Thinking outside the box
A little discussion has been going on over at two blogs that I recently came across, on the topic of “thinking outside the box”. Dawud Miracle prompted the discussion by asking "Are You Thinking Outside The Box?" Alex Shalman responded by considering a slightly different question, "Can You Handle Yourself Outside The Box?"
As if that weren’t enough, it became even more interesting when Dawud responded by re-framing the topic with this explanation of why you’ll never get out of the box.
I started to reply to both Dawud and Alex in their comments, but I quickly saw that each reply would become too lengthy and repetitive, so I’ve combined them here.
In Dawud’s first post he wrote about being outside the box himself, and about seeing the box “not as a prison, but as a container”.
…once I was outside the box, I was free. I could run, dance, play all I wanted. There were no boundaries, only wide-open spaces. No responsibilities, no deadlines, and no structure. Just unabated freedom.
…
After a short time, however, I got board [sic]. I started looking back at the box. I moved slowly toward it. And when I got near, I peered inside. I realized the box wasn’t that bad. It provided structure and boundaries that made me productive. It also gave me sense of purpose since I was responsible for my clients, my family, myself.
Dawud seems to be referring to the boundaries to experience set up by our self- and society-imposed limitations. The message he seemed to try to convey was that those limitations can be good, helping us in our daily activities and relationships.
Alex took that a step further. By asking “What philosophy could we adopt in order to remain as out of the box thinkers?” he was effectively asking how to continue to think in ways which didn’t consider those limits to be static.
However, I do think Alex may have been a little off the track Dawud was following by referring to the box as a comfort zone:
We’ll define the box as a structured, confined, habitual environment that offers security and comfort. Within this realm of thought, you live each day as the day before, you work towards an established goal, by doing what you did before. Besides for the confinement aspect, this doesn’t seem to be too bad of a deal. Well, maybe not.
One way of thinking will lead you to the conclusion that staying within your box, and your comfort zone will not only prevent you from growing, but prevent you from discovering new ideas. Dawud gets that “you have to think outside your norms to find change.� However, he still takes comfort in being within the box.
Dawud’s depiction of the box was as something which provided structure, but also guidance and purpose. Not necessarily comfort. However, I can understand why Alex would define the box that way. That’s how many people treat their regular patterns of thought; as a way of ensuring their own self-protection. They stay in the comfortable familiar realm of routine because it’s easy. Thinking outside the box requires effort.
Nonetheless it seems Alex and Dawud both used the box metaphor as an abstraction of our approach to our common attitude towards life and growth. Alex acknowledged and then moved beyond inside-the-box thinking, instead focusing on growth (remaining as “outside the box” thinkers). Dawud did exactly the same by acknowledging that growth requires noting our limits and striving to stretch them (expanding the walls of the box).
In Dawud’s second post, commenter Quint said Dawud was making too much of the “outside the box” metaphor, which I agree with. If you’ve read my previous post you may see the parallels between what I wrote, and the concept of acknowledging our limits and striving to stretch them. That’s what personal growth is about.
So in summary, there are limits, they are self-imposed (whether they come from within or from society or our environment, as long as we maintain them they’re self-imposed) and if we want to grow we must (and can) stretch them.
Related entries:
- How to achieve maximum personal growth
- Changing Beliefs: Instantaneous or Gradual?
- The Science Behind Change: A Beginner’s Guide
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
September 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
The phrase, “to think outside-the-box” strikes me as a way to encourage people to see beyond the limts they have created for themselves. People tend to be susceptible to external influence or conditioning. Each of us decides what is or isn’t “good” for us. Teenagers are well-known for giving into peer pressure and behaving like their friends. Adults are prone to behave as society dictates would be desirable (i.e., go to school, get a job, pay taxes, have a family, save your pennies in a bank,ect ). Imagine a world where all of yoru choices come from a guide within yourself that doesn’t have external influences. What if you didn’t have models and examples around you to follow? What if you didn’t use your senses like other people? What if your behavior didn’t result from conformity or rebellion to what was around you? What if everything you thought or did was guided only by your inner self?
