Monday, April 27, 2009

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.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

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.