Why ‘thinking around’ is thetoric

It has been completely hip for several years. Thinking around. Presented as the solution direction for each problem. But we are fooled by its rhetoric.


The first step is to turn a problem into a fact. Moving from yes-but (it’s not what it should be and that’s a problem) to yes-and (it’s what it is). Then you look at what new possibilities arise by fully accepting the facts, so saying “yes” completely to reality.
Thinking is a technique, which consists of 2 steps:
Deconstructing is making the problem a fact. You take a problem, pick up what should be there and keep what is there.
Constructing is transforming existing facts into a new possibility. You start with a fact, and see what you could do with it. [source =]

In this theory, two things are put together and a false statement is made.
Making a fact of a problem suggests that there is no divorce. A problem is a factual determination of a situation for which the person concerned may or may not want a solution. Not all problems or facts can be solved or there is simply no need for them.

The second mistake is that you have to make the step from ‘Yes but’ to ‘Yes and’. However, that is another matter that is characterized here. Namely the resistance in a person himself. Furthermore, the person who has a ” yes but “takes the premise, can have very valid arguments. These arguments are wiped off the table by the” yes and “statement. As if the possible objections don’t matter.

He who objects is cornered as irrelevant in this way. In addition, the “Yes and” – “it is what it is” argumentation, a Laissez-fair attitude. An attitude that people Steve Jobs utterly rejected. “Yes but” leads to a critical thinking attitude. Not accepting the existing situation and wanting to strive for perfection.

Example: A person who is immobile due to a physical disability has a problem if they want to participate in a running race. His physical limitation is both the problem and the fact. How the disabled person then deals with that problem / fact is another matter. He can ignore the problem or find an alternative, for example, by participating in a wheelchair competition.

It becomes even clearer if you consider the difference between someone who was born blind or became blind during life. He who is born blind does not know the sight and will never experience it as a problem, but blindness remains as a fact. His brain has no knowledge of it. [read Oliver Sacks on this kind of special neurological case] However, those who see See as the norm will experience blindness as a problem.

If you follow the theory of Omdenken, the disability would be the problem that the disabled person has to face as fact. Quite biased if you start following that theory of argumentation.

False dilemmas

On the different thinking sites you will continuously come across the necessary ‘thinking’ quotes that mainly emphasize the simplification of ‘thinking’. Some examples of itself:

Boy (10) about tests: I think the test is mainly for the teacher, so she knows what to explain better next time.
[factually incorrect. The test is for the student to evaluate his development and progress so that the teacher can adjust her lesson accordingly]
Director to HR manager: “What if we invest in our people and they leave afterwards?” HR manager: “What if we don’t do it and they stay?”
[Non sequitur. other factors are not taken into account, which presupposes a false relationship]
Eat everything you want again today, because you don’t get fat between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, but between New Year’s and Christmas. (Doctor Bertho)
[Non sequitur it ignores the actual knowledge about getting fat such as genetic predisposition and mother’s eating behavior during pregnancy]
Children with ADHD have a serious problem. All of their teachers are boring.
[Just because an ADHD child can’t keep their attention on the lesson doesn’t mean the teacher is boring. It is the condition of the child that determines here]
If you want to look smart, talk. Whoever wants to become smart listens.
[ignores the circumstance and is factually incorrect. getting smart or rather activating your potential intelligence is mainly achieved through practice]
It’s not about whether you color inside or outside the lines, it’s about drawing your own lines.
[ignores the possible command]

The half-full-half-empty glass principle is therefore an essential part of Omdenken, despite Berthold Gunster’s unsupported denial on Twitter.


What the Omthinking mainly does is that real situations are stripped of their circumstances and reduced to black and white contradictions [false dilemmas]. This would violate reality and the solutions that follow from Deconstructing will not be tenable.

The worse thing is that people are put on the wrong track. Black and white thinking presupposes a nonexistent contrast from which to choose. If you make the ‘wrong’ choice, you owe the consequences to yourself. The outside influences are then disregarded, which may have a decisive influence.

Looking at reality in totality is in itself an almost impossible task. Man never has all the knowledge. [total truth] But with the limited knowledge we have, we can still do a good problem analysis based on a well-established hypothesis that we test. [scientific approach] And yes, that is a lot more difficult than trying to capture something in a 140 character theorem, but when it comes to realizing structural solutions, it is recommended. And let us be careful not to trap ourselves and others in false, simplified contradictions that lead to a misguided question of guilt.