To see things differently than other people, the most effective solution is to bombard brain with things it never encountered before.

1. 1

2. ReTHINK SYMPOSIUM :
Iconoclasts: Creating Grea Minds tha think different
t t
2

3. 3

4. 4

5. To see things differently than other
people, the most effective solution is to
bombard brain with things it never
encountered before.
Novelty releases the perceptual process
from the shackle or grip of past
experiences and forces the brain to make
new judgments.
5

6. Be an
iconoclast
Highly creative and innovative people’s brains actually function differently than the
average person’s. Gregory Berns ( a neuroscientist) refers to these types of people as “iconoclasts,”
which is also the title of his newest general audience, non-technical book, Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist
Reveals How To Think Differently. He defines an iconoclast as “a person who does something others
say can’t be done,” and explains “perception lies at the heart of iconoclasm…. Iconoclasts see things
differently than other people.”
Perception is not the same thing as vision. Instead, it is the complex process by which we
interpret our experiences of the world. Those interpretations are wired through experiential
repetition and at the neurological level include extracting or discarding information. Iconoclasts differ
from most people in how they filter information.
The importance of the distinctions in how each of us sees the world cannot be
underestimated. Berns writes that, “perception is not something that is immutably hardwired into the
brain.”
“The critical fears that inhibit people from sharing their ideas: the fear of being
rejected. At its core, this fear has its origin in social pressure, which is one of the
most common of human phobias.”
6

7. Recent neurological findings show that we are fully capable of changing how we perceive
life. However, this ability to redirect neurological firing requires an extraordinary amount of mental
energy, a principle fundamental to neuroeconomics. As it turns out, one of the brain’s primary survival
mechanisms is conserving energy.
The brain does this by limiting energy expenditure during normal everyday awareness – an
activity that is simultaneously and inextricably tied to the neurological shortcuts it learns and habitually
repeats. For most people, though, breaking out of the comfort zone of their energy conservative
perceptions is often a fearful proposition.
This means is that the brain will draw on both past experience and other source of
information such as what other people had said, to make sense of what it is seeing. This happens all
the time. In other words brain takes the shortcut in the interest of efficiency. Maybe we are hardly
aware of this process. But what eventually bubbles to the surface of consciousness is an image in the
“mind’s eye”
7

8. Fear is the biggest hurdle to become iconoclast.
Fear relates primarily to survival. So any situation that threatens survival activates the fear
system and puts the body in motion to do something and that something tends to be – retreat.
The fear system has evolved over millions of years to essentially protect animals from
predators in situations in which they would be eaten or killed. When an animal’s fear system is
activated, and that includes humans, it provokes a retreat. It is very rare, if not impossible, when the
fear system is active, to promote the opposite of retreat, which would be exploration. These are
fundamental principles of evolution.
Why do we have a fear system in the first place? What are the predominant fears that
animals have? It comes down to survival. If you think about it, the few things an animal has to do are
to survive and reproduce. Fear relates primarily to survival. So any situation that threatens survival
activates the fear system and puts the body in motion to do something and that something tends to be
– retreat.
That makes a lot of sense for animals, and it probably made sense for our ancestors
100,000 years ago, but in situations today, there are not very many circumstances where our very
survival is threatened in such an imminent way. Nevertheless, we have brains that still respond the
same way to activate that fear system, which is still very sensitive and tends to provoke the same
reaction.
8

9. There are many things that can trigger the fear system, a lot of very generic
things like phobias, but those are not particularly relevant to the current situation. The one
thing that does trigger it, pretty much universally although not to the same degree, is
uncertainty. We are not exactly sure why that is, but the neuroscience evidence is pretty
strong that when people have to face decisions in which they don’t have complete
information, we will see activity in parts of the brain associated with fear. In particular, we see
activity in a structure called the amygdala and we also tend to see activity in another
structure called the insula. Both of these structures are generally associated with negative
emotional states.
Potentially. However, when you are talking about uncertainty, there are two very
different types of uncertainty. One is what economists refer to as risk. That’s like playing the
lottery where you have to make a decision. There’s a possibility of failure, but you know what
the odds are and you can at least come to some estimate of the likelihood of success and
failure.
9