September 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
All very good questions Liara. What I’ve learned tells me that conformity, like most other things in life, is not an issue of black and white. Some conformity is helpful. So I’m sure the answers to those questions depends a lot on context.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Well Mark, each us creates the context of our lives. I would agree perception of conformity isn’t always straightforward. Yet, each person usually formulates a view of ‘what this means’ by comparing the self other people. People will rebel against “the system” or against “authority,” but how many people say to themselves, “I’m going to rebel against myself?” Thinking-outside-the-box and actually taking the initiative may actually reveal how well you know (or don’t know) yourself. I mean, if you believe you’re a non-conformist, then you base this on a frame of reference. The question is, can you honestly say that’s only yours, without influence?
October 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I agree, we’re social creatures raised to adhere to many imposed rules, automatically, often without being aware of them. And I think you can keep asking the question eternally. How can you ever be sure what’s you, without influence? But another question to ask is, does it matter, and why, and under what conditions?
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 am
I think without other people, other ways of seeing the world, we risk limiting ourselves just as much? The trick isn’t to get outside the box into the spaced-out world where nothing matters, but to switch into different boxes and find the most interesting ones. Structure is important for the whole of life, but there are many different kinds. I don’t think you can escape the box altogether (except, perhaps, by dying/moving on/becoming part of the greater whole) though.
Interesting topic
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 am
I’d like a box with glass sides, a sky-light, and an aquarium in the floor. =D
Thanks for stopping by Suzie
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Very interesting discussion on all sites
I don’t see this as a strictly black and white conversation about inside or outside of a box. In my life I’d equate the box with structure or discipline. For years I rebelled against any form of structured/disciplined living or thinking determined to live my life and form my thoughts and beliefs entirely on my own terms. Truthfully that way of living worked more often than not. The problem was that I ended up wasting a whole lot of energy on relatively unimportant ideas and actions and in many ways my creativity was actually hampered.
It’s been my experience over the last two or so years that carefully chosen structures or discipline have dramatically increased my ability to live and think with originality while allowing me to maintain the energy necessary to move past limits that used to stop me. In the beginning I pushed quite hard against my own self-created “box” making one of the walls a specific time that I exercised every day and another a scheduled time that I spent reading, writing and thinking. Over time these “walls” have become a springboard rather than a barrier. I now have time to think regardless of what is happening in my life and the structure allows me to follow thoughts through to completion if that’s the path I wish to take. Yes, I had that option before but seldom followed it as life encroached upon the things that most matter to me.
I don’t understand why it is considered so desirable to have each and every action, decision and thought have the same weight in my life. I don’t think all our actions, thoughts or ideas need to be original - instead I’d prefer to focus on the few that will most impact my life and give them the energy and focus and creativity they deserve. Spending 20 minutes figuring out when I should exercise and what kind of exercise I should do at the beginning of every day feels limiting rather than making my life limitless. By allowing some structure (or the walls of a box) I’d argue that I’m removing the need for a strictly black and white life and increasing the likelihood that I’ll live all the variations of color I care to explore.
So, a lot of talk to get to my questions!
-do you define box and wall the same way?
-do you think discipline and structure create the walls of a box?
-I’m unclear what a world would look like if all our decisions came from within without external influences, Liara do you have a vision of what that would look like? If so, would you mind sharing it?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Mark, I just love your comment about the glass box. Do you think that could’ve been the partial inspiration for glass elevators that ascend and descend sides of buildings? That invention were originally conceived by imaginative arcitects who faced great resistence. I’m drawn to recall Albert Einstein’s phrase, ” Great spirits always encountered opposition by mediocre minds…”
Perhaps people secretly desire to know what its like to think differently than they usually do and may be afraid to. Some people take the risk to make a change. Others are content to imagine what it would be like. One of the great things about human existence is our freedom to choose and our free will to change our minds. (Its not only a woman’s perogative:) Boxes and walls may represent one thing today and something different tomorrow. That’s okay. The key may be the willingness to evolve. You can see them as physical objects and leave it at that. Or, you can go beyond that to see they represent metaphors for confinement and obstacles to remind you your attitude or mindset might emprison your thinking. Meaning begins and ends with each person.
Jenny, to answer your question, you may find science fiction novels and films to illustrate my point. You could turn to a book entitled “Course in Miracles” by the Foundation for Inner Peace (Helen Schucman) and “The Disappearance of the Universe” by Gary Renard. Both can be found in local bookstores, Amazon and in libraries.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:49 am
I don’t have a box. I have a house, on an infinite property. When someone comes along with a new take on something, and I like it, I add it into my house. When someone comes along with an entirely new (to me) idea or concept that I like, I create a new addition to my house. When I find something limiting or no longer useful, I remove that decoration or tear down that room.
