THE HATS: The Origin of the ‘Thinking Hats’ Idea
The ‘thinking hats’ idea was originated by the School of Thinking in 1983.
In 1984, Edward de Bono left the School of Thinking and in 1985 he published Six Thinking Hats but gave no academic attribution to the School of Thinking from where he had taken the original idea.
This is simply a fact of history that has been legally substantiated over and over again. It is a fact which Edward de Bono has been forced to admit, in writing, by our lawyers.
But, he has never publicly acknowledged this fact. Edward knows, of course, that in the public mind the perception is the reality and Edward is certainly a very clever man.
I personally believe Edward de Bono has made a great and enduring contribution to the field of teaching thinking. I have been one of those who has continuously encouraged him personally in his work and, to support him in a practical way, I have drawn the attention of millions of people to his name and his brand for over 3 decades. I continue to do so. For 30 years, Edward has received substantial benefits–both financially and professionally–from my support.
However, those who are academically familiar with Edward’s body of work make two consistent and valid criticisms:
1. the repetitive nature of his books–that he writes ‘the same book over and over again’, and
2. his failure to give proper academic attribution to the work of others in the same field especially those whose work he uses to build his own ideas upon.
The second criticism is more serious than the first.
For those who are interested in these things, I co-founded the School of Thinking with Edward de Bono in New York on November 17, 1979. By 1982, Edward de Bono and I had co-authored The Learn-To-Think Coursebook and Instructors Manual (1982 Capra New).
This book became the first textbook of the School of Thinking. It was designed for Thinking Instructors to teach seven of the CoRT Thinking lessons: PMI, CAF, C+S, AGO, FIP, APC and OPV.
One day, at The Players Club in Gramercy Park, New York, the distinguished American science writer, Morton Hunt, interviewed me about our coursebook for Readers Digest which he wrote up in an article called Seven Steps To Better Thinking.
This interview was arranged by Alex Noble of Santa Barbara who was also one of the founding directors of SOT.
In April 1983, Morton Hunt’s article was the cover story on all international editions of the Readers Digest. Today’s equivalent would be like being on OPRAH!
—–
—–
(L. US Edition. M. Close-up. R. US, French, Arabic Editions.)
As a result, these SOT lessons reached over 68 million readers worldwide. This was the widest ever broadcast of these SOT thinking skills.
Seven different coloured icons–skulls with coloured brains–featured in this Readers Digest story, one for each of the seven thinking skills from our coursebook.
When I saw this story with the striking silhouettes of the seven heads with the seven coloured brains I pointed out that they looked like ’skullcaps’ and that led to the idea of School of Thinking Caps.
—
—
(’Skullcaps’: L. US Edition. M. Arabic Edition. R. French Edition)
In September 1983 Eric Bienstock and I developed a plan to package and sell the SOT Thinking Caps and we discussed the plan with Edward in London later that month. We felt we could sell the caps to raise funds for SOT and exploit the enormous publicity created from the Readers Digest cover story.
We were going to use baseball caps. We were looking at a package to put the seven coursebook skills on the baseball caps with a booklet How To Use Your Thinking Caps. Each cap was to be a different colour with one of the seven coursebook skills plus the SOT logo.
These SOT meetings were tape recorded and documented. Eric’s notes of these meetings (held in London, on September 26/27, 1983) and the cassette recordings are in the SOT archives. At these meetings, Edward submitted his suggestions in writing, too. His notes are also in the SOT archives.
For example, in his own notes Edward wrote that the SOT thinking caps should be sold in sets of six, or they could be headbands instead. Quoting directly from Edward’s own notes, “Each is of a different colour and each bears the logo of the School of Thinking. Instead of caps, elasticised head bands could be used”.
Six months later, Edward de Bono parted company with the School of Thinking in April 1984.
In 1985, within a year of leaving SOT, he had published Six Thinking Hats. Except that the word ‘Caps’ was changed to ‘Hats’ and the Blue and Green ones were switched around, the concept outlined in his book was identical to that developed by SOT.
When Eric, Alex and I saw Edward’s book we looked for his attribution to the School of Thinking and were disappointed not to find it. Subsequently, I have never found an attribution for any of my work, Eric’s work, or that of the SOT in any of Edward’s books over the years. On the other hand, we have been meticulous in giving Edward proper attribution for his role in co-founding SOT.
