[Laughter] let me play the devil’s advocate for a
let me play the devil’s advocate for a
let me play the devil’s advocate for a moment I’m sure you’ve all heard that
moment I’m sure you’ve all heard that
moment I’m sure you’ve all heard that phrase if your spouse says to you don’t
phrase if your spouse says to you don’t
phrase if your spouse says to you don’t you think my new haircut looks great
you think my new haircut looks great
you think my new haircut looks great it’s not advisable to say let me play
it’s not advisable to say let me play
it’s not advisable to say let me play the devil’s advocate for a moment or if
the devil’s advocate for a moment or if
the devil’s advocate for a moment or if you do you better be wearing body armor
you do you better be wearing body armor
you do you better be wearing body armor but I’ve had give you ever wondered
but I’ve had give you ever wondered
but I’ve had give you ever wondered where does this concept this technique
where does this concept this technique
where does this concept this technique of the devil’s advocate originate well
of the devil’s advocate originate well
of the devil’s advocate originate well let me take you back to 1587 – Pope
let me take you back to 1587 – Pope
let me take you back to 1587 – Pope Sixtus v he was designing the modern
Sixtus v he was designing the modern
Sixtus v he was designing the modern process of canonization the system by
process of canonization the system by
process of canonization the system by which the Catholic Church would
which the Catholic Church would
which the Catholic Church would recognize deceased individuals as sings
recognize deceased individuals as sings
recognize deceased individuals as sings he decided to appoint a senior official
he decided to appoint a senior official
he decided to appoint a senior official of a church as promoter of the faith the
of a church as promoter of the faith the
of a church as promoter of the faith the notion here was that they would play the
notion here was that they would play the
notion here was that they would play the devil’s advocate let me explain how the
devil’s advocate let me explain how the
devil’s advocate let me explain how the process was to work suppose that someone
process was to work suppose that someone
process was to work suppose that someone nominated me for sainthood I know hard
nominated me for sainthood I know hard
nominated me for sainthood I know hard to believe proponents of my candidacy
to believe proponents of my candidacy
to believe proponents of my candidacy would argue that I had lived a holy and
would argue that I had lived a holy and
would argue that I had lived a holy and exemplary life the devil’s advocates job
exemplary life the devil’s advocates job
exemplary life the devil’s advocates job would be to argue that I was a sinner
would be to argue that I was a sinner
would be to argue that I was a sinner not a saint and only if you could
not a saint and only if you could
not a saint and only if you could overcome the objections of the devil’s
overcome the objections of the devil’s
overcome the objections of the devil’s advocate could I become a saint now
advocate could I become a saint now
advocate could I become a saint now unfortunately at this point I’m dead so
unfortunately at this point I’m dead so
unfortunately at this point I’m dead so I don’t get to defend myself against the
I don’t get to defend myself against the
I don’t get to defend myself against the devil’s advocate and therefore very few
devil’s advocate and therefore very few
devil’s advocate and therefore very few people became Saints it was a very
people became Saints it was a very
people became Saints it was a very exclusive club and the process worked
exclusive club and the process worked
exclusive club and the process worked that way for centuries now for centuries
that way for centuries now for centuries
that way for centuries now for centuries others look to this and thought the
others look to this and thought the
others look to this and thought the devil’s advocate this technique can be
devil’s advocate this technique can be
devil’s advocate this technique can be used to improve group decision-making
used to improve group decision-making
used to improve group decision-making but more recently innovation expert Tom
but more recently innovation expert Tom
but more recently innovation expert Tom Kelley of IDEO the leading design firm
Kelley of IDEO the leading design firm
Kelley of IDEO the leading design firm has said that the devil’s advocate is a
has said that the devil’s advocate is a
has said that the devil’s advocate is a single biggest innovation killer in
single biggest innovation killer in
single biggest innovation killer in corporate America today does the devil’s
corporate America today does the devil’s
corporate America today does the devil’s advocate destroy creativity should we
advocate destroy creativity should we
advocate destroy creativity should we abolish it from creative processes like
abolish it from creative processes like
abolish it from creative processes like Design Thinking Kelley statement
Design Thinking Kelley statement
Design Thinking Kelley statement troubles me greatly as a scholar of
troubles me greatly as a scholar of
troubles me greatly as a scholar of decision-making over the last 20 years
decision-making over the last 20 years
decision-making over the last 20 years I’ve been a proponent of devil’s
I’ve been a proponent of devil’s
I’ve been a proponent of devil’s advocacy
advocacy
advocacy my research and the research of others
my research and the research of others
my research and the research of others shows that in fact this technique can
