Why are we so stupid? Edward de Bono "Why are we so stupid? When will humanity learn to think?" We're so stupid

This is the name of De Bono’s book, in which he tries to at least a little show readers how narrow and primitive we sometimes look at things, and what broad opportunities creative thinking opens up for us.

And this is precisely the question that comes to my mind as I watch throughout this week the reaction of the opposition-minded public to the tightening of repressive actions by the authorities. These include scandalous searches in the apartments of famous oppositionists, and attempts to “attach” criminal cases to them, and the completely out-of-the-ordinary story of the “trip to the forest.”

It is absolutely clear that all the stories are simply outrageous and cannot but cause anger in any normal person. Another thing is not clear, are they really a surprise for someone? When I read angry comments from journalists in the style of “under the conditions of a fascist state it is impossible to bring the Reichsfuehrer to justice,” I have only one question: “Did you just understand this? Wasn’t this obvious before???” When certain opposition figures in their rhetoric use the expressions “We went to court” or “Our rightness was confirmed by the court” or “We must obey the law” or “Law enforcement agencies should deal with this,” I have only one question: “Who really Is there anything else that is not clear about our “court”? Or our “law” or about our “law enforcement agencies”??? Are there really any illusions left? Is it really necessary to write something else about this?

It seems to me that everything is simple and understandable. The system begins to resist. Did anyone really expect something different? And the resistance will be fierce, well, because people have nothing to lose. If someone expects that “under the peaceful pressure of the public the system will collapse,” then these illusions can be abandoned, the resistance will be stubborn and cruel, and if necessary, it will not be limited to the death of Navalny, Udaltsov or those 50-100 thousand people who are actively fighting . There will be much more killed (if necessary). Although, most likely, all this will not be needed, a small “preventative planting” will be enough for everyone to quickly get scared and stop “playing the opposition.” Is this not clear? Is it really necessary to hit your forehead against the wall until you break your forehead?

In order to win, you need a winning strategy, and strategy, as you know, is a military trick, a trick that allows a weaker army to defeat a stronger one, because in a head-on collision and direct confrontation, the army that is larger and stronger wins. It is a competent strategy that the opposition needs now, because it is clear that simply going to rallies will not achieve victory. Although rallies are of course also needed...

An interesting sociological study was conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study public opinion. VTsIOM decided to find out what associations our citizens have with the concept of “cultured person.” As it turned out, a third of respondents believe that a cultured person is a polite, competent person with a broad outlook. By the way, according to the latest global education ranking PISA, Russian schoolchildren took 34th place out of 65 in mathematics, 41st in reading and 37th in scientific literacy. Just think: ahead of us is Vietnam. Was it possible to imagine something like this 30-40 years ago? Personally, I feel sad for today’s younger generation, who are “lucky” to live in this wonderful time.

Reviews

Yuri, what do you mean by the word “spirituality”? In modern Russia, the concepts of “spirituality” and “religion” are usually identified. If so, then I am against instilling such “spirituality” in schoolchildren, especially in the lower grades, when children are not yet able to think critically. Another thing is love for nature, parents, knowledge, neighbor... This needs to be taught.

Sasha and Yura, spiritual is not spiritual, spirit is not soul. The spirit, Sasha correctly wrote, is in adults, and the soul is in children, but if it dies, the spirit will not be resurrected in it. The church forgot about the soul and religion destroyed it, thanks to Stalin. Sasha, Stalinism is not Leninism. Stalin loaded the Russians incorrectly. What right did the Georgians have to rule the Russian people? Nobody even wants to think about it and in vain.
Sasha, you are not the USA, because one “A” is missing, you are Alexander. You are half the truth. The name Andrey combined two names: Sasha and Lyosha as Alex: Andr+ey. Yura became Yuri, replacing “A” with “I”, drawing a line. Some name is one-faced, some is two-faced, and no one thinks about it, like spirit and soul. Oleg is one-faced, but Olga has split Rus' into two, since her name is two-faced. Vladimir upset Rus' because Vova and Volodya, three faces at once.
Stupidly not sharp, stupidly - one “o” and the way to the other side. Acutely - two “o”s as a word, but what does it give? Dead end. Being smart is not profitable, you are not with everyone. It’s better to be stupid and stupid how to drink, but not water, but vodka is better. It’s hard to think and who needs it? Communism is down and down, and Lenin had the mind not Stalin. Lenin spoke about cooperatives as operational, and Stalin about collective farms and upset everyone like Vladimir, but not Ilyich.

The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.

Edward de Bono" Why are we so stupid? When will humanity learn to think?" ..
I was expecting some kind of guidebook from the book, instructions on how to use my own brain - what if someone told me how to think in such a way that it would be productive, without nonsense and with good result? But in fact, the book contained only general ideas: abundant criticism of what exists; hints that something more improved and effective has been invented; and no precise indications of what to do or how to do it. But it is quite easy to read, captivates and makes you think - even moreover, it gives food for thought - the book is simply replete with phrases that you want to cling to and think about them, try to agree with them or dispute them, somehow apply them to your life, or, on the contrary, understand that this is not about reality at all. Just look at his words about language: " Language is an encyclopedia of ignorance, forcing us to perceive the world in an outdated way". At first you read and some kind of sharp rejection arises - how can a language be ignorance?! - but then, after thinking a little, you understand that this is actually so. There are so many words in the language, but at the same time very few, so that express some impressions, beauty, feelings: no one will ever be able to fully describe love - there are simply no such words, and there are no synonyms for the word " Love" I don't know.
At the same time, you can learn something useful from this book; de Bono did discover a couple of secrets of thinking. For example, a method of parallel thinking called " Six hats", the essence of which is that when considering a problem, you should look at it from six sides (positions): " White hat" - information; " Red hat" - emotions, feelings, intuition; " Black hat" - criticism, negative side; " Yellow hat" - logical positive, positive side; "Green hat" - creativity and energy, alternatives, solutions; " Blue hat" - organization, summing up, results. Quite an interesting approach, especially considering that everything undoubtedly has two sides - good and bad, and the characteristic of a person is that he perceives everything emotionally, but is also capable of creating, as well as to sum up..
This book made me think and gave me a desire to look at things from different perspectives. Hot on the heels of this, I found sites on the Internet dedicated to de Bono’s methods (English/Russian), which I wanted to get acquainted with - it’s not for nothing that this man was called “ father of thinking about thinking", as well as a doctor of medicine and philosophy from Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard universities.