Click through here for the Original School of Thinking Caps …
See also: The Seventh Thinking Hat
Not only that, but two very doubtful books have been written over the years claiming to be credible histories of Edward de Bono’s work. The first was a rush job called Breaking Out of The Box: The Biography of Edward de Bono by Piers Dudgeon. When I challenged Edward about its veracity and authority he said it was “only a quick biography which we wanted to get out there on the record”.
In 2006, another sanitised book popped up by an Australian author, Leo D’Angelo Fisher, called Rethink: The Story of Edward de Bono in Australia.
Rethink indeed! Although the cover is adorned with the “thinking hats”, this book makes no reference whatsoever to the correct origin of the “hats” idea and ignores any role that an Australian may have played in its invention.
The book, while claiming on its cover to be “The story of Edward de Bono in Australia”, goes to the considerable trouble of avoiding any mention of my association with Edward de Bono in Australia since 1972. It does a great disservice to its readers by failing to record the many relevant and interesting facts of how an Australian helped launch Edward de Bono’s international career in ‘teaching thinking’.
I was finally contacted by the author who takes exception to my comments about his book. I asked him to explain his ommissions and he said it was an ‘oversight’. To be fair, he has kindly offered to rectify this: “if there is a second edition you have my assurance that I will redress that oversight”. Am I holding my breath? No. The chances of such a flawed book ever selling out its first edition are slim.
That seven years of foundational collaborative work should be missing from Edward’s history in both books remains a curious thing to many people who are interested in this story.
There is a history of this kind of thing which has gone on for twenty years and has always been a disappointment to me. C’est la vie!
The latest escapade? Funny you should ask. It’s a new claim by Edward in his latest book H+ a new religion? (Random House 2006) that he is now the ‘pioneer of software for the brain’.
The only problem with this latest claim is that I first published my best-seller Software For The Brain (Wrightbooks 1989) 18 years ago which is now in its Fourth Edition. Long before de Bono’s H+ book on religion, long before The God Delusion and even before The Da Vinci Code there already was Software For Your Brain. There are those that say I should take Edward’s claims as a compliment. Why?
•••
One possible explanation is the habit that some academics have of establishing their reputations at the expense of their colleagues.
Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins draws attention to this practise in The Selfish Gene where he complains, “I recently learned a disagreeable fact: there are influential scientists in the habit of putting their names to publications in whose composition they have played no part … For all I know, entire scientific reputations may have been built on the work of students and colleagues! I don’t know what can be done to combat this dishonesty. Perhaps journal editors should require signed testimony of what each author contributed”.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Not to worry Michael, I know its KOSHER. LOL.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I am dismayed by the dispute. Perhaps a fit case for the two leading thinkers to think through the conflict.
Generosity requires sharing with humankind. I thank you, Michael, for SOT lessons.
However, the discovery that academics cheat on their colleagues all over the world is a consolation of sorts that this practice is not limited to India.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Could Mr. de Bono be suffering from some kind of psychological disorder?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Michael,
I would say that De Bono is infected in his thinking system which is proven by the fact that he does not credit you or the SOT with the profound knowledge that was created in tandem with the SOT in the 1980’s. So the new knowlege mutated into a virus that keeps its origins hidden while encouraging it’s host to spread it as though it was his own and not a collaboration.
I can honestly say that the SOT has helped me more in my everyday living than all the books that De Bono has or possibly will ever put together. I also appreciate that you are so involved with the SOT because a few years back I could not get one of your books here in the USA and you so graciously sent me a copy.
Thanks a Billion Michael.
Rob - Oregon USA
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
This message is very timely.
There is an energy on the planet right now that is causing a “Shift” and “Sift” process to take place.
There is also an integration taking place. School of Thinking
has made a major contribution to the world.
The mind and heart or essences of being in some humans is not integrated. The brain software has a breach of integrity and malfunctions and or shuts down.
This situation is not uncommon though tragic.
Keep up the good work!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
That was then. This is now.
It looks, sounds, feels that both of you are talking in parallel at ‘us’. Most of ‘us’, I suspect, have no desire to take sides in something that is nothing to do with us.
For my own part, if either one of you comes up with concepts I can use and play with - I’ll try it out.
It might be time to move the SoT into a different space/niche from previous times and clarify its role for new generations of ‘thinkers’.
It might also be time to search among the new generations for people who have learned from the School to see just what fruit is being borne as a consequence and to use the fresh ideas to grow on from.
It may also be time to look at some of the ’slow to sprout’ notions to see if they’re still viable - and how they could be encouraged to take root.
I’m not that sure we need another religion. The last crop has been positively ruinous to human development… ;-D.