The concept of a box is too limiting. Plus, I don’t want to be living in a box… houses are much nicer.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Jenny: You’re right, this is about far more than just thinking inside or outside the box. That phrase is commonly used to refer to approaching a concept/issue differently. It quickly became about how one perceives all the limits in their life, and a general theory of limits.
As your experience shows, limits can be helpful. They remove options, allowing us to more effectively focus our efforts. Less limits equates directly with more options, and that’s good, unless those options make it harder for us to choose between them.
To your questions… I’d prefer to talk about limits specifically, rather than via analogy because inevitably those analogies limit the discussion itself! So yes, box, wall, house, all limits. And yet the word limit is also too limiting because it tends to be associated with a lack of choice. I.e., a speed limit is legislated, but a decision to restrict one’s mode of transport to fast cars is a preference, but it still limits one’s choices. So what I have in mind is not just limits, but also rules, guidelines, preferences, etc. Anything that reduces options when making a decision (conscious or otherwise). But for the sake of simplicity I’ll continue to use the word ‘limits’.
Disciple and structure are only two things which create limits. As I mentioned so does preference (e.g., if I prefer strawberry ice-cream much more than chocolate, I’ll tend to limit my choices to strawberry). Outside influence can create limits, as Jason mentioned. More specifically Jason mentioned novelty, preference, and utility, all which create limits. That’s perhaps not so clear in the case of novelty, so what I mean is that something new might hold our attention exclusively, thereby limiting our awareness and options (usually a very temporary limit unless it’s turned into a preference. Arguably novelty is a preference).
I have a post coming up which will mention what happens when decisions come from within. I can’t say what the world would look like if everyone were like that, but I will show why that’s incredibly unlikely in our current state of evolution because of the way we develop.
Liara: You could be right about the glass elevators, as well as the glass room at the top of the Eureka tower here in Melbourne.
Jason: I like your house analogy more than the box one. Particularly if it’s a house which defies the normal physical laws (I’m thinking of rooms which allow us to see the world from space, for example, or from a different point in time).
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Mark & Jason:
As learn your mind constructs physical obstacles in the form of boxes or houses or anything else, you can develop the ability to transcend them. Its not only ghosts or sentient beings that learn to pass though things. Anyone can learn to overcome a mindset, learn not to give into the ego, learn not to hide your true function from yourself. We can all use our mind to cut through the limits we create for ourselves. As you begin to understand why you hold yourself back, its easier to simply no longer do that. This implies you learn to step outside or through the figurative box because you no longer believe it exists. Its not there. Finito.
October 5th, 2007 at 4:40 am
I don’t really like to use the word “limit” in this case, due to the fact that it sounds like a hard boundary, where for me they are more like guidelines… they can be violated, updated, or removed any time it seems useful or necessary to do so.
Limits are for things that you WILL NOT do, things like stealing cars, killing someone, etc., not so much the general usage like you suggested (or at least how I read what you wrote).
I’m not saying that you are wrong by denotation, just that connotation makes the way you say it possibly confusing.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Thanks Mark! So interesting never thought of preferences as a limit/guideline before but yes. Much to consider.
Jason I like the concept of a house on infinite property particularly if it is glass and what is contained within is limited only by one’s imagination
Liara,
“Its not only ghosts or sentient beings that learn to pass though things. Anyone can learn to overcome a mindset, learn not to give into the ego, learn not to hide your true function from yourself. We can all use our mind to cut through the limits we create for ourselves.”
Wow, that’s a pretty powerful statement that really resonates with me.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Agreed, Liara.
True Jason, and the same thing I realised after reading Liara’s comment. For a complete analysis neither limit nor guideline would be good enough because one is too hard and the other too soft, depending on how it’s used and how it’s perceived. If I take it further I’ll do my best to clear up any confusion
October 8th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Stretch, grow, reach… it’s all about stepping out of your comfort zone. I think that ultimately me and Dawud are on the same page… it’s all about being the best you, and taking life beyond any self-imposed limits.
Thanks for continuing this conversation Mark!
