If we are going to pioneer original work, we have to be willing to reject conventional thinking and forge new mental paths on our own. Let’s unpack this by first exploring conventional thinking.
One day, XYZ Corporation announces it has positive earnings and its stock price goes up. The news headline claims, “The stock price rose because the company’s earnings grew.” The author of the headline asserts there is a connection between earnings and stock movement. This explanation seems plausible. We accept it as the reason for the rising stock price.
Another day, XYZ Corporation announces it has positive earnings, but this time its stock price goes down. The news headline claims, “The stock price fell because the company’s earnings did not grow as much as investors expected.” This explanation also seems plausible. We accept it as the reason for the falling stock price.
But how could that be? The same event (earnings growth) leads to opposite results, and yet we accept both explanations.
The reason is, our minds are eager to understand connections, and if explanations seem plausible, we are apt to accept them. We like to know how things relate to one another. We like the reassuring feeling of knowing why things are as they are. Explanations put our minds at ease. They provide understanding, cozy, comfortable understanding.
It’s like when someone offers us their hand to shake. The normal response is to accept the hand being offered, and shake it. The handshake demonstrates that both people adhere to a common social norm. And that is comforting to both people.
The handshake is a dialog in an unspoken language: “Here is my hand. Will you shake it?” “Why, yes I will. Let’s shake hands!”
The author of the headline is also offering readers a sort of handshake. It’s a conceptual handshake. He is asking, “Will you accept the connection I am making between the company’s earnings and its stock price?” And the normal response, the easy response, is, “Yes, that connections seems acceptable.”
As social animals who have been conditioned to recognize social cues, we find it easier to accept explanations than to reject them. When we receive an explanation it’s like receiving one of those annual contracts whose language says it will auto-renew unless we opt out. If we do nothing, the contract will renew. If we go to sleep for 20 years like Rip Van Winkle, the contract will renew 20 times. Nothing is required. On the other hand, if we want to get out of the contract we have to do something. We have to act. We have to defy the natural flow.
Logical thinking is comfortable. Among the most mentally comforting logical patterns is the “if-then” pattern. “If this, then that.” This cause-and-effect pattern is simple and direct. Our language is filled proverbs of the “if-then” variety.
- “If you snooze, you lose.”
- “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
- “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
- “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
- “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”
- “If you play with fire, you’ll get burned.”
- “If you can’t beat em, join em.”
- “If you want something done right, do it yourself.”
An old-timey word related to the if-then pattern is the word sequitur, which is also related to the word sequence and generally refers to one thing that follows something else. By contrast, a non sequitur is something that does not follow something else. It describes a fallacy, a non-connection, a chaotic leap. A non sequitur is a non-conformist, a rebel. Non sequiturs hang out by the railroad tracks and smoke cigarettes and wear their underpants over their pants. In the analogy of the handshake, the sequitur heartily accepts the handshake, but the unruly non sequitur turns away and wanders off awkwardly.
Here’s the thing. If we are going to venture into uncharted territory and make singular links, we have to be willing to love non sequiturs, or at least embrace them. Conventional links are the legitimate children of conventional thinking. Unconventional links are the bastard love-children of unconventional thinking.
The mental processes that create singular links require courage and conviction. We have to be willing to embark on mental journeys. We have to serve as pioneer into new territory with no assurance that there exists an El Dorado at the end of the journey. We have to be nonconformist, independent, defiant.
Unconventional thinking requires unconventional thinking!
What can we do to stimulate unconventional thinking? Plenty. One way is to reverse assumptions. The CEO may assume her shareholders wanted more revenues, and if she followed that assumption she would seek ways for her company to do more — more products, more marketing, more customers. But if she challenges that assumption she may discover that her shareholders really want more profits, which could also be accomplished by reducing expenses. The answer may not be more, but less. Questioning assumptions can lead to unique insights and alternative solutions.
Another way to stimulate unconventional thinking is to ask provocative questions. Thought-provoking questions can force us to challenge conventional wisdom and may open up new perspectives. For example, in the 16th and 17th centuries, scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, and Isaac Newton challenged the view that the earth was the center of the universe. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Suffragette Movement challenged the idea that women should not have the right to vote. Civil-rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr challenged the conventions of segregation in the United States. More recently, the LGBTQ+ movement has been challenging conventional notions of gender and sexuality.
Another way to stimulate unconventional thinking is to use metaphors and analogies. This mental framework seeks parallels between unrelated concepts. The handshake and the unspoken conversation described above is an example of analogous thinking. Likewise, the business world is filled with analogies to sports. These sports analogies allow business leaders to study the work of coaches and team managers to identify strategies that could apply to their business. Likewise, business strategists may use military analogies, studying the work of generals to identify battle plans that apply to the business world. Sun Tsu’s The Art of War is the most often referenced non-business book in the world of business.
We can also stimulate unconventional thinking by introducing unrelated or random stimuli. In a recent post we talked about how sometimes our minds make connections even when there are no connections to be made. Our minds fill in missing information to connect unrelated elements. We see faces in clouds. We hear melodies in white noise. We can use prompts like images, words, or objects that have no apparent connection to the problem at hand and use these random connections to provoke new thoughts and associations. By compelling our minds to make connections between these stimuli and the problem, we may discover innovative solutions.
The point is, if our goal is to make unique discoveries and create original work, we must get comfortable shunning conventional thinking and pioneering new ideas alone. As Earnest Hemingway said, accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature, “Writing, at its best, is a lonely life… For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.”