------------------------------------------------------
T - Try out new opposite belief OB.
H - How does it feel? How did it work?
I - Intuit ways to support OB, and why it should be supported.
N - New sub-belief to support OB? Add to OB sub-belief list. Repeat till satisfied.
K - Keep looking for more OBs to try.

Cognitive Dissonance: OppThink, Beliefs and Conflict Resolution

You fall in love with Denise. She breaks up with you. You feel terrible. How do you get over the pain?

Decide you are NOT in love with Denise.

By taking on the opposite belief (that you do not love Denise), the bad feelings of breaking up get easier to bear, and may even disappear. Sometimes immediately.

But how can you accept the exact opposite of what you believed the day before, when you were wildly in love? By finding supporting sub-beliefs for the new opposite belief. Such as, "I didn't really like her hair that much", "She was annoying sometimes", "Her mom didnt like me", "She didnt like the Beatles", and so on. Sub-beliefs that did not mean a thing before, when you (thought) you were in love, but now that you need to justify/support the new OPPOSITE belief, you are more willing to see them, accept them, and believe in them. In other words, the rose colored glasses are now off.

Welcome to the world of Cognitive Dissonance. By taking on the opposite belief, the inner (mental/cognitive) dissonance (conflict/contradiction) decreases or disappears. The only way you can feel better about the sub-beliefs that describe her right now ("She doesnt love me", "She is not here", "I cannot be with her", etc.) is to take on the higher level belief "I do not love Denise". Then, all your Denise-related beliefs (main and sub, higher and lower level) are in harmony, and do not cause cognitive "pain".

In short, OppThink can be beneficial in the realm of resolving conflicts on the internal kind, e.g., when it comes to relationships. Yes, Opposite Thinking can even help in dealing with the opposite sex.

When Do You Apply OppThink? When Do You Do the Opposite?

OppThink seems to work best when going forward (SameThink) is no longer giving you the results you want.

In science, it occurs when new data means a theory no longer works, or does not work well; when a current theory must become more and more complicated in order to explain all data, this provides the opportunity for a new, opposite theory that is simpler and/or more elegant. Examples: Lavoisier and his oxygen theory supplanting phlogiston theory; Einstein's constant-speed-of-light relativity supplanting two theories -- Newtonian physics and the light-travels-through-ether theory; Copernicus' Earth-orbits-Sun theory supplanting Ptolemy's Sun-orbits-Earth theory.

In personal matters, it occurs when actions you are doing are not getting you closer to your goals, and hence one or more of your beliefs/actions need to change -- often to an opposite belief/action. Example: you are driving straight ahead but a traffic jam ahead means a big delay, so you U-turn and take the opposite direction. Sometimes you have to take the long way around a roadblock if it is the only way to achieve the ultimate goal of getting to your destination.

OppThink Example: Lavoisier Proposes Oxygen Theory of Combustion, Opposite of Phlogiston Theory

Here is another example that shows how great moments in history can be sparked by OppThink. From the webpage "Demise of Phlogiston" (http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm):

Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) When informed by Priestley about dephlogisticated air, Lavosier repeated the experiments quantitatively. But to make exact measurements Lavoisier developed a balance that could weigh to 0.0005g. From his experiments Lavoisier proposed the Law of Conservation of Mass as well as the oxygen theory of combustion. Phlogiston died on September 5 1775, the day Lavoisier presented a paper to the French Academy of Science. Here are excerpts from the paper, Memoir on Combustion in General, published in 1777:

I venture to propose to the Academy today a new theory of combustion. Materials may not burn except in a very few kinds of air, or rather, combustion may take place in only a single variety of air: that which Mr. Priestley has named dephlogisticated air and which I name here pure air. In all combustion, pure air in which the combustion takes place is destroyed or decomposed and the burning body increases in weight exactly in proportion to the quantity of air destroyed or decomposed.

These different phenomena of the calcination of metals and of combustion are explained in a very nice manner by the hypothesis of Stahl, but it is necessary to suppose with Stahl that the material of fire, of phlogiston, is fixed in metals, in sulfur, and in all bodies which are regarded as combustible. Now if we demand of the partisans of the doctrine of Stahl that they prove the existence of the matter of fire in combustible bodies, they necessarily fall into a vicious circle and are obliged to reply that combustible bodies contain the matter of fire because they burn and that they burn because they contain the matter of fire. Now it is easy to see that in the last analysis this is explaining combustion by combustion.

The existence of the matter of fire, of phlogiston in metals, sulfur, etc., is then actually nothing but a hypothesis, a supposition which, once admitted, explains, it is true, some of the phenomena of calcination and combustion; but if I am able to show that these phenomena may be explained in just as natural a manner by an opposing hypothesis, that is to say without supposing that the matter of fire or phlogiston exists in combustible materials, the system of Stahl will be found to be shaken to its foundations.

