Parallel Thinking
Everyone looks in the same direction at the same time
Parallel thinking is the foundational philosophy behind the Six Thinking Hats, and represents a fundamental alternative to the Western argumentative tradition established by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle twenty-three hundred years ago. Where argument has each party defending a fixed position while trying to prove the other wrong, parallel thinking has everyone exploring the same aspect of a subject simultaneously, then moving together to explore the next aspect.
De Bono illustrates this with the image of a beautiful country house. In argument mode, four people stand at different sides of the house and argue by intercom about which view is correct. In parallel thinking, all four walk around the house together, examining the front, then a side, then the back, and finally the remaining side. At each moment, everyone is looking from the same vantage point. The subject gets fully explored because all perspectives are visited, not because the strongest argument won.
Parallel thinking goes further than simply taking turns. When two contradictory views emerge, they are laid down alongside each other rather than argued. If a choice between them becomes essential later, the attempt to choose is made at that point. If no choice can be made, the solution must be designed to cover both possibilities. The emphasis is always on designing a way forward rather than determining who is right.
- Same direction simultaneously: At any moment, everyone is looking in the same direction, though the direction changes throughout the process
- Contradictions coexist in parallel: Opposing views are laid down alongside each other rather than argued, and choice between them is deferred until necessary
- Design forward rather than judge backward: The emphasis is on 'what can be' and designing a way forward, not on 'what is' and determining who is right
- Full exploration over winning: Every perspective is visited because all participants walk through each viewpoint, unlike argument where points favoring the other side are suppressed
- Aligned intelligence creates power: Like a magnet whose power comes from all particles being aligned in the same direction, focused collective thinking produces dramatically better results than scattered adversarial debate
- Define the subject to be exploredClearly state the topic, problem, or decision that needs collective thinking. Establish that the group will explore it together from multiple angles rather than argue from pre-formed positions. Set expectations that participants should arrive without pre-formed conclusions.Pro tipFrame the session around 'what can be' rather than 'what is' to shift the group from judgment mode to design mode from the start.
- Choose the first direction to exploreSelect the first thinking direction for the group. Everyone focuses their attention on this single aspect. Whether it is gathering information, exploring benefits, identifying risks, or generating ideas, everyone looks in that same direction simultaneously.WarningDo not let individuals choose different directions. The entire point is that all minds point the same way at the same time.
- Lay contributions in parallelEach person adds their thinking alongside what others have offered. There is no responding to or critiquing what the last person said. Contributions are placed in parallel like laying tiles next to each other rather than stacking them in an argument.Pro tipWhen two contributions seem contradictory, place them both down without attempting to resolve the contradiction. Resolution comes later only if essential.
- Switch direction togetherWhen the current direction has been sufficiently explored, the entire group moves to the next direction together. The facilitator announces the switch and everyone reorients their thinking. No one stays behind arguing a previous point.
- Design the way forward from the full mapAfter exploring from all relevant directions, the group has a comprehensive map of the subject. Use this map to design solutions, make decisions, or plan next steps. If contradictions remain unresolved, design the solution to accommodate both possibilities.Pro tipLike Japanese-style meetings where information is offered in white hat fashion and slowly organizes itself into an idea, the best solutions often emerge naturally once the map is complete.
De Bono told the story of a man who painted half his car white and the other half black. When asked why, he replied it was fun to hear witnesses in court contradict each other after accidents. De Bono used this story at the Australian Constitutional Convention to illustrate how in arguments, both sides are often right but looking at different aspects of the situation.
In a controlled experiment with three hundred senior civil servants, the traditional discussion method was compared with the Six Hats parallel thinking method on similar problems. The civil servants were experienced thinkers accustomed to the argument tradition of government deliberation.
Edward de Bono developed parallel thinking as a direct response to what he saw as the fundamental limitation of Western intellectual tradition. He traced the argumentative approach to the Greek 'Gang of Three': Socrates, who focused on pointing out what was wrong; Plato, who believed ultimate truth was hidden below appearances; and Aristotle, who systematized inclusion/exclusion logic. De Bono argued that this tradition excels at determining 'what is' but provides no model for constructive thinking about 'what can be.' He noted that many cultures, perhaps even the majority, regard argument as aggressive, personal, and non-constructive, which explains why the parallel thinking approach has been readily adopted across diverse cultures worldwide.