Free Think! by Edward de Bono Page B

caused by exposure to sunlight. So such people stayed indoors and only appeared in the evening. Their skin was unusually white as a result. Another effect of porphyria is bleeding gums. So white-faced people with bleeding gums only appeared during the evening or night.
    Then there were the bloodless corpses found around the area. The result was a belief in vampires.
    Vampires were supposed to be allergic to garlic. By chance, two people I know with porphyria are also allergic to garlic! A possibility becomes more and more certain.
    Possibilities with a good story can quickly become fact and belief. So we are right to be wary of possibility. At the

same time we have to accept the huge importance of possibility in thinking.
    It took me about 20 years to find a way of attaching my napkin so that my tie was not dirtied during a meal. I tried all sorts of clips and pins but invariably lost them by leaving them on the table. The final solution is incredibly simple. If I remember to describe it later in this book, you can use it immediately instead of waiting 20 years like I had to. That is the power of knowledge. So knowledge is essential – but so are possibilities.
ARGUMENT
    If you have invented logic, there is much more fun in showing someone to be wrong than in proving a point. Those who do not yet understand logic will not appreciate your proof but they will appreciate your attack. Furthermore, as you seek to teach your logic to others, you will spend most of the time pointing out their errors.
    Soargument was invented, perfected and disseminated by the GG3. Socrates in particular was very interested in dialectic or argument.
    Argument became such a central method that, amazingly, we have been content to use it for 2,400 years in all sorts of areas. We use it in parliament and in government. We use it in the courts of law. We use it in business negotiations. We use it in family disagreements

and discussions. It works very well. There was, and is, a real need for a method of showing incorrect ideas and positions to be wrong. Without that there would be chaos.
    Yet it is a crude, primitive and very inefficient way of exploring ideas. Argument works best when we are seeking to destroy a position, statement or assumption. It works well when we are trying to decide between two different positions.
    Argument does not work well at all when we are seeking to explore a subject. It is negative. It has no generative qualities. Argument is a very good way of establishing the truth but useless for exploration. Exploration means exploring and discovering new aspects of the subject. Argument can only be concerned with 'know' aspects. You can argue about which road to take on a road map, but argument cannot create the road map.
    Unfortunately, we use argument to explore a subject because we have no alternative method.
    Faults of argument
    The following faults of argument apply to the use of argument to explore a subject:
Argument is destructive and negative and concerned with attack.
There is no design element. There is no attempt to design a way forward. It is win or lose.
If 5 per cent of the other position is wrong, then the whole time is spent on this 5 per cent.
A weak idea that cannot be attacked will prevail against a stronger but more vulnerable idea.
There is a huge temptation to show off your superiority by proving the other party wrong – even on trivial points.
There is too much ego play.
A person who is skilled at argument may win against a less skilled person even if this other person has a better case.
There is no generative energy or skill to develop new positions.
    It is only fair to say that argument was never designed to explore a subject.
ALTERNATIVES TO ARGUMENT
    Is there any alternative to argument for exploring a subject? There is now – for the first time in 2,400 years – one example of which is given in the next section.
    Why has it taken so long to come up with such a simple and powerful method? Because our