shows that in fact this technique can
shows that in fact this technique can improve the level of critical thinking
improve the level of critical thinking
improve the level of critical thinking and improve the level of quality of the
and improve the level of quality of the
and improve the level of quality of the decisions we make in all realms of life
decisions we make in all realms of life
decisions we make in all realms of life so what do I make it at though is there
so what do I make it at though is there
so what do I make it at though is there a cost to devil’s advocacy now
a cost to devil’s advocacy now
a cost to devil’s advocacy now interestingly in the early 1980s pope
interestingly in the early 1980s pope
interestingly in the early 1980s pope john paul ii reformed the canonization
john paul ii reformed the canonization
john paul ii reformed the canonization process and the promoter of the faith
process and the promoter of the faith
process and the promoter of the faith was no longer to play the role of
was no longer to play the role of
was no longer to play the role of devil’s advocate and during his tenure
devil’s advocate and during his tenure
devil’s advocate and during his tenure of a little over two decades nearly 500
of a little over two decades nearly 500
of a little over two decades nearly 500 people were recognized as Saints far
people were recognized as Saints far
people were recognized as Saints far more than him in named in the entire
more than him in named in the entire
more than him in named in the entire 20th century prior to his tenure remove
20th century prior to his tenure remove
20th century prior to his tenure remove the devil’s advocate and suddenly people
the devil’s advocate and suddenly people
the devil’s advocate and suddenly people became holier but wait a second even the
became holier but wait a second even the
became holier but wait a second even the Pope agrees with Tom Kelley maybe I
Pope agrees with Tom Kelley maybe I
Pope agrees with Tom Kelley maybe I really do have to question my own
really do have to question my own
really do have to question my own beliefs about the benefits of devil’s
beliefs about the benefits of devil’s
beliefs about the benefits of devil’s advocacy researchers have been studying
advocacy researchers have been studying
advocacy researchers have been studying this technique for many years and in
this technique for many years and in
this technique for many years and in fact David Schweiger and his colleagues
fact David Schweiger and his colleagues
fact David Schweiger and his colleagues pioneered in the 1980’s a series of
pioneered in the 1980’s a series of
pioneered in the 1980’s a series of experimental studies looking at how
experimental studies looking at how
experimental studies looking at how devil’s advocacy compares to other
devil’s advocacy compares to other
devil’s advocacy compares to other methods of group decision-making and
methods of group decision-making and
methods of group decision-making and over the last 22 years I’ve been using a
over the last 22 years I’ve been using a
over the last 22 years I’ve been using a modification of his experimental design
modification of his experimental design
modification of his experimental design in in-class exercises with my students
in in-class exercises with my students
in in-class exercises with my students we have them experience two methods for
we have them experience two methods for
we have them experience two methods for group decision-making the first we’ll
group decision-making the first we’ll
group decision-making the first we’ll call the consensus method a group
call the consensus method a group
call the consensus method a group gathers in a collegial fashion they’re
gathers in a collegial fashion they’re
gathers in a collegial fashion they’re allowing each member to share their
allowing each member to share their
allowing each member to share their ideas freely and they’re trying to work
ideas freely and they’re trying to work
ideas freely and they’re trying to work together to come to some agreement to
together to come to some agreement to
together to come to some agreement to some alignment as to the course of
some alignment as to the course of
some alignment as to the course of action they’d like to implement on the
action they’d like to implement on the
action they’d like to implement on the other hand and devil’s advocacy the team
other hand and devil’s advocacy the team
other hand and devil’s advocacy the team breaks into two sub groups one sub group
breaks into two sub groups one sub group
breaks into two sub groups one sub group proposes new ideas solutions to whatever
proposes new ideas solutions to whatever
proposes new ideas solutions to whatever problem they’ve encountered and the
problem they’ve encountered and the
problem they’ve encountered and the other sub groups entire purpose and
other sub groups entire purpose and
other sub groups entire purpose and objective throughout the process is to
objective throughout the process is to
objective throughout the process is to play the devil’s advocate to critique
play the devil’s advocate to critique
play the devil’s advocate to critique those ideas to find the weaknesses and
those ideas to find the weaknesses and
those ideas to find the weaknesses and the flaws and through that give-and-take
the flaws and through that give-and-take
the flaws and through that give-and-take they are to arrive at a decision now
they are to arrive at a decision now
they are to arrive at a decision now interestingly after the students
interestingly after the students
