The Truth about Outside and Inside the Box in relation to Creativity.

The phrase ‘outside the box’ is often associated with creativity, with ‘wild idea’ generation. Besides outside the box thinking, there are outside the box methods, solutions and ideas. Outside the box became so popular that there is even an Inside the Box method, a reaction to all this 'outside the box'-talk.

When you read methodologies used by trainers and facilitators of creativity they might say they use outside and inside the box methods. And they often encourage outside the box thinking as path towards creativity. What are they talking about? Is it all just management jibberish or is there really a box that has to do something with creativity? Let’s find out!

Why do we connect Outside the box thinking with Creativity, in three steps

Step 1: Origin of the phrase: The Nine-dot puzzle

The Nine-dot puzzle exists out of nine dots in a 3 by 3 matrix. To solve the puzzle you have to connect all nine dots with four straight lines, without removing your pencil from the paper.

The oldest record I can find on the puzzle I found through google and that record shows that the puzzle was already mentioned in 1914 in Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of 5000 Puzzles Tricks and Conundrums.

• Here comes a hint....

For the solution requires you to go literally outside this imaginary square, hence the phrase ‘outside the box’. Got the solution? The answer is in the picture below.

Step 2: Problem solving research with the Nine-dot puzzle

In the beginning of the previous century the Gestalt psychologists used the Nine-dot puzzle to prove the concept of 'moment of insight'. The Gestalt theory is all about perception. The famous phrase: 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts', comes from this theory (according to Wikipedia).

The 'moment of insight' is part of their theory on problem solving. According to the Gestalt theory you cannot solve a problem through associating. You have to go through three steps in solving a problem (Weisberg, 2006, p. 286). 

• First you reach a so called impasse. It is a period of no progress. Maybe this is the moment when you realize you have a problem that you cannot solve with the methods you are using.
• Second you have to restructure the problem. You probably no the phrase 'looking differently at the same thing'. That is restructuring the problem. Remember the Gestalt theory is all about how you perceive 'things'. You need to change your perception of the problem..
• Third, when you have restructured the problem, the solution will 'come to you' suddenly. This is the moment of insight. The famous Eureka-feeling the Aha-Erlebnis. You know what I mean.

Step two and step three happen almost at the same time. Restructuring leads directly to 'seeing the solution'.

Solving the Nine-dot puzzle is a perfect way to test this theory. See picture below.

Step 3. Problem solving in relation to creativity

We now understand the origin of the term and how it got into psychology and maybe also how it gained popularity. What we miss is the relation between problem solving and creativity. I don't want too dive to deep into this relation. On one hand it is quite obvious on the other hand it is also complex. Some will say creativity is a part of problem solving, others will say creativity is the same as problem solving. For this argument, it does not matter. The Gestalt theory on problem solving is used as theoretic framework for research on creativity. Thus, there is a relation…

Three mistakes we make in our interpretation of Outside the Box

Mistake 1: the box is the boundary of the problem

What often happens is that we use the imaginary square from the Nine-dot puzzle as metaphor for the boundary of a problem. But remember, the square is not real and is no part of the problem or a criteria for the solution. Again, there is no box! It is your own assumption or imagination that made it part of the problem. As a consequence we wrongly use 'the box' is a metaphor for the problem.

If we than use this metaphor as a method to solve other problems, we think we need to relax goal constraints to go outside the box: 'How can we come up with our newest innovation: We have to think outside the box. Oh OK, so everything is possible, let’s come with some crazy ideas or, let’s move away from the problem.'

I hope I made it clear that that is the wrong conclusion.

People more experienced with creativity will probably not make mistake 1 (at least that is what I hope). They will use the meaning the Gestalt pyschologists used. The box is not the boundary of the problem, the box is the boundary of you thinking. Your box is how you see reality with all your perceptions and assumptions. To solve a problem, you need to question your assumptions. A more relevant question would then be: ‘What is the box of our problem, and it that really the box or do we just think it is?  

