Thought Tweet #745 The question shouldn't be, Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It should be, Is the glass half-full and half-empty?

The Thinking Behind The Tweet

Actually, the question should be - 

Is the glass at least both half-full and half-empty?

Rather than limit people to 2 ways of thinking and claiming one is optimistic and the other pessimistic, we ought to encourage people to view Situations and People's actions from multiple perspectives...by, for example, encouraging people to use tools like Edward de Bono's 'Six Thinking Hats'.

In some Situations, it is appropriate to consider what has been added while in others it is appropriate to consider what has been subtracted. Sometimes we need to consider possibilities. Other times we need to identify the need for urgent action. 

This goes beyond optimism, pessimism, and realism. While that 'mindset' differentiation may be important, with people or with situations, it also may not be important.

Situations & People deserve a lot more thinking than optimism/pessimism tests.

PS: That glass-half-full-glass-half-empty saying has always annoyed me. It is too cliché and it puts people into a 2-dimensional box when all of us know we live in at least a 3-dimensional world.

Edward de Bono is one of my heroes. In my opinion, he is the world's greatest creative thinking educator.

I have written about Edward de Bono and his 'Six Thinking Hats'...'Six Thinking Hats' is an extremely helpful tool for sorting out your thinking and for communicating with others about thinking.

Here's a picture-summary:

Edward de Bono's 'Six Thinking Hats'

I have a de Bono section in my library. My goal is to collect and red all his books. That's a challenge because he has been prolific, writing well over 50 books. I have just completed reading de Bono's 'Six Action Shoes', (1991). 'Six Action Shoes' is an extremely helpful tool for sorting out your actions and for communicating with others about actions.

Here's a picture-summary:

Edward de Bono's 'Six Action Shoes'

These thinking and action tools provide excellent ways to Seek Simple....a Spirited Leaders' philosophy. When thinking can be summarized in 6 ways...that's seeking simple. When action can be summarized in 6 ways...that's seeking simple. And, that's why Edward de Bono is so amazing. He has been able to unleash his genius [and help others do the same] because he is the master in simplifying before choosing how to think, simplifying before choosing how to act, and knowing when and how to be creative. In other books, he illustrates exactly how to be creative. [Our recent thought post 'Taking Curiosity to Creativity' contains de Bono's signature contribution - lateral thinking.]

Now, Seek Simple is one of Spirited Leaders' core philosophies...another is:

Business Contains Only 3 Things: People, Process, & Situations

Much has been posted about People, Process, & Situations.

Now we will show how Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats and Six Action Shoes can be incorporated.

Business Contains Only 3 Things: People, Process, & Situations. 

Here's the picture...

A snapshot in time during your business day - that's what we mean by Situations. That snapshot will contain people [at least 1, you] and it will contain process [at least 1, your thinking]. Process either involves People or machines/mechanisms/tools [designed by People]. For the time being, let's concentrate on the Processes performed by People. There are only 2 types of Processes performed by People: Thinking and Action. If we embrace de Bono's tools, the Processes performed by People have 12 components: 6 ways of thinking and 6 ways of taking action.

In any Situation, People can decide which of the 12 things they will perform.

Here's the picture...

Those are good questions to ask!

[That's Seeking Simple and finding it.]

[That makes for one very Good Habit.]

I'm no Economist.

So, I have no delusion about being able to either understand the financial-facts and number-nuances or accurately forecast the future economy. I have, however, experienced instances where I felt 100% certain I could accurately predict the direction of [natural gas] commodity prices. Perhaps, I was lucky; perhaps, it was real intuition. Regardless, my big-picture financial thoughts are more-or-less limited to questions and untested answers.

I understand people keep digging up gold, diamonds, and other precious things...which, for an interesting range of reasons, people value. As precious things are found and sold and bought - wealth increases. I understand people keep pumping up oil and gas and digging up other fuel sources...which, for practical reasons, people value. As these practical things are found and sold and bought - wealth increases...albeit, the growth in wealth is temporary for the buyer who sooner or later consumes them.

Outside of that and other similar simplistic views about how economies work, my big-picture financial thoughts are more-or-less limited to questions and untested answers.

Here are a few of them:

Debt is increasing. So what!

Isn't that the normal direction we should expect overall debt to take? Shouldn't debt follow the same trend as wealth? About the overall trend for wealth...isn't that trend an 'upward-sloping' line with overall wealth increasing with time? To the extent human beings place value on Value and call it wealth...haven't they always and won't they always tend to create it? Put another way, to the extent human beings innovate [in the commercial sense]...won't that tend to create wealth? And, as people create new pieces of Value and wealth and then exchange that new Value with other people won't the exchange be accompanied, in some instances, by new debt? So, isn't it natural for debt to increase as wealth increases? Shouldn't we expect that?

And - Isn't the extent of debt limited by the extent of wealth?

Wait a second...I worked through that Enron experience...let me rephrase that.

Isn't real debt limited by real wealth?

I'm no Economist...but...it seems to me the answer is 'Yes'.

We cannot expect one without the other. 

Sure, greedy and tricky hucksters can and do balloon the presentation of wealth. [not to mention Enron, again]

And, other folks - for example, the suckers Barnum said are born every minute - can be overconfident about the amount of debt they can afford and they can and do become over-extended.

However...

The aggregate of debt cannot exceed the aggregate of wealth...can it?

In the event the extent of aggregate debt gets too high relative to the extent of aggregate wealth, doesn't that get cleared up quickly with 'market corrections'? 

Don't market corrections reduce [right-size] both wealth and debt?

Questioned another way...

If wealth is not real then isn't the related debt also not real?

Don't stock-market corrections walk hand in hand with bankruptcy write-offs?

Don't these things pave the path for post-traumatic economic growth?

And...

When we say "debt is too high" don't we also mean "wealth is too high"?

PS: related to this -

• Do people, on average, take debt more seriously than wealth? 
• Do people in debt feel more obligated to pay their debt than people possessing wealth feel obligated to state its value accurately?
• Aren't interest rates simply a reflection of confidence in [future] wealth creation?