10. As long as you can come to some estimate, you can make a reasonable and rational
decision based on that. Now, each person might have a different tolerance for the risk, but at least you
can make that decision.
That’s quite different than the circumstance when you don’t even have complete
information and you don’t know what’s going to happen and you can’t even estimate the odds of
something bad happening. That’s called ambiguity Those are two different terms for two very
.
different situations.
Most everyone seems to have an innate aversion for ambiguity. Given the choice between
a circumstance in which they have incomplete information and one in which they have complete
information but it’s still risky, people will generally prefer the risky option, even if it is completely
irrational. Again, we don’t know exactly why that is, but that’s how our brains evolved. They take
situations in which they can’t really anticipate what’s going to happen, but then cognitively reframe
them so as to estimate some kind of likelihood of success or failure to make a decision.
This is a big inhibitor of risk taking and innovation because if you are doing something very
innovative, you aren’t going to have a track record that you can project on a likelihood of success. You
will be faced with situations of ambiguity and situations where you don’t know the odds of success. For
most people, that is an impediment and it will stop them. It makes them afraid.
10

11. Iconoclast in workplace
There’s a tremendous amount of fear in the workplace because people are
concerned as to whether or not they are going to be laid off, which is very rational. But the
problem is that this is extremely detrimental to business operations. When people are afraid, it
becomes difficult if not impossible to do innovative work, because you have this internal system
telling you to retreat and take the safest course.
When people are afraid, it becomes difficult if not impossible to do innovative
work, because you have this internal system telling you to retreat and take the safest course.
It is incumbent on business leaders and high level managers to get that fear under control. That
is precisely what leadership is: to manage the fears of the people working there and project
some level of confidence and optimism. The ship might be sinking but you have to project that
optimism.
If you want the novel ideas to emerge, you can’t play it safe. It’s in these
circumstances that you need to look to the most innovative and iconoclastic people in any
organization. Now, they might not be the most outspoken, as there are different personality
types that go with being an iconoclast. Some people are socially awkward, some are shy and
some like to provoke. Iconoclasts are not usually your mainstream persons. Managers need to
be aware of that and be a little more in tune than they would be normally which of course is
difficult because everyone is under pressure to manage costs. But this is a low cost strategy that
doesn’t cost much other than attention.
11

12. Iconoclasts are people who manage to achieve things that others say can’t be done.
In doing so, they overcome mental barriers that stop most of us cold. My definition implies that
these people are different from the rest of us, and they are, but more precisely,
their brains are different.
Until Walt Disney came along, cartoons were only used as advertisements between
movies. His great insight was to recognize that cartoons could actually be the main form of
entertainment. This insight, which came to him as he was working in animated
advertising, was the key to his success, more than any other personal asset or quality he
possessed. By all accounts, Disney was a difficult person to work with, but on the strength of this
inspiration, he was able to convince people to invest in his enterprise. His investors
were initially his family, and by relying on their support, he was able to build an empire from the
ground up.
Ray Kroc turned McDonald’s into the most successful fastfood operation in the world. There is
one particular example from his story that interests me. McDonald’s is not an organization
known for innovation in general: the entire business model is based on recreating the same
environment in each location.
12

13. Kroc’s innovation came in the marketing realm. In the late 1960s, he started
marketing children by creating the character of Ronald McDonald. That was a stroke of genius in
terms of a social understanding of the customer. Until that point, no one had marketed to
children because the conventional wisdom was, ‘Why bother? They don’t have any money’. In
essence, Kroc’s response was, ‘That may be true, but their parents do’. He created a connection
to that particular audience through a clown, and he correctly predicted that by getting the kids
to want to go to a restaurant, they would convince their parents to take them there. His insight
involved social intelligence and how to connect to people in a completely novel way.
Like other investors who bill themselves as ‘contrarians’, David Dreman (founder and CEO of
Dreman Value Management) has built his portfolio – and indeed his reputation – on the idea of
going against popular opinion on Wall Street. This is an extremely difficult thing to do, because
people on Wall Street are subject to strong social forces, and tend toward conformity and
chasing fads. Look at the mess the markets are in right now: it’s the result of herd behaviour, and
of the belief that certain investments are good because everyone else is pursuing them.
Dreman’s example is significant because he has been able to fight the urge to do what every
other investor is doing, and instead, to invest in things that are out of favour. This is one of
Warren Buffett’s strengths as well.
13

