Bahasa

Shubham Agarwal :	Hello and welcome back to the CounterPoint podcast we are back with Satya here in the fifth episode of the thinking processes edition. The thinking processes topic has become really popular, and people have all around the country have written to us asking questions and asking us to produce more episodes. So here’s another one in the same series. Let’s welcome Satya for the same. Hi, Satya. Welcome to the CounterPoint podcast once again.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Hi, Shubham. I’m happy to hear that we are getting a lot of listeners there because this is really a difficult topic. And if people are finding it interesting, and that is really encouraging.
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah, that’s right. It’s not such an easy topic. But I think it goes down to the deepest of the problems and solutions. And I think that is something which is interesting for the listeners as well. Right, so Satya what we’ll do today is, like we had promised in the last one, is we are going to use this session to focus on one of the tools, one of the most core tools of thinking processes, which is the conflict cloud. And this is a personal favourite for me. This is the first tool that I was introduced to when I was learning TOC and I was I just fell in love with it, because it explains everything so simply and yet. So, you know, all the complex problems are charted out on one single piece of paper. So, Satya could you give us the sense of this tool? You know, before we talk more about it?
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yes Shubham, In fact, conflict cloud is my personal favourite as well. Okay, yeah, just to give you a sense of it, see in life, you have three scenarios, one is you face interpersonal conflicts, where is this you know, technique is used, but you also face conflicts, when you are designing products. Like for example, if you are designing, let’s say engine, you face conflicts around features like power versus fuel efficiency. Yeah. So, you face those conflicts. So, those are also conflicts, but the idea is, sorry, go ahead.
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah. So these design, like you said, you know, conflicts in during design, these could be any design, right? Or is it restricted to something?
Satyashri Mohanty :	No, it could be any, any, any design. So, designing a solution for for a customer. Yeah, or designing a product so that they face these kind of conflicts, and you also face conflict that you don’t get along with your spouse, that’s also conflict. If you don’t get along with your teenage daughter, that’s, that’s also a conflict.
Shubham Agarwal :	So are you saying this tool can help demystify that as well. You are saying the same tool can help solve interpersonal conflicts , as well as design conflicts, while building a solution or a product.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, this tool can use interpersonal skills can be used for interpersonal skills as well as the design conflict. But there is one essence which which, which underlies this tool, which is faced with the interpersonal conflict or a design conflict, assume that you are facing a riddle or a paradox in life.
Shubham Agarwal :	Okay, so why don’t we start with a Can you elaborate the statement.
Satyashri Mohanty :	no, that’s it’s quite a complicated statement here. That how do you assume interpersonal conflict as a riddle in life, or a design conflict as a riddle in life or a paradox in life? Right? Yeah. So let’s, let’s start with a riddle here. And i have a riddle for you. And let us see how we go through this process of solving this riddle. So the riddle goes like this. Two mothers and two daughters, together, go for fishing. They catch three fishes. Your job is to divide the fishes equally amongst them. Remember, each one has to get one whole fish.
Shubham Agarwal :	I was already doing four by three. Okay. You’re saying two daughters. And two mothers together have gone for fishing and they catch only three fishes? Yeah. And it has to be equally distributed. Each one gets a whole fish. Yeah. Okay, this is tricky. Could you probably give me some hints.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Okay, so one of the hints is focus on the statement. Two mothers and two daughters. It seems as if we are discussing four people here.
Shubham Agarwal :	So, are they related to each other in any way? Or are they like,
Satyashri Mohanty :	I won’t say that. I won’t say that. So I’m just telling you that it looks like is it four, it may not be four so can you can you find out the answer?
Shubham Agarwal :	Oh, okay, a mother could be a child as well to someone. And so, is it like, you know, like there’s a grandmother, who is one of the mothers and then there is a mother who is a child to the grandmother and also a mother to her daughter.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, in fact, brilliant Shubham. A grandmother, a mother and her daughter, there are three people in total. But they account for the description two mothers and two daughters.
Shubham Agarwal :	Right. Interesting. Very interesting.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Now. Now let’s look at what happened here faced with the riddle. How did your mind work? What were you trying to do?