Mistake 2: restructuring will always lead to a solution

Restructuring will lead to the moment of insight and thus to a solution, that is what the Gestalt psychologists theorized. However, it turns out that 'looking differently at the same thing' does not equal creativity, and it will not lead to a solution per se. Hence, the actual Gestalt-meaning of the phrase outside the box is not true. Research shows that outside the box thinking does not lead to creativity, per se.

In 1981 Alba and Weisberg conducted interesting research in this matter. In their experiment they literally told the participants that the had to draw lines outside the imaginary square to get the solution, in advance. They hypothesized that the hint would lead to restructuring and thus a great of amount of participants would solve the problem. The 'go outside' hint was not effective. Even though most participants drew lines outside the imaginary square, only 25% of the participants solved the problem (Weisberg, 2006). Other research shows the same type of result: Lung and Dominowski (1985), MacGregor Ormerod and Chronicle (2001).

Even though we might believe that outside the box thinking is a great way to describe creativity, research concludes differently.

Mistake 3: extrapolating conclusions for well-defined problems to ill-defined problems.

This is the most important mistake that might makes mistake two irrelevant.

From the argumentation at mistake two we can conclude that restructuring problems does not lead to insight. However, what we are forgetting is the type of problem involved. You see, Gestalt psychologist used so called 'insight problems' for their research. These problems are characterized as follows:

• One, the problem requires restructuring.
• Two, all variables are known.
• Three, the problem has one solution.

Hence, we are talking about well-defined problems. However, how many times you have to solve well-defined problems? Almost never. Most problems in work and private life are ill-defined. You don't know all the variables, context is everchanging, there are multiple solutions to the problem.

It might be true that restructuring well-defined problems does not lead to insight. However, we do not know for sure if restructuring ill defined problems doesn't lead to insight. At least I am not aware of any research on this matter. From my experience though, I would say that restructuring ill-defined problems is in fact the key to insight.

Outside the box thinking is key for solving ill-defined problems

If I use the Gestalt-meaning of outside the box thinking (changing my perception of the problem, challenging the existence of the box), I think outside the box thinking is the only way towards creativity when it comes to ill-defined problems.

All creativity starts with understanding the problem. The real problem. In the start-up world there is a phrase: 'Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups'. This is not only true in the start-up world but in life in general. That is why we need to observe and listen without judgement and with curiosity, and act like Leonardo da Vinci in that matter.

I wish scientists would use ill-defined problems to investigate the issue of restructuring. Seems like a topic worthwhile to me.

To summarize so far...

Firstly, outside the box thinking in terms of moving away from the problem is nonsense but is unfortunately a commonly made mistake. Google 'training creative thinking and outside the box', and find out how often you run into this interpretation of outside the box. I was a bit shocked...

Secondly, outside the box thinking, in terms of restructuring the problem (as the meaning was intended by Gestalt psychologists), does not lead to creativity per se, for well-defined problems.

Thirdly, we don't know if outside the box thinking in terms of restructuring the problem (as the meaning was intended by Gestalt psychologists), leads to creativity, for ill-defined problems. I think it does.

The weird thing about Inside the Box

With this insight about Outside the Box we move to Inside the Box. Like I said in the introduction creativity, facilitators and trainers might say they use both Outside- and Inside the Box methods.

The Inside the Box-method comes from the book with the same title by Boyd and Goldenberg (2013). In their book they describe the method called System Inventive Thinking and marketing wise, it was very smart to call the book 'Inside the box'. I love System Inventive Thinking, I think it helps restructuring ill-defined problems. I hate the title of the book because it has nothing to do with the method.

The authors argue against outside the box thinking, using the interpretation as mentioned in mistake one: outside the box thinking is moving away from the problem. No, they say, you should stay with the problem and restructure the problem, hence you should think Inside the Box. Sticking with the problem and restructuring it, is thinking outside the box. See where they went wrong? Their argumentation in favor of inside the box thinking is actually an argumentation in favor of outside the box thinking. Weird huh.

In conclusion

We need to figure out what interpretation of the box someone has before we can understand the person. And if someone has the 'moving away from the problem'-interpretation, we need to consider if this truly leads to creativity. That's another, but very relevant, question. To be continued...