‘Think outside the box’ is one of the biggest creativity cliches. The basic idea is that to be creative you need to challenge your own assumptions and look at things from a fresh angle. You need to break out of conventional thinking and take off the blinkers formed by past experience.
But is that really how creativity happens? And will learning to ‘think outside the box’ help you become more creative?
The phrase is generally held to have originated with the classic ‘nine-dot’ creativity puzzle. If you haven’t seen this problem before, try to solve it before scrolling down and reading the rest – you’ll get a lot more out of this article.
Get a pen and some paper and copy the nine dots arranged in a square below. To solve the problem, you need to join all nine dots by drawing no more than four straight lines. The straight lines must be continuous – i.e. you must not lift your pen from the paper once you start drawing. Don’t read any further until you’ve tried to solve the problem.
How did you get on? If you managed to solve it, give yourself a pat on the back and read on. If you’re not there yet, here’s a clue to help you. If you’re like most people, you will have tried to solve the problem by keeping your lines inside the ‘box’ created by the dots. But if you look at the instructions, there is no requirement to do this. So have another go at solving the problem, allowing yourself to draw outside the box. Again, don’t read any further until you’ve either solved it or given up.
OK if you’ve either solved it or had enough, click here to see two of the usual solutions.
What did you make of that? Could you solve the problem the first time? Did it make any difference when I said you could go outside the box?
The Conventional Explanation
The usual way of presenting this problem is for a creativity trainer to only give the first set of instructions – i.e. without mentioning the fact that you allow to go outside the box. And nearly everybody (including me, when I first saw it) completely fails to solve the problem. But most creativity trainers don’t bother with the second stage – they simply reveal the solution to cast of astonishment and protest from the audience: “that’s not fair! You didn’t tell us we could go outside the box!” To which the trainer typically responds “Aha! But I didn’t tell you you couldn’t go outside the box!”.
The trainer then trots out the conventional explanation of the puzzle: we can’t solve the problem as long as we are thinking ‘inside the box’ created by our assumptions. Once we start to think ‘outside the box’ we open up many more possibilities and it becomes easy to solve the problem. This is true in so many areas of life – our education, past experience and habitual thinking patterns keep us trapped in limiting assumptions. It takes a real effort to challenge the assumptions and think outside the box. Most of us are very poor at doing this and have to work hard at it – unlike creative geniuses to whom this kind of thinking comes naturally.
In case you think I’m having a go at creativity trainers I’ll confess that a few years ago, on a couple of occasions, I was that trainer. Never again.
Challenging Creative Convention
The trouble with the usual way of presenting the nine-dot problem is that it contains (ahem) an unexamined assumption. I.e. that all we have to do is tell people they can go outside the box and they will find it easy to solve the problem. But most of the time people are not given the chance to find out – they are simply given the solution and told that the problem was their limited thinking. They are usually so astonished to discover that they are allowed to draw outside the box that they readily accept this explanation.
A few researchers have been sceptical and curious enough to test this assumption. In Creativity – Beyond the Myth of Genius Robert Weisberg describes two experiments in which people were told that the only way to solve the problem was to draw lines outside the square. Contrary to the ‘outside the box’ school of thought, this did not make problem easy to solve. In fact, only 20-25% of subjects were able to solve the problem, even though all of them allowed themselves to draw outside the box. And even the ones who did solve the problem took a long time to do so, and used trial and error, making many different drawings, rather than any special form of ‘creative thinking’.
Researchers went on to show that the success rate could be improved by giving subjects prior training in solving simpler line-and-dot problems, and also by giving them “detailed strategy instructions” about how to solve the problem:
Lung and Dominowski’s strategy instructions plus dot-to-dot.training facilitated solution of the nine-dot problem, but still only a little more than half of the subjects solved the problem, and they did so not smoothly in a sudden burst of insight, but only after a number of tries. This study provides particularly graphic evidence that insightful behaviour, contrary to the Gestalt view, is the result of expertise.
Robert Weisberg, The Myth of Genius
So the research evidence suggests that thinking outside the box fails to produce the expected creative solution. And far from being a hindrance, past experience and training can actually be the key to creative problem-solving.
What Do You Think?
If the problem was new to you, could you solve it just by following the original instructions?
Did it make any difference when you were told you could go outside the box?
Is ‘thinking outside the box’ a useful way to approach creativity or does it deserve its status as the most despised piece of business jargon? Or is it simply that, as Brian likes to say, there is no box?
About the Author: Mark McGuinness is a poet and creative coach.
View Comments (87)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
« Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next »I remember when I first tried to solve this problem:
- First I asked him if I could get a really thick brush, in that case I could connect the dots with just one straight (but thick) line
- When he said "no", I asked the guy if he could give me a pair of scissors. After he declined, I painted the 9 dots making sure there was enough space at the top and the bottom of the piece of paper, carefully tore a cut (if this isnt correct English, Im sorry Im from Germany) between the left and the middle dots starting at the top going almost all the way to the bottom of the piece of paper. Then turned the piece of paper by 180 degrees and did the same thing (tearing the paper between the middle and the (now) left row of dots, starting at the top going almost all the way down). That made it pretty easy to get all the 9 dots, which were in a square (he never said they would have to stay in a square) with a single straight line!
Then I was made to put on a straight-jacket and only came back from a long vacation trip recently ;-).
On a more serious note, though...Im wondering if this is really "outside the box" thinking or "critical thinking". Okay, it obviously is "outside the box", pretty literally, but when I think of thinking outside the box I think of it as thinking outside the norm..asking the kind of questions that other people have never thought of before, etc.. Whereas the outside-the-box exercise seems to be just as much "critical thinking" to me.
