Paradoxes and oxymorons

Created 2023-11-12

Paradoxes and Oxymorons in Design Thinking

Paradoxes and oxymorons are often seen as contradictory or nonsensical statements, but they can be valuable tools for design thinking.

What are paradoxes and oxymorons?

A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself but may contain some truth. For example, the paradox ''The more you know, the more you realise you don't know'' could mean knowledge can lead to greater uncertainty.

An oxymoron is a combination of two words or ideas that have opposite meanings. For example, the oxymoron "jumbo shrimp" is a combination of the words "jumbo" and "shrimp," which have opposite meanings.

How do paradoxes and oxymorons relate to design thinking?

Design thinking is a human-centred approach to innovation that focuses on understanding users' needs and developing desirable and feasible solutions. Paradoxes and oxymorons can help design thinkers in several ways:

They can challenge assumptions: Design thinking is about challenging assumptions and thinking outside the box. Paradoxes and oxymorons can help us to do this by forcing us to look at problems from new perspectives.
They can spark creativity: Paradoxes and oxymorons can also help to spark creativity by forcing us to think about problems in new and innovative ways.
They can help us to see the world in new ways. Paradoxes and oxymorons can help us see the world in new ways by forcing us to question what we thought we knew. This can be helpful for design thinkers who are trying to come up with new and innovative solutions to problems.

How do paradoxes and oxymorons relate to bad ideas?

The bad ideas approach to ideation is a technique that encourages people to generate as many ideas as possible, including bad ideas. The goal is to develop a wide range of ideas, even if some are not feasible. See Bad ideas for a ward round - Sir Lancelot Spratt

Paradoxes and oxymorons can be used to generate bad ideas for design thinking. For example, the paradox ''The more you know, the more you realise you don't know'' could lead to the wrong idea of ignoring experts because of their uncertainty. The oxymoron "jumbo shrimp" could lead to the wrong idea of creating a new type of shrimp that is both large and delicious.

While bad ideas may not be feasible, they can still be helpful for design thinking. Bad ideas can help us challenge our assumptions and see the world differently. They can also lead to new and innovative solutions.

Why we get stuck

We get stuck in our thinking for several reasons, but one key reason is our reliance on System 1 thinking.

System 1 thinking is fast, intuitive, and automatic. It is the thinking we use when making quick decisions, such as whether or not to cross the street when a car is coming. System 1 is also the thinking we use to form our first impressions of people and situations.

System 2 thinking, on the other hand, is slow, deliberate, and effortful. It is the thinking that we use when we need to solve complex problems or make crucial decisions. System 2 thinking is also used to override our System 1 impulses.

When faced with a new problem or situation, our System 1 thinking automatically tries to find a solution. If it can find a solution that is familiar and has worked in the past, it will simply apply that solution to the new problem. This is known as the availability heuristic.

However, if our System 1 thinking cannot find a familiar solution, it will turn to System 2 for help. System 2 thinking will then analyse the problem and develop a new solution.

The problem is that System 2 thinking is very energy-intensive. It takes a lot of cognitive resources to use System 2 thinking to solve problems and make decisions. This is why we often need help thinking, especially when tired or stressed.

Cognitive forcing strategies

Cognitive forcing strategies are techniques that we can use to overcome our reliance on System 1 thinking and encourage System 2 thinking. Some common cognitive forcing strategies include:

Brainstorming: Brainstorming is a technique that encourages people to generate as many ideas as possible, even if they are bad ideas. This can help to overcome the availability heuristic and develop new and innovative solutions to problems.
Reverse thinking: Reverse thinking is a technique that encourages people to think about the opposite of what they want to achieve. This can help challenge assumptions and break out old thinking patterns.
Exaggeration: Exaggeration is a technique that encourages people to exaggerate the problem that they are trying to solve. This can help identify the problem's root cause and generate new solutions.

Paradoxes, oxymorons, and bad ideas

Paradoxes, oxymorons, and bad ideas can all be used as cognitive forcing strategies. They can help challenge our assumptions and break out old thinking patterns.

For example, the paradox "war is peace" can force us to think about the relationship between war and peace in a new way. It can also lead us to question the assumption that war is always necessary to achieve peace.

The oxymoron "jumbo shrimp" can force us to think about the concept of size in a new way. It can also lead us to question the assumption that bigger is always better.

Bad ideas can also be used as cognitive forcing strategies. By generating and considering bad ideas, we can challenge our assumptions and develop new and innovative solutions to problems.

For example, if we are trying to design a new type of car, we might generate the bad idea of creating a car with no wheels. This bad idea might lead us to invent a new and innovative car that can hover above the ground.

Reference and bibliography

Admin, I.U. (2021). To Maintain Team Momentum, Shift Modes Of Working. [online] IDEO U. Available at: https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/to-maintain-team-momentum-shift-modes-of-working [Accessed 12 Nov. 2023].

Croskerry, P. (2003). Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionm-making. Annals of Emergency Medicine, [online] 41(1), pp.110–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2003.22.

Tay, S.W., Ryan, P. and Ryan, C.A. (2016). Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students. Canadian medical education journal, [online] 7(2), pp.e97–e103. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344059/