I'd say that the way you can automatically start reframing after being asked a difficult (or otherwise) question is to automatically question your framework of the question itself. This is my solution to counter the magnifying glass effect we are experiencing, that he mentioned. I noticed that when he asked "how do you attach the candle to the wall in a way that it wont leak on to the table?" I really automatically assumed that I just need to give the answer of "what to do". I focused on the main components of the situation being: the candle, the table, and the fact that the wax from the candle should not leak on to the surface of the table. I visualized those three components as such (the main points of my focus). Yes, he mentioned the box of pins in a way that people may have overlooked it..but that's the point. We thought it wasn't important because of the way that we were looking at the problem from the beginning. He mentions later on that we need to compose and build on to our answer from the bottom up instead of the top down. This is true. So if we instead don't assume that we know the components of the situation, or even the exact contents of the question and what's being asked for and we then reframe exactly from that point (being square one) we will be able to get to the right (or a better) answer. Direction is a valuable thing in this case right? We may feel the odds are against us if we don't have a "certain" direction. So maybe we let that be the first part of the problem that we contemplate, we come up with multiple possible directions. The question is "how do you attach the candle to the wall in a way that it wont leak on to the table?" so instead of automatically thinking "*how* do position the candle?" we automatically bring up other possible directions for ourselves to come up with our chosen solution. Those being: "*what* do i need to set up this problem?; do i already have everything i need in mind?" and "*where* do i need to go to solve this problem?; am i in the right location?" and "*who* can add a helpful view to the problem?; do i need anyone else to play a role or add a perspective to help me solve this problem?". I realized that for this particular situation, also going down the thought process path of "*what* do i need to set up this problem?; do i already have everything i need in mind?" would have allowed me to realize that my knowledge of the world expands to a far greater extent than the components of the situation that i zoomed in/focused on (reference to the magnifying affect)...and that if i had thought more deeply about the components involved in the situation then that would've allowed me to set up an optimal solution from the beginning. (But maybe trial and error is better, since it allowed this realization in the first place haha)

Clear and concise, thank you. A sad reminder of how our limited paradigm makes us so controllable by those who recognise it.

hey, ENES140 nerds

90% Nonsense remaining 10% Ok

Bla bla bla and more bla

1- 8 billion people, each one with half an answer gives 4 billion answers, hundreds of billions might be a compounded interest :)... 2- Global war on terrorism or Jihad? cause Jihad has nothing to do with terrorism, you better read about stuff you talk on public! the real meaning of the word is so noble and away from blood, terrorism, and the Islamophobic circle the US and the West are living in. 3- Bad example, I would want to hear a better example, more inspirational than this and away from offending 1.8 billion Muslims, especially talking about the romantic intervening of the US to Iraq for spreading peace and love in the land. 4- When you talk about reframing you should consider theoretical pluralism and multi-frame analysis to the phenomena as well, which is your opposite path... Wasted 17:31 minutes of my life... Nothing personal, just a personal opinion!