The Neigh of the Neggies

Edward de Bono

Those who have an apparent talent for negativity usually have no talent for anything else. I use the word ‘apparent’ talent because it is usually not much of a talent.

Negativity is absurdly easy. It is much easier to put a concrete block on a railway line than to design a locomotive, lay the track and run a rail system. If someone designed a simple chair, the critic inclined to be negative would call it boring, dull, like a prison or hospital chair. If the chair was not so simple then the critic, inclined to be negative, would call it fussy and vulgar. Whatever is done can be criticized because it is not something else. An ‘innocent’ person is therefore stupid. A ‘sophisticated’ person is therefore artificial.

There is a fire and a fire engine arrives to put out the fire. One group of protesters complain that the fire engine is blocking the road and they cannot drive to work – shopping is also difficult. Another group of protesters complain about the waste of water. There are millions of people around the world very short of water and here thousands of gallons are being thrown away. Finally, when the fore has been put out, there is all that nasty black stuff in the road and dirtying the washing on the roof. The fact that the fire has been put out is ignored.

There are people who feel they have talent. They feel they are important. But no one else seems to share that view. So the easiest way of getting attention is to attack someone who is being noticed. The person who assassinated John Kennedy became quite famous. There is no evidence that these people had any other talent than to get in the right place and pull a trigger.

Negativity in itself is easy enough but when it is combined with dishonesty it becomes even easier. Some newspapers, like the Guardian in England, are very good at this. Consider the following example.

Quoting from my work someone writes that de Bono said: “A bird and an airplane both fly but the mechanisms are very different”. Taken on its own, this sounds banal and stupid which is what the author of the piece intended it to sound. But it is deliberately taken out of the context which reads: “The human brain and the computer seem to achieve the same results. But the mechanism in each case is very different. An airplane and a bird both fly but the mechanisms are very different”. That sort of dishonesty requires little talent.

I recently suggested that the US might give $ 3 billion to the Palestinian authority with $50 million deducted for every Israeli civilian killed. In this paper that was totally taken out of context.

There is no mention that the US already gives more than $ 5 billion to the state of Israel. There is no mention of the deduction for every terrorist victim. It should also be noted that the Iraq war is costing at least $ 120 billion, so a very small matter of adjusting the balance could save future billions. All the context was, of course, ignored.

There are so many obvious tricks of negativity. If there is no ‘evidence’ this is pointed out. If, however, there is evidence then this must be biased or tainted.

Then there are the usual subjective adjectives masquerading as fact and words like ‘claims’ or ‘so called’ etc. The whole process is so childish, transparent and ludicrous.

In the end there is the simple matter of trying to prove that what many people have found to be useful is in fact useless. ABB in Finland used to spend thirty days on their multinational project discussions. Using parallel thinking (which is totally different from lateral thinking) they now do it in two days. Can you really show them that the process was no use at all to them?

Criticism has a valid role to play. In parliament the opposition has a duty to point out the failure or unfairness of a government proposal. When things are going wrong it is necessary to criticize them in the hope of having them put right. There is indeed a role for criticism. When it comes to ideas, if you do not understand them or do not like them, then ignore them. Is it your role to tell people who do get value from the ideas that they are stupid and fooled? I wonder if this sort of critic really knows how very absurd their noises seem to people who do know the subject and have found the idea useful. That is like telling people that water does not exist and does not quench your thirst. Perhaps the purpose is to protect those who have not yet come into contact with the ideas. Protect them from what? Protect them from something they might find useful? Is that the ‘noble’ role of the critic?

Or is it a simple matter of ego: “You think he is smart but I want to tell you that I am smarter because I can attack him”.

Brakes are necessary on a car. There is only one occasion when brakes are sufficient. That is when the car is rolling downhill. Any society which emphasizes negativity is on downhill slope of degeneration. Any individual who wallows in negativity is on a personal downhill slope.

Negativity is the last resource of the intellectually bankrupt. If you know you are unable to build, then seek to destroy.