PS Academia is not noted for its gentlemanly behaviour, though the army often is. It might profit all to remember the code of an officer and a gentleman.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 am
It is sad that two very talented persons who has contributed so much to a better thinking world spend their time in a dispute. What a wonderful opportunity to create a new way of solving problems / disputes and gift it to the world to make it an even better and peaceful place to live in.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
If I do my thinking and add an honest (and yet entirely opinionated) comment my observation would be such:
Michaels Tone of both writing and presenting this is consistent and does not contain any venom (that I detected) that distinguishes it that much from any of his previous writing.
De Bono on the other hand merely seems to be more brazenly showing a quality that I always sensed in his work. The ideas are great (most of them) but he frequently mixes in a pompous tone of “rightness” that made me wonder how authentic he was.
See the thing is that even though emotions are completely tied in with our thinking they also have a field that wanders far away from just these considerations.
This I think is De Bonos weakness. Like many professional academics (and even innovators) they over-emphasize the field of thinking and forget that emotions are the ruler of our behavior also. In fact I think that emotions, or rather studying them , will lead us much closer to real happiness. Happiness that will allow us to be much more innovative in our thinking and therefore our daily life.
Whatever the “truth” is we all have to live with ourselves.
Thank you greatly to Michael and all those (as well as DeBono) that remind us to use more of what we have.
Rock on!
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Hi, Michael:
Gee, I have always thought that both of you are great pals. I didn’t realise that there has been such bad blood between both of you ever since the mid eighties.
I am well aware of your SOT project for many years, as well as the fact that you are the progenitor of the ‘Software for the Brain’ stuff.
I have never realised that you have been instrumental in developing his 6 Hats stuff. I have always thought he got his ideas from Ned Herrmann.
Although I have always respected Edward de bono, I have alway been very disappointed with him. One of my sore points about him is that he doesn’t acknowledge anybody in his writings. That’s why, readers like me can never seem to find any bibliography in his books.
Another sore point about him is that he always likes to moan & groan in his writings about other people stealing his ideas without according due credit to him.
I now realised that actually the pot is calling the kettle black.
I do sincerely hope that both of you can work out a mutually beneficial solution to the problem.
Good Luck & Best Wishes!
Kind Regards, Say Keng
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
If find it both tragic and ironic to find that two blokes that I have admired most and taught me so much about the truth virus are squabbling over the truth.
I sensed a spat in your writings early on but didnt realise the magnitude. Heres hoping you can reach to a satisfactory outcome.
CS
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
In answer to your question:
>> There are those that say I should take Edward’s claims as a compliment. Why?
Why? Because it would:
- Make Dr de Bono look good.
- Make you look generous and benevolent to your friends.
- Show respect to someone who is older than you.
- Be a way of thanking Dr de Bono for the benefits he has conferred on you in the past.
- Enhance the stature of two of the most important people pushing thinking into the school curriculum.
- Complete the phrase “Success has many fathers…” with the words “…and that’s OK”.
- Allow you to focus your efforts into building upon on your already considerable achievements.
- Show youngsters who dream of being an army General that you can be happy being a contented Captain.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
the theft of students’ ideas by lecturers and tutors happens in all fields
February 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
michael, you are bigger than this my friend! in the words of my daughters year 6 teacher, take it on the chin and move on. we love you! moreover, i believe he has appalling taste in ties!
February 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
This is certainly an unfortunate situation but in no way an uncommon one. It rpeats itself over and over again in ‘all’ works of life. Individuals or groups of individuals have tried to benefit at the expense of others. However sooner or later these inconsiderate humans have and do pay for their actions. I believe that it is important to be fair and honest with our fellow humans.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The study of Buddhism may be of some help to both parties in this dispute,
Buddhism teaches the suppression of the ego and the practice of compassion.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
this is sad, but i don’t want to have to deal with someone else’s issues here.
but also, no one has a monoploy on ideas. the academic world is partly fuelled by competitiveness and the desire to be the first to be credited to come up with anything ‘new’. The response to this must be to be the one to get in there first. Un-ideal as this might be, sometimes the world works i certain ways that we just have to learn (and to use that to our own advantage).
on the other hand this does not mean that we should tread all over those we have worked with and learnt from and not give them their dues. This is simply disrespectful, self-cantred and lacks honesty.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:56 am
It is a sad fact that there are individuals whose ego overrules what should be sensible judgement. To not acknowledge everyone involved in a collaborative project is simply wrong - and self centred!