"Thinking outside the box"

[Guest nubar89]

Here is a question that one of my friends got last year:

 

Give an instance in which you solved a problem by thinking outside the box.

 

Although I can give examples of riddles and stories in which you must think outside the box to get the right answer, I find it hard to think of a specific example in my life. I am a good problem-solver, and I believe that I probably use this style of thinking a lot (particularly in my research). Nevertheless, I either do not notice when I use it or I forget the specific instances.

 

Does anybody have any ideas?

 

NBR

[Guest goldchair19]

I think that question could be interpreted pretty broadly to mean any challenging situation/circumstance when you acted in a way that was different from the norm and achieved a non-negative result. . . I think you could even interpret it as a conflict resolution problem where you might talk about a way you diffused agitation in a team by looking at the problem from a unique perspective

Or you could talk about choosing a path in your life that was "non-conventional" and how you found it rewarding. . .

Just a thought

[Guest iamsmilingbear]

Hi Hi,

 

I have a different interpretation: I think "outside the box" can mean you are stepping your foot out of the situation itself when solving the problem/conflict. Your thought process may be tangential or even irrelevant to the problem itself, yet it sparks a solution. An example that comes to my mind is how Archimedes discovered the principle of buoyancy from his bath.

 

Just my two cents.....maybe it's completely "outside the box"

 

smilingbear

[Guest nubar89]

iansmilingbear,

 

I think that your example effectively addresses "thinking outside the box", and I can think of several like it myself.

 

The problem is that I still can't think of an example from my life that is similar! :(

 

NBR

[Guest not rex morgan]

You could also interpret the question as some point in your life when you reasoned through something without following dogma. If there is a common syllogistic arguement (if a+b= a+c, then they must also equal b+c), and you disqualify one of the dogmatic points, you are thinking outside the box. For example. Terrorists are evil, we should eliminate evil, therefore we should eliminate terrorists. One could argue that terrorists are responding to years of social oppression and acting in a manor (ie killing innocent people) that was taught to them by their opressors (ie 11 years of daily bombings often killing innocent people). While the ends don't justify the means in action on either side, you have thought outside the box, and examined other points of view to explain that the situation is more complex than is being portrayed by the instigators of the war.

[Guest MayFlower1]

great point notrexmorgan,

 

For example. Terrorists are evil, we should eliminate evil, therefore we should eliminate terrorists. One could argue that terrorists are responding to years of social oppression and acting in a manor (ie killing innocent people) that was taught to them by their opressors (ie 11 years of daily bombings often killing innocent people). While the ends don't justify the means in action on either side, you have thought outside the box, and examined other points of view to explain that the situation is more complex than is being portrayed by the instigators of the war.

 

This "out of the box thinking" could also lead to different solutions...in the first case...elimination of terrorists is suggested...by stepping outside of the typical frame of reference we see that the logic brings us to other solutions...perhaps removal of opression would be better than eliminating terrorists. You may not agree with the solution, or even come up with a good alternative...but the point of out of box thinking is to generate not thought of alternatives...examination of these atypical solutions often leads to serendipitous discovery of a real gem.

 

Peter

[Guest not rex morgan]

Exactly what I was getting at. Another good point Peter.