Your comment on “out-of-the-box” thinking and challenging common sense had me thinking for some reason about our military today. In a culture such as the military that values unquestioned obedience, the orders and directions of your leaders, and rigid structure with no questions asked, how can one foster “out-of-the-box” thinking without the backlash that follows?

General Petraeus is an interesting and also successful case in point regarding bucking the norm and eschewing “common sense” that lead to the results he wanted. Before Petraeus, current Army trends in Iraq lead to the notion that troops needed to be “bunkered” in large military posts for security and protection from the “enemy.” This was a common sense approach to force protection and standard Army doctrine. It was unquestioned until he stepped in and looked at our way of fighting the insurgency from an “out-of-the-box” approach.

Instead of occupying large bases away from the Iraqi public, go opposite to that thinking and place large numbers of troops in small teams located unprotected spread out in the city. Common sense would have screamed objection to this but ultimately it proved sucessful because he thought of it not from a soldiers prospective of Iraq, but from an Iraqi’s perspective of the soldiers.

Think outside-in instead of inside-out and although the naysayers may at first object, it can often prove successful. Without understanding the thought behind his orders, opposition screamed madness when General Patraeus outlined his plan. But, there was “a method to the madness” and a reasoning behind his approach. He threw common sense out of the window, rethought his approach, and came up with a brilliant solution to his problem.

It reminded me of a teacher who repeatedly told our class that there is no truth. Truth is subjective to the person in which the “truth” is being told to. Jut because something is “true” doesn’t mean you have to believe it; so to you, it isn’t the truth.

Moschen’s statement calls to mind the inquiry, “Does the end justify the means?” More clearly, if you look at the end result of a situation, are the factors leading up to it acceptable?

What if you don’t know those fluffy extra facts and just know the end result, then you don’t have to ponder if the means were correct, valid, justifiable, proper, etc, or if they weren’t. In essence, it doesn’t alter your perception by supporting or being opposed to the outcome.

Often times people look at the journey but not the final destination. Perhaps Moschen is a person easily influenced or extremely judgmental and doesn’t like to know extra information because it will cause him to think negatively or give excess praise to something that doesn’t deserve that treatment. Is this right for you? Well I guess it depends on your personality.

I would prefer to discover something for myself than have someone just tell me if at all possible. There is more pride and understanding involved in a discovery of a concept or an idea than if it is handed to one on a silver platter. That is why there are experiments as a part of science classes. In the anthropological sense, it is why researchers actually collect data instead of just using “common sense” to infer things about a group of people. Observation is the best way to learn about a great many things especially people. Now that’s just common sense.