"Thinking Outside the Box" and why people don't get it

A lot of people like to bandy about the term 'think outside the box' in discussions, particularly here on ATS where we discuss a lot of unconventional material...but I just want to point out something: A lot of people who claim to be 'thinking outside the box' don't understand the box itself.

You see, brilliant people like Einstein thought outside the box, but they fully understood the contents of the box and the box itself. Hell, in a sense they were merely examining the surface of the box.

Now, I'm not saying that unconventional thinking is bad, but if you really, really want to challenge established thought, the best thing to do is probably to understand the conventional ideas that you're challenging before you dismiss them.

I encounter this a lot with creationists. Why? Well, because I have a lot of back-and-forth with them on it. They like to challenge ideas, ideas that they don't understand one bit. You might notice that I have a thread entitled 'The Ignorance of Creationists' linked in my signature, and that is for the exact reason that these people are ignorant of the science they're challenging.

If you want to say the C14 and other methods of radiometric dating are inaccurate, you can't just toss out a colloquial understanding of physics. You have to actually be able to understand the atomic physics of decay on a level that less than a percentage of the population of the Earth understands.

So here's my message to you here on ATS, please learn the contents of the box. It will not only help you understand how to challenge those contents, but it may actually save you the time of realizing that certain portions of those contents are actually right and it never hurts to challenge your own challenging.

Think well, think critically, and be thorough.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


i consider 'the box' as a metaphorical analogy. the fellow who was kind enough to spend the last year talking about all sorts of things, which slowly but surely took me from pretty clueless to painfully aware, has his own take on 'the box'.

he is a brilliant man, one of the most well-read people i've ever encountered. a researcher but most important a thinker. he says something along the lines of: "some people say you should think outside the box. for me, there --is-- no box."

i think what he means is, aside from what he has read, seen, been taught, observed etcetera, he will also think in a re-think format. from Time Zero, from the ground up. no forced beginnings, no limitations. he is free to think with creativity from a blank slate. it's incredible.

i am very lucky, i have some very wonderful people in my life, and i love them dearly

reply to post by LargeFries


I also agree that there really isn't a box...but I'm trying to deconstruct a popular metaphor by explaining that you have to have an understanding of the conventions before you can be unconventional. Hell, Picasso could create some of the most strikingly realistic paintings when he wanted to, but he flouted that convention once he understood it.

You have to understand what the rules are before you know when to break them.

Nice thread, and as far as creationists go: bunch of clueless, brainwashed sheeple.
How can you argue with someone who's basis of arguement is a firm belief in fairy tales? You can't.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Like lateral thinking right?

Ever wondered why they put mirrors into so many elevators?? That was lateral thinking.

Excellent post, thank you.

The first thing that came to my mind here was religion. I'm a rather unconventional person from time to time, but the one "unconventional constant" in my life would have to be religion. I was forced to church as a child and began questioning it when I was 9 years old. However, I don't think there was ever a time in my life when I did not feel there was a higher power of some sort in charge. I never really questioned that.

What I started questioning was the method by which I would be comfortable believing that, because church just wasn't cutting it. Everything about it was simply uncomfortable to me. If there is a box here, it would be conventional church teachings. Again, I was forced into it for quite a few years, so I really had no choice but to learn how that box operates and what is inside it. In a way, I guess that helped me be more analytical about thinking outside the box, because what is inside that box is absolute and unwavering. You simply do not question it. But not only did I question it, but I took from it what was relevant to my life, applied it to my life and made it work. One can realistically say that I grew up as a thief in the house of love, and I can't be trusted.

I'm more of the belief that "God" is not some bearded guy up in the clouds passing judgement on folks as conventional teachings would have us believe. The supreme power in charge of everything is not of this earth. It is not terrestrial. By definition therefor, it is extra terrestrial. It is alien.

Yes folks, "God" is an alien.

I guess if I have a point here it is this: If you are still inside that religious box, that one sentence will have you believing that I am a certifiable nut job, and you have no business at all trying to think outside the box. You would be playing in the shadows with those who live there. You may as well be a fish trying to ride a bicycle.

So yes, when I think outside the box I know exactly what I'm doing. If you catch me in the right mood, I'll leave you seriously questioning what you think is reality, that's how good I am.