interestingly after the students experience these processes I survey them
experience these processes I survey them
experience these processes I survey them I asked them as they did in experimental
I asked them as they did in experimental
I asked them as they did in experimental studies to evaluate the process that
studies to evaluate the process that
studies to evaluate the process that they’ve just experienced and what we
they’ve just experienced and what we
they’ve just experienced and what we find well not surprisingly there are far
find well not surprisingly there are far
find well not surprisingly there are far more disagreements when the devil’s
more disagreements when the devil’s
more disagreements when the devil’s advocate is present in fact we find a
advocate is present in fact we find a
advocate is present in fact we find a higher level of what scholars call
higher level of what scholars call
higher level of what scholars call cognitive conflict issue-oriented debate
cognitive conflict issue-oriented debate
cognitive conflict issue-oriented debate and overtime scholars have found that
and overtime scholars have found that
and overtime scholars have found that higher levels of cognitive conflict mean
higher levels of cognitive conflict mean
higher levels of cognitive conflict mean we generate more alternatives we probe
we generate more alternatives we probe
we generate more alternatives we probe our assumptions more carefully we
our assumptions more carefully we
our assumptions more carefully we uncover hidden risks and we make better
uncover hidden risks and we make better
uncover hidden risks and we make better decisions but wait look what the
decisions but wait look what the
decisions but wait look what the students say when asked well how good
students say when asked well how good
students say when asked well how good was the decision that you arrived at
was the decision that you arrived at
was the decision that you arrived at they report that the consensus method
they report that the consensus method
they report that the consensus method leads to higher quality decisions oh my
leads to higher quality decisions oh my
leads to higher quality decisions oh my goodness how do we reconcile you know
goodness how do we reconcile you know
goodness how do we reconcile you know our hypotheses with what the students
our hypotheses with what the students
our hypotheses with what the students say but Schweiger and his colleagues and
say but Schweiger and his colleagues and
say but Schweiger and his colleagues and others who’ve run experimental studies
others who’ve run experimental studies
others who’ve run experimental studies they’ve of course not relied only on
they’ve of course not relied only on
they’ve of course not relied only on what students say about their own
what students say about their own
what students say about their own decisions they’ve brought in expert
decisions they’ve brought in expert
decisions they’ve brought in expert judges to rate the quality of the
judges to rate the quality of the
judges to rate the quality of the choices that these groups make and the
choices that these groups make and the
choices that these groups make and the expert judges consistently time and
expert judges consistently time and
expert judges consistently time and again say that groups that use devil’s
again say that groups that use devil’s
again say that groups that use devil’s advocacy make higher quality decisions
advocacy make higher quality decisions
advocacy make higher quality decisions but why do the students say differently
but why do the students say differently
but why do the students say differently well because if you experience a
well because if you experience a
well because if you experience a collegial comfortable friendly
collegial comfortable friendly
collegial comfortable friendly harmonious process of consensus you walk
harmonious process of consensus you walk
harmonious process of consensus you walk out of that meeting feeling really good
out of that meeting feeling really good
out of that meeting feeling really good patting each other on the back and
patting each other on the back and
patting each other on the back and wanting to have a beer with one another
wanting to have a beer with one another
wanting to have a beer with one another it doesn’t mean you’ve made a good
it doesn’t mean you’ve made a good
it doesn’t mean you’ve made a good decision in fact you might have just
decision in fact you might have just
decision in fact you might have just experienced groupthink the tension that
experienced groupthink the tension that
experienced groupthink the tension that comes with devil’s advocacy sometimes
comes with devil’s advocacy sometimes
comes with devil’s advocacy sometimes makes you question whether you really
makes you question whether you really
makes you question whether you really made the right call but actually expert
made the right call but actually expert
made the right call but actually expert judges say you did now not only does the
judges say you did now not only does the
judges say you did now not only does the experimental work in our in-class
experimental work in our in-class
experimental work in our in-class exercises reinforce the benefits of
exercises reinforce the benefits of
exercises reinforce the benefits of devil’s advocacy but there are many
devil’s advocacy but there are many
devil’s advocacy but there are many examples of leaders using devil’s
examples of leaders using devil’s
examples of leaders using devil’s advocacy to make better decisions
advocacy to make better decisions
advocacy to make better decisions certainly in business we hear leaders