Like if I asked you...hey yousaid: "To solve the problem, you need to join all nine dots by drawing no more than four straight lines", right? and then went on to use circling motions or curves to connect the dots (and maybe 3-4 STRAIGHT lines if i still needed them).
Btw, how do you define a straight line? I just had the thought of using one straight line connecting three dots, but continuing to draw that straight line on the back of that piece of paper to get back to where I started drawing that "straight" line. Once im back at the start (of course Id never stop drawing just slow down dramatically to have enough time) I would turn the piece of paper by about 45 degrees so Im still capable of drawing the same line but connecting some other dots with the same straight line.
Actually simply solutions are better so Id just connect three dots with a straight line, stop (it isnt against the rules) turn the piece of paper by 90 degrees and continue to draw to connect 2 more points with that same "straight line", etc.. Nobody mentioned the line had to be straight on that piece of paper, I just had to "draw" a straight line (or well 4 max!), right?;)
If I arrived at those solutions in about two minutes of playing around with the piece of paper) do I need a straight jacket??lol My math teacher sure thought so...and gave me an F on a maths test, because it only stated "solve the equation" (sorry again if this isnt correct English!) and I multipled every equation with a "0" and got the result 0 = 0 for every equation (it didnt say anything about having to find the value for the unknown variable and it was a math class not a mind-reading class!;)).
Just out of curiosity, though: How many people actually solve the problem WITHOUT being told they can draw outside the box (or well how many did, when that problem was still unknown?)? Im afraid without getting a lot of time to think about it or being told that I can draw outside the square, I wouldnt have come up with a solution (but once told I had many (and could probably generate more) as you can tell).
How many percent solved that problem without being told they can draw outside the square?
Ive been wondering if "street smarts" exist. Ive also been wondering whether creativity is what makes a person appear street smart vs. another who doesnt? Any ideas?
PS: "Creativity is actually work" / 1 % for the magic to happen.
I know people who are so uncreative, I tried to use parental control software to limit my online time (yes Im indeed a little bit crazy) and they told me "well...there's just one big problem with your idea" - "Which one?" - "You'll know the password". He was actually serious about it and I bet the thought of writing down a random complicated password, typing it into the parental control software quickly and then giving the piece of paper with the password to a friend (or a family member as I did) is something that someone with that rather low level of creativity will probably never be able to come up with, no matter how hard he works.
I agree with the concept of creativity needing to be put into action or else it's useless, but there are certainly different levels of creativity in people and those who arent creative enough can work hard all day long, theyll not come up with too many creative solutions.
"How many people actually solve the problem WITHOUT being told they can draw outside the box " - Not many.
It is misleading when it says 'it becomes easy when people are told to think outside the box' (or something similar), because actually only 20% solved the problem given this information. Granted this is a large amount more than without this information, but by no means does it become 'easy', as I'm sure the 20% shows.
This is an interesting topic to me as I have been looking for ways to be more creative for about the past year. I have often wondered if the ability to come up with novel ideas is innate or if it is learned.
For instance, can someone like me, who grew up in a family and environment filled with “conventional” thinkers that not only did not question the status quo but actually insisted on and even enforced conformity, ever become creative? I often worry that it just won’t happen for me no matter how hard I try.
Some other posters mentioned that people are able to come up with new ideas because they have experience and knowledge of a particular discipline that others do not have. Creativity is deeper than this though. It is the ability to make connections and see patterns that others cannot. I have observed some that are able to do this and not only do they tend to ask many questions – they answer smart questions. Questions that make you think, “why didn’t I think about that?” These people also tend to be of well above average intelligence too. Is creativity, then, linked to IQ?
@ Rosie - Yep, that's exactly my point.
@ Tee -
I remember looking at some research that concluded creativity isn't strongly correlated with IQ. A lot of creative work does require a certain level of intelligence, but you can have a very high IQ without necessarily being very creative.
YES! Creativity isn't about where you came from, it's about what you make of life now and in the future. It's not something you either 'are' or aren't - it's something you DO.
Thinking "I'm not creative" is actually a very common creative block - have a read of my article about it, and see if it helps.
When God created all things, one of the first stories is how He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them as recorded in the book of Genesis. Whether or not you believe this account is not the point. It is to recognize that Adam had no frame of reference from which to come up with names. And I contend that there are unique challenges even today while also recognizing that many "inventions" are the result of building on what already existed. Lets use both!
It looks like the Professor of Psychology - Weisberg got it all muddled up here. Where does creativity/ ingenuity come in when you provide all the clues or worse still, previous training as is being touted by Mcguiness and co?
No Becky, it looks like you've got it muddled up. The point is that the overwhelming majority of people fail to solve the problem using 'creativity/ingenuity' (whatever you mean by that). And even when they are given the allegedly 'correct' answer, it fails to help them solve the problem.
I am currently studying creative brand management and am told to 'think outside the box' on a regular basis. When my lecturer explains how to broaden your mind and grasp those idea's in which you create by challenging my assumptions - that's just it. I challenge my assumptions, therefore creating my own box.
'Thinking outside the box' makes the creative process of idea's daunting, to me anyway. I feel as if i have to think outside the box in which everybody else places their ides. That's a pretty large box... It's overwhelming! Adding to the box that pretty much everything has been done...
My own interpretations would be
Assuming the absurd
Leaving your comfort zone
Stepping out of your shoes
I find this so interesting, it may be that I'm studying advertising and feel the need to know it. But regardless of that, your blog is fantastic. And I will most definitely keep in mind that "past experience and training can actually be the key to creative problem solving."