Pure air, the dephlogisticated air of Mr. Priestley, is then, from this point of view, the true combustible body and perhaps the only one in nature, and we see that there is no longer need, in explaining the phenomena of combustion, of supposing that there exists an immense quantity of fixed fire in all bodies which we call combustible, that on the contrary it is very probable that little of this fire exists in metals, sulfur, and phosphorus and in the majority of very solid, heavy, and compact bodies; and perhaps even that only the matter of free fire exists in these substances by virtue of the property which this matter has of coming into equilibrium with neighboring bodies.

Furthermore, I repeat, in attacking here Stahl's doctrine my object is not to substitute a rigorously demonstrated theory but solely a hypothesis which appears to me more probable, more conformable to the laws of nature, and which appears to me to contain fewer forced explanations and fewer contradictions.


This last paragraph is key. When an OppBelief (such as Lavoisier's "opposing hypothesis") seems "to contain fewer forced explanations and fewer contradictions," you are on the right track, and that OppBelief has a good chance of becoming accepted. Lavoisier's Oxygen Theory -- which sprang from his "opposing hypothesis" that a substance does not burn due to containing phlogiston but rather because the air around it contains oxygen -- explained existing data in a better way, and eventually supplanted Phlogiston Theory.

Another example from science: Copernicus, whose controversial hypothesis that the Earth orbited the Sun (rather than the other way around) also entailed fewer exceptions, forced explanations and assumptions, and reduced contradictions.

OppThink Example: Chuck Yeager Breaks Sound Barrier

Chuck Yeager is known as the first human to fly faster than the speed of sound (aka Mach 1). The sound barrier was called that because test pilots circa 1947 noticed that, as a plane approached Mach 1, it would experience violent shaking and seem to be breaking apart. The conventional belief, therefore, was that no plane could break the barrier, since it would break up first.

As test pilot Yeager took his X-1 closer and closer to Mach 1 over several test flights, he got a taste of all the problems that other test pilots had encountered, direct data that correlated with the prevailing barrier belief: his plane would shake violently, seemed to be reaching its breaking point, a point where even the rivets seemed to be coming undone.

Now, the natural reaction to such extreme turbulence is to back off, slow down, get back to a safer speed. But how do you break a barrier that way?

On October 14, 1947, when Yeager got to that critical point just shy of Mach 1, the point of shaking and apparent plane-breaking, the point where most people's fears would be screaming in their ears to take the safe, intuitive action of slowing down, Yeager did the opposite. He went faster.

And a funny thing happened on the opposite side of all that barrier baloney. According to Yeager, “I noticed that the faster I got, the smoother the ride." His OppThink action was confirmed as the right course to take. With this, Captain Charles Yeager sailed safely and smoothly past Mach 1... and into history.

###

I find it fitting that Yeager also took another OppThink action, of a slightly different type, before the great flight even began. He had injured his ribs a couple of days before his historic flight, hurting himself so badly that he could not even close the hatch on his X-1. He needed the help of a piece of broomstick he and his engineer fashioned as a hatch-closing assistive device.

Most people would have thought, "I am injured and in intense pain and in no condition to fly, let alone fly at a speed no one has ever flown before."

Not Yeager. His OppBelief was, "I am flying the X-1 today, and I will find a solution that enables me to do so." The broomstick did the trick. Pain, schmain -- there was work to be done, and an imaginary barrier to expose as false.

###

In summary, Chuck Yeager assumed two crucial OppBeliefs on October 14, 1947:
I will fly today with injury (even though most believe you don't fly with painful injury)
and
I will fly faster near Mach 1 (even though most believe that may destroy the plane).
Thanks to these beliefs, plus superior skill, he accomplished his goal of supersonic flight.
Becoming a legend was icing on the cake.

Why OppThink?

Why not?

###

The other reason I chose the title "OppThink" is because it has two related meanings:
Opposite Thinking, and
Opportunity Thinking.

Looking for the "OppBelief" or taking the "OppAction" can often lead you to new areas of Opportunity.

Benefits of OppThink

Finding new solutions to problems.

Improving understanding of your assumptions, your beliefs, your biases, your mind.

Improving your life by taking action opposite to what you were doing (actions that have shown evidence of not working for you).

Seeing another's point of view more clearly (especially useful for understanding people or organizations who hold beliefs you don't and finding common ground, or even agreement).

Finding a "third belief" that is "beyond" two opposing beliefs (OBs) -- a higher-level "UpBelief" that incorporates the best of both OBs.

Stimulating new Discovery and Invention.

What is The Power of Opposite Thinking?

Thinking what no one else has thought
or taking an action no one else has taken
by daring to think or do the opposite --
even if it seems to make no sense
or seems to go against existing data
or seems counterintuitive
or even if, in some cases, it seems to have no meaning or purpose.

Assuming or hypothesizing the opposite of a belief you hold,
in order to decide whether the original belief should be discarded or revised.

Temporarily assuming the point of view of another -- a POV opposite to yours --
in order to understand it and find potential good and common ground in that "oppPOV".

Searching for new solutions to a problem
by trying the opposite of what you know doesn't work.

All of the above.
And more.
This is OppThink.
The Power of Opposite Thinking.