certainly in business we hear leaders
certainly in business we hear leaders like ory hadami the CEO of Israeli based
like ory hadami the CEO of Israeli based
like ory hadami the CEO of Israeli based firm Mesa robotics talking about how he
firm Mesa robotics talking about how he
firm Mesa robotics talking about how he uses he devil’s advocate on his team to
uses he devil’s advocate on his team to
uses he devil’s advocate on his team to protect against overly optimistic or
protect against overly optimistic or
protect against overly optimistic or rosy scenarios in their strategic
rosy scenarios in their strategic
rosy scenarios in their strategic planning or Bob
planning or Bob
planning or Bob the founder of MTV who will say to his
the founder of MTV who will say to his
the founder of MTV who will say to his team when they bring him a proposal what
team when they bring him a proposal what
team when they bring him a proposal what did the dissenter say and if they say to
did the dissenter say and if they say to
did the dissenter say and if they say to him everybody’s on board he sends them
him everybody’s on board he sends them
him everybody’s on board he sends them out of his office you haven’t looked
out of his office you haven’t looked
out of his office you haven’t looked enough you haven’t found that other side
enough you haven’t found that other side
enough you haven’t found that other side it’s out there go find it it will
it’s out there go find it it will
it’s out there go find it it will sharpen your ideas well my favorite
sharpen your ideas well my favorite
sharpen your ideas well my favorite example of Devil’s aBSI comes from my
example of Devil’s aBSI comes from my
example of Devil’s aBSI comes from my study of the Cuban Missile Crisis it’s
study of the Cuban Missile Crisis it’s
study of the Cuban Missile Crisis it’s the fall of 1962 and John Kennedy
the fall of 1962 and John Kennedy
the fall of 1962 and John Kennedy discovers that the Soviets are working
discovers that the Soviets are working
discovers that the Soviets are working with the Castro regime to put in place
with the Castro regime to put in place
with the Castro regime to put in place nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba
nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba
nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba and I had the opportunity to study this
and I had the opportunity to study this
and I had the opportunity to study this not just from the history books but 13
not just from the history books but 13
not just from the history books but 13 years ago I spent a day with Robert
years ago I spent a day with Robert
years ago I spent a day with Robert McNamara the secretary of defense for
McNamara the secretary of defense for
McNamara the secretary of defense for John Kennedy he was 89 years old at the
John Kennedy he was 89 years old at the
John Kennedy he was 89 years old at the time but sharpest attack and he
time but sharpest attack and he
time but sharpest attack and he described the role of two men during
described the role of two men during
described the role of two men during that crisis Bobby Kennedy the
that crisis Bobby Kennedy the
that crisis Bobby Kennedy the president’s brother and Attorney General
president’s brother and Attorney General
president’s brother and Attorney General and Ted Sorensen another special adviser
and Ted Sorensen another special adviser
and Ted Sorensen another special adviser they were told to be the intellectual
they were told to be the intellectual
they were told to be the intellectual watchdogs throughout the process the
watchdogs throughout the process the
watchdogs throughout the process the devil’s advocates to relentlessly pursue
devil’s advocates to relentlessly pursue
devil’s advocates to relentlessly pursue every issue to make sure that they did
every issue to make sure that they did
every issue to make sure that they did not derive conclusions from superficial
not derive conclusions from superficial
not derive conclusions from superficial analysis and mcnamara said the devil’s
analysis and mcnamara said the devil’s
analysis and mcnamara said the devil’s advocate was a crucial factor and not
advocate was a crucial factor and not
advocate was a crucial factor and not only getting them to a better solution
only getting them to a better solution
only getting them to a better solution but in fact surface seeing a key
but in fact surface seeing a key
but in fact surface seeing a key alternative that was not there in the
alternative that was not there in the
alternative that was not there in the beginnings of their discussion it wasn’t
beginnings of their discussion it wasn’t
beginnings of their discussion it wasn’t always comfortable but he said you know
always comfortable but he said you know
always comfortable but he said you know sometimes you have to force people to
sometimes you have to force people to
sometimes you have to force people to disagree to get to better ideas so the
disagree to get to better ideas so the
disagree to get to better ideas so the devil’s advocate leads to better
devil’s advocate leads to better
devil’s advocate leads to better critical thinking but does it lead to
critical thinking but does it lead to
critical thinking but does it lead to better creative thinking well
better creative thinking well
better creative thinking well interestingly in a recent New York Times
interestingly in a recent New York Times
interestingly in a recent New York Times article Adam grant of the Wharton School
article Adam grant of the Wharton School
article Adam grant of the Wharton School talked about how we raise our kids he