14. Both men have somehow managed to keep their ‘fear of being different’ in
control, and to reap the rewards. They may experience the fear of social disapproval, but they
certainly don’t let it inhibit their actions. Iconoclasts acknowledge the fact that creation is also an
act of destruction: that to create something new, you have to tear down conventional ways of
thinking. Whether you want to be an iconoclast or not, it is crucial for success in any field to
understand how the iconoclastic mind works.
The first roadblock is perception, which is also the most important
factor for coming up with new ideas. Perception is the process by which the brain takes inputs
from the senses – typically through the eyes – and converts them into mental images that we
become conscious of. Unfortunately, the brain takes plenty of shortcuts along the way. To
understand how it does this, consider the bandwidth of the optic nerve – the main conduit of
information from the eyes into the brain. Its information flow has been measured,
and it only adds up to about 10 megabytes per second – about the speed of a cable modem.
14

15. Anyone who has used a cable modem and tried to watch video over the Internet quickly
realizes there are compromises in terms of information flow: images tend to be pixelated
and jerky. Even though our brains are being fed information at the same rate through our eyes, this is
not how we see the world, because the brain is constantly making predictions and interpretations
about what it sees. The problem is that these predictions are based largely on past experience: our
brains make their best guess as to what they are seeing based on what we have experienced up to
that point.
The issue of how the brain creates perceptions from raw visual inputs is of critical
importance to being an iconoclast. The iconoclast doesn’t literally see things differently than other
people; more precisely, he perceives things differently. Breakthroughs tend to come from a
perception system that is confronted with something that it doesn’t know how to interpret.
Great innovators challenge our flawed perception by taking themselves out of their
normal circumstances. By exploring new environments and interacting with new people, they
essentially prevent their brains from relying on previous experiences too much, both in terms of
perception and imagination.
15

16. Iconoclasts’ key insights tend to be triggered by visual images, so the key to seeing like
an iconoclast is to look at things that you have never seen before. Sometimes a simple change of
environment is enough to jog your perceptual system out of its familiar categories. This may be
one reason why restaurants figure so prominently as sites of perceptual breakthroughs. New
acquaintances can also be a source of new perceptions, because other people frequently lend their
opinion of what they see, and these ideas may be enough to destabilize our familiar patterns of
perception. In short, by forcing our visual system to see things in different ways, we can increase
the odds of new insights.
16

17. The second mental roadblock that iconoclasts overcome has to do with the human
fear response. We know quite a bit about how the fear system works and what triggers it. This
system is largely unconscious or subconscious, and it is triggered by very primitive aversions
relating to survival. The one that is most important in inhibiting innovation is the fear of failure,
and in particular, the fear of looking stupid.
Our brains are very social – we evolved in social environments – and because of that,
we are deeply hardwired to care what other people think about us. You can imagine that 100,000
years ago, it was very important for our ancestors to belong to a community, both for the sake of
survival and reproduction. Fast-forward to today, and our brains are exquisitely tuned to what
other people are thinking about us. The fear of being humiliated, of looking stupid in front of your
peers, or of being shunned from the group is an incredibly powerful impediment to doing
something differently. It is fascinating how much social influence and messaging get mixed in with
our own judgements and opinions.
17

18. By definition, if you’re doing something differently, you’re doing something outside of
what everyone else does, and that is a situation we are all made to fear and avoid.
The third barrier that iconoclasts overcome involves social skills, and again, these
come into play because our brains are built for social environments. If you conquer the first two
impediments– perception and fear – and actually arrive at an idea that is truly novel, you are then
faced with the task of finding ways to convince other people of its merits. Persuading others
requires a fair deal of social intelligence, since most people will react with aversion to anything that
is different.
18

19. Where do new ideas actually come from?
What we have found is that when people imagine new ideas, they use the same parts
of their brain as in perception. Imagination, then, is like perception running in reverse. Imagination
is therefore subject to all the same problems that perception is: the brain will imagine things in
ways that are most familiar to it, in ways it has experienced in the past. The challenge is getting
around the brain’s limitations.
There are several different routes to forcing the brain out of its lazy mode of
perception, but the theme linking these methods depends on the element of surprise.
The brain must be provided with something that it has never before
processed to force it out of predictable perceptions. When confronted with
places never seen before, the brain must create new categories. It is in this
process that the brain jumbles around old ideas with new images
to create new syntheses
19