I should be, I have years of experience.

reply to post by manontrial


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to help prove the op's point. I don't often say this aloud but....I am a creationist. I believe in god. (or the "grand architect of the universe" or "deific force" or whatever you want to call it) I also believe in evolution. I don't have a doctorate in biology or anything and I don't think that I require one to believe in evolution or even to decide not to believe it. The same goes for theology. Having said that, let me make a suggestion that people on either side of this argument often fail to consider....Evolution is the natural method that deity has used to create the many life forms that are in existence in exactly the way that was intended. If there is a god, he made the rules of the universe. Why would he/she/it work outside those rules? The laws of nature are just that. They are laws. Whether we understand them or not, they cannot be broken. Not by us and not by god. To do so would likely unmake existence. Having lightly touched on the subject of science versus religion, let me turn back to your original premise..."bunch of clueless, brainwashed sheeple" You do not know me. On what basis do you call me clueless? On what premise do you call me brainwashed? It sounds to me like you are the one who is brainwashed. You have made a blanket judgement on anyone who believes in a higher power without even asking why or in what way. I scored a perfect score on the science section of the S.A.T.'s when I was in highschool. Does that really sound like a guy who is clueless? How did you do on yours? Have YOU studied both sides of the argument? Have you noticed the similarities in the philosophical concepts of say...the kabala and quantum physics? How much do you understand about either topic? What part of my little rant has indicated a belief in fairytales? The closest I get to that is my belief in a higher power. That is a leap of faith. So is your belief that says there is no higher power. It is not the kind of thing that can be either proven or disproven. That is why it is called a leap of FAITH. I have faith that there is a higher power and you have faith that there isn't one. Personally, I think that last sentence speaks volumes about our respective moral states, but that is just my opinion and I may easily be wrong about you. Once again, as per the op's premise, you should try understanding what is in the box before you try to think outside of it.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I like your post. You say that "god" is "extra terestrial." That does not mean alien from another planet. It means "The supreme power in charge of everything is not of this earth. It is not terrestrial." I agree with your statement. It is the same as the notion of a "U.F.O." Notice the little dot behind each letter? That's because it stands for "unidentified flying object." If I tell some people that I saw a U.F.O., they assume I'm crazy. How does seeing something flying that you are unable to identify make you crazy? If you don't understand the words that you are using, then you won't be able to understand yourself let alone anyone else.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Now, I'm not saying that unconventional thinking is bad, but if you really, really want to challenge established thought, the best thing to do is probably to understand the conventional ideas that you're challenging before you dismiss them.


So here's my message to you here on ATS, please learn the contents of the box. It will not only help you understand how to challenge those contents, but it may actually save you the time of realizing that certain portions of those contents are actually right and it never hurts to challenge your own challenging.

Think well, think critically, and be thorough.

There is no need to look back at what has been termed "consensus thinking" as some sort of a guide for where not to go or where to go away from. That should not be a starting point as it is an automatic handicap. Just where do you start? Where ever you break away from may give you a false illusion as you work forward. A "forward thinker" works with the evidence that is available to him/or without a thought as to what has ever existed in the minds of authorities in the field or libraries of books about his topic.

You seem to want to get things nailed down to hard science or math determinations. That is not what is at play here on ATS. This is not a dogmatic, scientifiically peer-reviewed scientific journal. This is an "anything goes" place to kick around about anything in anyway. And even if you maintain a strict scientific mind, you cannot say say for example that the decay of isotopes is a standard across the Universe, as was the supposed thinking until the recently discovered different rates of decay were being noted. (Explanation yet to be determined.)

Forward thinking basically knows no limits that consensus reality wants to impose. True, it goes against the grain of the scientific method, but why the hell not? What is believed about the results of scientific work is frequently limited by the extent of prior investigations that did not want to look outside a narrow window.

The best example of this closed-mindedness is the mushrooming understanding that, "By gosh, there are other earth-like planets out there after all!"

--And what staid, old scientist will slump in his university chair and sigh, "Well, I'll be damned. Why, those old science-fiction writers were mostly right after all."

None. If anything, he and his fellows will say, "We always suspected that. We just hadn't proved it yet."

reply to post by Havick007


Yes, I do enjoy the idea of lateral thinking. In fact, I happen to share a nationality with its originator. It is a very useful idea that Dr DeBono came up with.

reply to post by Aliensun


My point is, at its foundation, that you must know physics, know what it is and what it states, before you revolutionize it. You must not found your arguments in an ignorance of what you are trying to overturn.