So, the article in the New York Times actually says, “Thinking ‘outside the box’ is not a cliché. You just need to use an actual box.” A doctoral candidate, an associate professor and an assistant professor wrote it, and, though I am outnumbered three to one, I ain’t buying the premise.
They argue that until recently no one knew whether bodily experiences could help in generating new ideas. So their research consisted of asking over 100 New York University students to complete a task designed to measure innovative thinking. Here’s the quirky part. Some students did this while literally sitting inside a 125-cubic foot box. The others sat and thought literally outside (though next to) the box.
They found that those thinking outside the box came up with over 20 percent more creative solutions. (Not certain if they meant the solutions were 20 percent more creative, or if they had 20 percent more ideas.)
Another test asked different students to think of original uses for an object, either while walking along a fixed rectangular path, marked by tape, or walking freely. The free walkers came up with more original ideas, which I think might be because those who walked along the fixed tape had to use at least part of their concentration to make sure they stayed on the tape.
The best part was their test for thinking about a problem, literally doing the cliché “on one hand, and then the other.” Read the article to see how inane the whole project appeared to be. In fact, if it weren’t a month early, I would think this was an April fool’s joke.
Part of their conclusion is that we are only starting to grasp how catchphrases shape how people think. I have come to a different conclusion. But it is not a flattering one.
Got the idea?
Comments