20. In order to think creatively, and imagine possibilities that only iconoclasts do, one
must purge out of the cycle of experience-dependent categorization-or what Mark Twain called
“education.” For most people, this does not come naturally. Often the harder one tries to think
differently, the more rigid the categories become. There is a better way, a path that jolts the brain
out of preconceived notions of what it is seeing: bombard the brain with new experiences. Only
then will it be forced out of efficiency mode and reconfigure its neural networks.
It typically takes a novel stimulus – either a new piece of information or
getting out of the environment in which an individual has become comfortable-to jolt attention
systems awake and reconfigure both perception and imagination. The more radical and novel the
change, the greater the likelihood of new insights being generated. To think like an iconoclast, you
need novel experiences.”
20

21. The human brain comes to like that with which it is familiar. And it is this sort of
familiarity that the successful iconoclast must strive for. Rightly or wrongly, people put their money
into things that they are familiar with.
The brain is lazy. It changes only when it has to. And the conditions that consistently
force the brain to rewire itself are when it confronts something novel. Novelty equals learning,
and learning means physical rewiring of the brain.
How can you think differently, better and deeper, and create a better future for
yourself, your business, and the world? Ideas are the new currency of success The world is
changing at a phenomenal pace. Seismic shifts are transforming your markets -often invisible, but
with immense implications.
New technologies, economics, fashion and culture have transformed people’s
expectations and dreams. Survival and success requires you to explore places no business has gone
before, to be more curious and creative -to see things differently, and think different things.
21

22. “To see things differently than other people,
the most effective solution is to bombard the
brain with things it has never encountered
before. Novelty releases the perceptual
process from the shackles of past experience
and forces the brain to make new judgments.
22

23. The key to seeing like an iconoclast is to look at things that you have never seen
before. It seems almost obvious that breakthroughs in perception do not come I from simply
staring at an object and thinking harder about it. Break-throughs come from a perceptual system
that is confronted with something that it doesn’t know how to interpret. Unfamiliarity forces the
rain to discard its usual categories of perception and create new one.
Imagination comes from the visual system. Iconoclasm goes hand in hand with
imagination. Before one can muster the strength to tear down conventional thinking, one must
first imagine the possibility that conventional thinking is wrong. But even this is not enough. The
iconoclast goes further and imagines alternative possibilities
23

24. 24

25. When Gutenberg was asked how he arrived at
the invention of the printing press, he
confessed it was as simple as seeing a new
connection between two existing products:
the wine press and the coin punch.
25

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. Fun and function combinations
29

30. Imagine weird combinations
30

31. Imagine weird combinations
31

32. Imagine weird combinations
32

33. Your combination
33

34. intelligence does not equal better thinking
Here's a fundamental question that we rarely try to answer: 'Are intelligent people
capable of better thinking?‘
The assumed answer is 'yes', because that is part of our definition of intelligence. An
intelligent person is someone who seems more capable of thinking than other people. Yet with
Edward De Bono (founder for lateral thinking technique)experience across a very wide range of
people, the obvious answer is not true.
Certainly intelligence, understanding and analysis do seem to go together. Yet
somebody may be very good at analysis but poor at design thinking or operational thinking –
the type of thinking involved in making things happen.
With 'design' you put things together to deliver a desired value. Excellence at
analysis does not mean excellence in design. Some countries teach philosophy as part of the
school curriculum. The intention is very good because the plan is to teach thinking. But
philosophy teaches analysis; it does not teach design thinking.
Then there is information. Intelligent people understand and absorb information
more readily. So they tend to have more information to play with. Often the right information
acts as a substitute for thinking.
34

35. Intelligent people working in a particular field pick up the idiom of that field and
then become capable of juggling information in that field. The result can be a powerful new idea.
But take that same mind and apply it to a completely different field and the generalised skill of
thinking is not there.
Intelligence is like the horsepower of a car. In other words, intelligence is a
'potential' (which may be determined by the speed of transmission along the neurones in the
brain).Thinking is like the skill with which the car is driven. The driver of the fast car may, in
time, acquire the skill needed to drive the fast car. But that is not the same as 'driving skill' in
its broad sense of reacting to conditions and other road users.
Thinking and intelligence do overlap in the area of understanding, but can diverge in
other areas. For example, an intelligent person may take up a view on a certain subject. This view
may be determined by personal experience, emotions and even prejudice. The intelligence is
then used to defend this view.
This is not an example of good thinking. Good thinking would involve exploration of
the subject, the generation of alternative views, listening to the views of others, considering
the context and purpose of the thinking – and then designing a way forward. Defence of
a point of view, no ma tter how brilliant is not enough.
,
There are general habits and intentions which good thinkers are supposed to have.
These might include considering all factors, generating alternatives, listening to others and
defining the objective. While these may exist as intentions, they are not necessarily used by
thinkers.
35