talked about how we raise our kids he
talked about how we raise our kids he said you know usually the advice we have
said you know usually the advice we have
said you know usually the advice we have R appearances teach your kids to get
R appearances teach your kids to get
R appearances teach your kids to get along with one another but Grant said no
along with one another but Grant said no
along with one another but Grant said no no we have to teach our kids to argue
no we have to teach our kids to argue
no we have to teach our kids to argue with one another but to argue well why
with one another but to argue well why
with one another but to argue well why he points to the remarkable creative
he points to the remarkable creative
he points to the remarkable creative accomplishments of dynamic duo’s like
accomplishments of dynamic duo’s like
accomplishments of dynamic duo’s like Lennon and McCartney like Steve Jobs and
Lennon and McCartney like Steve Jobs and
Lennon and McCartney like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak like the Wright brothers
Steve Wozniak like the Wright brothers
Steve Wozniak like the Wright brothers and points to the tension that existed
and points to the tension that existed
and points to the tension that existed in those relationships and he argues
in those relationships and he argues
in those relationships and he argues that out of that tension emerged
that out of that tension emerged
that out of that tension emerged creative breakthrough
creative breakthrough
creative breakthrough but wait a second in design thinking we
but wait a second in design thinking we
but wait a second in design thinking we teach people to brainstorm and in the
teach people to brainstorm and in the
teach people to brainstorm and in the brainstorming process we tell them don’t
brainstorming process we tell them don’t
brainstorming process we tell them don’t critique each other’s ideas every idea
critique each other’s ideas every idea
critique each other’s ideas every idea is a good idea accept each other’s ideas
is a good idea accept each other’s ideas
is a good idea accept each other’s ideas and build upon them don’t say yeah but
and build upon them don’t say yeah but
and build upon them don’t say yeah but yeah but that won’t work yeah but we
yeah but that won’t work yeah but we
yeah but that won’t work yeah but we tried that before yeah but we don’t have
tried that before yeah but we don’t have
tried that before yeah but we don’t have the resources do that instead should be
the resources do that instead should be
the resources do that instead should be like an improv comedian you just say yes
like an improv comedian you just say yes
like an improv comedian you just say yes and accept their ideas and build upon
and accept their ideas and build upon
and accept their ideas and build upon but there have been critics of
but there have been critics of
but there have been critics of brainstorming and they point in
brainstorming and they point in
brainstorming and they point in particular to a study by Charlene Nemeth
particular to a study by Charlene Nemeth
particular to a study by Charlene Nemeth and they derived the following
and they derived the following
and they derived the following conclusion from her study they say she
conclusion from her study they say she
conclusion from her study they say she found that arguing and debating leads to
found that arguing and debating leads to
found that arguing and debating leads to more creative ideas than brainstorming
more creative ideas than brainstorming
more creative ideas than brainstorming but they’re wrong that’s not actually
but they’re wrong that’s not actually
but they’re wrong that’s not actually what she found what she actually found
what she found what she actually found
what she found what she actually found is that when the critique happens
is that when the critique happens
is that when the critique happens matters that you need to brainstorm
matters that you need to brainstorm
matters that you need to brainstorm first and then argue and if you combine
first and then argue and if you combine
first and then argue and if you combine the two in that order you get the most
the two in that order you get the most
the two in that order you get the most creative ideas so it’s not about whether
creative ideas so it’s not about whether
creative ideas so it’s not about whether or not to use the devil’s advocate it’s
or not to use the devil’s advocate it’s
or not to use the devil’s advocate it’s when you use the devil’s advocate if you
when you use the devil’s advocate if you
when you use the devil’s advocate if you unleash the devil’s advocate in the
unleash the devil’s advocate in the
unleash the devil’s advocate in the early stages of problem solving what
early stages of problem solving what
early stages of problem solving what will happen
will happen
will happen well one person’s ideas will be
well one person’s ideas will be
well one person’s ideas will be critiqued perhaps harshly what will
critiqued perhaps harshly what will
critiqued perhaps harshly what will everyone else do they’ll self censor
everyone else do they’ll self censor
everyone else do they’ll self censor well I’m not putting my idea out there
well I’m not putting my idea out there
well I’m not putting my idea out there if other ideas just kind of litter ated
if other ideas just kind of litter ated
if other ideas just kind of litter ated and so all kinds of creative
and so all kinds of creative
and so all kinds of creative alternatives never surface so it’s not
alternatives never surface so it’s not
alternatives never surface so it’s not about whether or not to use the devil’s