October 9th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Thinking outside the box? Who put you in a box to start with. We limit ourselves, we draw in our own horizons to create our own prisons and limitations.
I work within a large multi national company and find the hierarchical structures for management to be like stacked boxes. If you go outside the normal procedure you are either a rebel or an achiever. The trick is to achieve the goal regardless of boundaries such as imagined boxes and so become an achiever. Like Government large organisations appear to be there to put obstacles in the way, to stop you achieving what you perceive as your goal. Start your own business and see how many barriers you have to overcome to start trading.
It is said that the highest form of human endeavour is to be found in games. The setting of goals and barriers to those achievements are building blocks in the game universe. Treating the whole ‘box’ as a barrier to achievement will undoubtedly upset the creator of the box or barrier. The game is to win anyway. Nobody ignores a winner.
Play outside the box and win!
Dave
October 9th, 2007 at 10:56 am
For sure Alex, thanks for stopping by!
Well said Davey, we’ll encounter lots of obstacles in life, but we don’t have to let them stop us.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Guys, there is no “box”. A lot of talk (on the web in general) about something that isn’t even real or useful… it is both funny and sad. I would even dare to say that this “box” concept is dragging people down and adding useless clutter to brains that are already asphyxiated with information (or close to being so).
“Out of the box” thinking appeared at the same time as the 9 dots puzzle (puzzle published in 1951). After that, in the 1950-1960 period, it was used by Walt Disney for training, recruiting and brainstorming sessions. Lexicographer David Barnhart reports that he first encountered the “think outside of the boxâ€? phrase in 1975. From that point on, it fascinated many people around the world and it grew a life of its own as an increasing number of people became fascinated by the concept.
However, “the box” (and not just its metaphorical sense) doesn’t exist, so “thinking outside of the box” is a flawed concept; simply THINKING will suffice, there’s no need to clutter it with boxes and other concepts that aren’t anchored in reality.
PS: Save the trees, don’t make more boxes.
October 11th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Thanks for you comment Armannd, but I must disagree with you. Do you truly believe that no one ever limits their thinking to habitual patterns? That’s what we’re talking about. If there were no such limits to thought, then there would be no repeated displays cognitive biases, nor of logical fallacies, nor of people struggling to solve novel problems. All of these are examples of limitations which can be overcome by not following one’s usual pattern of thought, hence “thinking outside the box.”
October 12th, 2007 at 1:31 am
“Do you truly believe that no one ever limits their thinking to *habitual patterns*?”
That is no longer thought. Thinking involves the cerebral manipulation of information, as when we form concepts, engage in problem solving, reason and make decisions. Thinking is a higher cognitive function. In a “moment of reflection”, new situations and new experiences are judged against recalled ones and judgments are made.
A habitual pattern of thought can be regarded as thought only when the pattern was formed. After that moment it’s not much of a thought but a repetition. Thinking is …”fresh,” so to speak.
The limitations associated with “thinking inside of the box” appear as a result of a lack of - fresh - thought. If one thinks, there are no “boxings,” no habitual limitations.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
It seems you’re using a different definition of ‘habit’ than I am. A habit is defined as (I haven’t included irrelevant definitions):
You also seem to be using a limited definition of thought, even though you acknowledged that thought involved higher cognitive function. A repeated thought is still a thought. If fact almost all components of thought are made up of repeated sections of previous thought.
By those definitions, if someone worries about their weight every time they see someone slimmer than they, that is an example of habitual thoughts.
As another example, if I think of how to solve a riddle I will begin by thinking of ways in which the riddle is similar to ones I’ve encountered before. If that does not produce a solution I will think of how to combine or alter previous solutions to address the new problem. Regardless of how novel the solution then seems, it is still made up of parts of previous solutions. The apparent “fresh” thought is a repackaging of not-so-fresh thoughts.
In either case they are thoughts. You may value other forms of thought more highly, but regardless they are still thoughts and they are still habitual, but most importantly they do not represent hard limits, as we’ve already discussed.
You also mentioned that talking about a “box” isn’t useful. Do you believe it is also not useful to talk about that box in reference to other people’s use of the phrase, even if the core message of the discussion is that the box is truly not a box? Because that’s what we’ve been saying here, and on the two blogs which started this discussion. How do you encourage people to get past their limits if you don’t talk about them?