36. The need for new way of thinking
To this day, Western culture depends on this type of thinking. In family arguments,
in business discussions, in the law courts, and in governing assemblies, we use the thinking
system of the Greeks, based on argument and critical thinking.
THE GANG OF THREE
Socrates (469-399 B.C.)
Socrates was trained as a "sophist." Sophists were people who played with words and showed
how careful choice of words could lead you to almost any conclusion you wanted. Socrates was
interested in challenging people's thinking and, indeed, getting them to think at all instead of
just taking things for granted. He wanted people to examine what they meant when they said
something. He was not concerned with building things up or making things happen.
From Socrates we get the great emphasis on argument and critical thinking. Socrates chose to
make argument the main thinking tool. Within argument, there was to be critical thinking: Why
do you say that? What do you mean by that?
36

37. The need for new way of thinking
Plato (c. 427-348 B.C.)
Plato is generally held to be the father of Western philosophy. He is best-known for
his famous analogy of the cave. Suppose someone is bound up so that the person cannot turn
around but can only look at the back wall of the cave. There is a fire at the mouth of the
cave. If someone comes into the cave, then the bound person cannot see the newcomer directly
but can only see the shadow cast by the fire on the back wall of the cave. So as we go through
life, we cannot see truth and reality but only "shadows" of these. If we try hard enough and
listen to philosophers, then perhaps we can get a glimpse of the truth. From Plato we get the
notion that there is the "truth" somewhere but that we have to search for it to find it. The way to
search for the truth is to use critical thinking to attack what is untrue.
37

38. The need for new way of thinking
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle was the pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle was a
very practical person. He developed the notion of "categories," which are really definitions. So
you might have a definition of a "chair" or a "table." When you come across a piece of
furniture, you have to judge whether that piece of furniture fits the definition of a chair. If
it does fit, you say it is a chair. The object cannot both be a chair and not be a chair at the
same time. That would be a "contradiction." On the basis of his categories and the
avoidance of contradiction, Aristotle developed the sort of logic we still use today (based
largely on "is" and "is not"). From Aristotle we get a type of logic based on identity and
non-identity, on inclusion and exclusion.
38

39. THE OUTCOME OF THE GANG OF THREE
So, this was the gang of three. The outcome was a thinking system based on the
search for the "truth." This search was going to be carried out by the method of argument.
Within argument there was to be the critical thinking that sought to attack "untruth." This
attack was going to use the methodology of Aristotle's logic.
To this day, argument is the basis of our normal thinking. The purest form of this
type of thinking is in the law courts where the prosecution takes one side of the argument and
the defence the other side. Each strives to prove the other side wrong. The "truth" is to be
reached by argument
39

40. THE INADEQUACY OF ARGUMENT
There is a place for argument, and argument is a useful tool of thinking. But
argument is inadequate as the main tool of thinking. Argument lacks constructive energies,
design energies, and creative energies. Pointing out faults may lead to some improvement but
does not construct something new. Synthesizing both points of view does not produce a stream
of new alternatives.
Today in business, as elsewhere, there is a huge need to be constructive and
creative. There is a need to solve problems and to open up opportunities. There is a need to
design new possibilities, not just to argue between two existing possibilities.
“The brain is lazy. It changes only when it has to. And the
conditions that consistently force the brain to rewire itself are
when it confronts something novel. Novelty equals learning, and
learning means physical rewiring of the brain.”
40

41. 41

42. iconoclast
When confronted with information streaming from the eyes, the brain will interpret this
information in the quickest and most efficient way possible. Time is energy. The longer the brain spends
performing some calculation, the more energy it consumes. They see things differently because their
brains do not fall into efficiency traps as much as the average person’s brain. Iconoclasts, either because
they were born that way or because they learned how to do it, have found ways to work around the
perceptual shortcuts that plague most people.
42