about whether or not to use the devil’s
about whether or not to use the devil’s advocate it’s when you use it but more
advocate it’s when you use it but more
advocate it’s when you use it but more importantly I found it’s also how you
importantly I found it’s also how you
importantly I found it’s also how you play the devil’s advocate in my research
play the devil’s advocate in my research
play the devil’s advocate in my research have noticed two patterns in terms of
have noticed two patterns in terms of
have noticed two patterns in terms of how we play the devil’s advocate I’ve
how we play the devil’s advocate I’ve
how we play the devil’s advocate I’ve done that by watching how management
done that by watching how management
done that by watching how management teams function in boardrooms around the
teams function in boardrooms around the
teams function in boardrooms around the world and you really see two patterns in
world and you really see two patterns in
world and you really see two patterns in one pattern of devil’s advocacy what you
one pattern of devil’s advocacy what you
one pattern of devil’s advocacy what you see is a few ideas emerge and the
see is a few ideas emerge and the
see is a few ideas emerge and the devil’s advocates view their role as to
devil’s advocates view their role as to
devil’s advocates view their role as to poke holes to find all of the flaws in
poke holes to find all of the flaws in
poke holes to find all of the flaws in those ideas and argue against them
those ideas and argue against them
those ideas and argue against them further
further
further and often the devil’s advocates are
and often the devil’s advocates are
and often the devil’s advocates are taking a position of their own on the
taking a position of their own on the
taking a position of their own on the issues and putting forth that position
issues and putting forth that position
issues and putting forth that position by making loud and striding arguments
by making loud and striding arguments
by making loud and striding arguments but there’s another kind of devil’s
but there’s another kind of devil’s
but there’s another kind of devil’s advocate a much more productive one this
advocate a much more productive one this
advocate a much more productive one this kind of doubles out it gets seasoned
kind of doubles out it gets seasoned
kind of doubles out it gets seasoned idea emerge and views their role as
idea emerge and views their role as
idea emerge and views their role as helping the group to generate new
helping the group to generate new
helping the group to generate new options and how do they do that through
options and how do they do that through
options and how do they do that through the Socratic method they don’t make a
the Socratic method they don’t make a
the Socratic method they don’t make a lot of statements of their own opinion
lot of statements of their own opinion
lot of statements of their own opinion but they ask a lot of questions and as
but they ask a lot of questions and as
but they ask a lot of questions and as they ask those questions new ideas pop
they ask those questions new ideas pop
they ask those questions new ideas pop up over time they don’t pretend to know
up over time they don’t pretend to know
up over time they don’t pretend to know everything they acknowledge what they
everything they acknowledge what they
everything they acknowledge what they don’t know they’re there to help the
don’t know they’re there to help the
don’t know they’re there to help the process and to enable the team to engage
process and to enable the team to engage
process and to enable the team to engage in more divergent thinking they’re not
in more divergent thinking they’re not
in more divergent thinking they’re not there to reject others ideas that kind
there to reject others ideas that kind
there to reject others ideas that kind of devil’s advocate can be very
of devil’s advocate can be very
of devil’s advocate can be very productive and help unleash creative
productive and help unleash creative
productive and help unleash creative breakthroughs so what do I conclude it’s
breakthroughs so what do I conclude it’s
breakthroughs so what do I conclude it’s not about whether or not we should have
not about whether or not we should have
not about whether or not we should have a doubles advocate it’s about when the
a doubles advocate it’s about when the
a doubles advocate it’s about when the devil’s advocate enters the process and
devil’s advocate enters the process and
devil’s advocate enters the process and how we play the role if we get the when
how we play the role if we get the when
how we play the role if we get the when and the how right we’ll have amazing
and the how right we’ll have amazing
and the how right we’ll have amazing creative breakthroughs I’ll close by
creative breakthroughs I’ll close by
creative breakthroughs I’ll close by recalling the words of David Hume he
recalling the words of David Hume he
recalling the words of David Hume he once said truth Springs from arguments
once said truth Springs from arguments
once said truth Springs from arguments amongst friends I’d like to be so bold
amongst friends I’d like to be so bold
amongst friends I’d like to be so bold as to rephrase Hume statement creativity
as to rephrase Hume statement creativity
as to rephrase Hume statement creativity flourishes Springs from constructive and
flourishes Springs from constructive and
flourishes Springs from constructive and timely arguments amongst friends thank
timely arguments amongst friends thank
timely arguments amongst friends thank you very much
”
Be First to Comment