43. iconoclast
The problem with novelty, however, is that, for most people, novelty triggers the fear
system of the brain. Fear is the second major impediment to thinking like an iconoclast and stops the
average person dead in this track. There are many types of fear, but the two that inhibit iconoclastic
thinking are fear of uncertainty and fear of public ridicule.
“To see things differently than other people, the most effective
solution is to bombard the brain with things it has never
encountered before. Novelty releases the perceptual process
from the shackles of past experience and forces the brain to
make new judgments.”
43

44. iconoclast
Iconoclasts have existed throughout history. A name was given to this type of person when
Leo III, emperor of Constantinople, destroyed the golden icon of Christ over his palace gates in AD 725.
Leo’s act of defiance against the church was to consolidate his power, but the word iconoclast, which
means literally “destroyer of icon,” stuck. In the same vein, the modern iconoclast, whether consciously
or not, acknowledges the fact that creation is also an act of destruction. To create something
new, you also have to tear down conventional ways of thinking.
44

45. 45

46. Whenever you want to reject an idea. Think twice and remember
below statements
46

47. In the late 30’s, Chester Carlson tried unsuccessfully to sell his mimeograph-replacing
technology to IBM,Kodak and others. Not until 1960, after $75 million in research, did Xerox unveil the
first copier using Carlson’s technology. The result? A $15 billion business.
The point: don’t kill new ideas before you fairly consider them.
Another classic example :
Have you got any idea when Xerox marketed the colour printer that found in 1971 ? Not because of cost
or quality. Reason is that there was nothing in the office in colour. Everything was black and white.
The typewriter …
47

48. Edison had a simple way of conducting interviews. He'd invite prospective employees to join
him for soup in the company cafeteria. If they salted their soup before tasting it, the interview was over.
But why?
Edison could not afford to surround himself with people ruled by faulty assumptions.
Of all the roadblocks of being and iconoclast and for innovation, assumptions are the worst. THEY
STOP US BEFORE WE EVEN START
Einstein was asked what the difference between him and
average person. He said :
“ If you asked the average person to find a needle
in haystack, the person would stop when he or she
found the needle. Me, on the other hand, would
tear through the entire haystack for all possible
needles”
48

49. When confronted with problems, we fix that on something in our past that has worked
before.
We ask, “ what I have been taught in my life, education, or work that will solve this
problem.” Analytically we select most promising approach based on past experience.
And work in a clearly defined direction toward the solution of the problem.
Because of the apparent soundness of the steps based on past experiences, We become
arrogant certain of correctness of our conclusions.
In contrast, iconoclast will ask themselves how many different ways they can look at the
problem. How they can rethink it, and how many different ways they can solve the
problem. Instead of asking how, they was taught to solve it
49

50. In 1968, the Swiss dominated the watch industry.
The Swiss themselves invented electronic watch
movement at their research institute in Neuchtel, Switzerland. It was rejected
by the every Swiss watch manufacturer. Seiko took a look at this invention
that the Swiss manufacturer rejected at World Watch Congress that year and
took over the world watch market.
50

51. 51

52. 52

53. 53

54. … …
54

55. We need a better word for mistake
People are reluctant to be creative out of fear of making "a mistake." Problem is (at
least in the English language) we don't have a good word to describe creative ideas that just
don't work...except to call them "mistakes."
That is, we do not have a good word for this: "Fully justified venture which for
reasons beyond our control did not succeed." If you do not succeed with your creative idea
this is called a "mistake." And people generally like to avoid "mistakes." (We need a better word!)
so anything that doesn’t succeed we call it mistake and people don’t like mistake.
Because that stands in the way of their promotion and career.
55

56. ReThink
If our brain is a computer, then the software we're using was largely designed 2,400 years
ago. We've done virtually nothing about thinking since the days of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. (In his
book Six Thinking Hats de Bono suggests that thinking systems based on analysis, judgement, and logical
argument are excellent in the same way that the left front wheel of a car is excellent. That is, there is
nothing at all wrong with it, but it is not sufficient).
Creativity is more than just being different. The creative idea is not just different (for the
sake of being different). Creative ideas must necessarily have or add value.
The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in
the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For
him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea. – Martin Luther
King Jr.
56

57. 57

58. 58