Shubham Agarwal :	I was trying to reach the answer. I was trying to, you know, figure out the connections or figure out how could I distribute the three fishes.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, basically, in your mind, you knew something is wrong. Right? Something is wrong in terms of an assumption that you’re making. Correct. Right. And that’s why you knew that, that this logically inconsistent scenario is not possible. Correct. Which means that there is some some assumption that you’re making in your mind, that must be wrong. Okay.
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah, obviously because it is a riddle, it has to have a solution, and therefore, I’m making some assumptions to solve the riddle.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. So you didn’t say, you know, four people, three fishes, let’s get on to life, your your brain got into a dead end. And you’re struggling hard to find the hidden assumption, your brain was searching for it. You’re not giving up. It’s it’s a dead end. Right. And, and you are saying that there must be a way out of this. And that’s a very important feeling. Right? It’s a feeling of dead end and you’re saying, I am making a wrong assumption, reality is not logically inconsistent, I as a person, I’m making a wrong assumption, because of what I think I know, what I know is causing the problem. And what you know, here is that two and two, you know, make up for four people, right, and their lies. So you’re trying to find out, you know, this is this is a hidden assumption. And once you find out that hidden assumption, you find a way out of this riddle. Yeah. Now, now, let’s, let’s take this concept here. So what does a riddle do? Or a paradox? What does it do to you, it makes you think hard, because you are assuming that I have made a wrong assumption, and you’re searching for it. Okay. And this deadlock is very, very important. So let’s, let’s take this, you know, the concept of riddle and apply it to a design, design paradox or a design conflict. Okay. So for example, in design, you face various scenarios, like performance versus costs, size versus performance, weight versus stability, ease of repair versus ease to manufacture, and the list can be big. And many of these are unresolved conflicts now. What people do what traditionally designers do is try to find out what is the best compromise? Okay, well, you know, what innovators do. They are greedy people, they treat this as a riddle. And their mind is thinking that I have made a wrong assumption, because of which I’m facing this conflict between these two, two needs of the system. And, and they start thinking about it, you know, ruminate over it till they’re found out a wrong assumption, and that is how disruption happens. Right? Just to, you know, give you an example. Have you heard about the game? Go Pokemon?
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah, I have. Yeah. And it was extremely famous some years back.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. Some years back. It was a video gaming app, normal video gaming app, it became a rage.
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah, people went crazy across the city going here and there.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, people went crazy. And the valuation jumped into close to 7 billion in about six months. record number of downloads. Now, the question is, there are many video games, why did this one become rich? You see, video games have traditionally been built around a paradigm that the user actually sits at one place, you know, typically at home and he plays the game in a virtual world. He actually misses out on the outdoor activities, right? And similar people who play outdoor games, they miss out on the thrill of a video game, right? They have the but they enjoy the outdoors, right? So the users had to choose between these two kinds of activities that you know, if I have to take a video game, it has to be a an indoor activity, I have to miss out on the outdoor see part of the entertainment right? and if I want to play outdoor then i have to miss out on the the thrill that video game introduces a video game introduces thrill every second right and no other physical game can introduce that kind of a thrill, the thrill of losing points, adding points in matter of few seconds. So the thrill factor is very high. So what what go Pokemon did is to solve this conflict, and what they found out is that can we have a video game, which gives the outdoor experience? Yeah, and what they did is they used the GPS, the phone’s camera and augmented reality. And people actually saw those characters out in the real physical world, you could see those character popping up in the camera. And, and suddenly, the video game became an outdoor activity. And people went crazy about it, they were. So this is how, you know, the suddenly a product
Shubham Agarwal :	This is very interesting
Satyashri Mohanty :	actually broke a conflict. And he said that I don’t have to choose between two meets, I will have the cake and eat it too. I will have a video game which which people can play in a in outdoor. Right? And so the assumption the question the the game designers, they question is that video gaming can only be designed in a virtual world. And you can design a video game in a real world and that is how they changed everything. And then eventually everybody copied it. And every product for that matter Shubham any product category that you take, and you see that product having in its entire history, one disruption phase, you will find out somebody thought about it and found out a wrong assumption and broke the existing conflict. For example, in, in, in flight
Shubham Agarwal :	Oh this is a beautiful example Satya before we go ahead this is just a I have never thought of go Pokemon that way. And I’ve always thought why and how did they you know become so famous and their valuations went crazy, but lovely how they solve the conflict and what they came out was brilliant, right?
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. Similarly, if you see the design of wings on a aeroplane, right, it had a huge design conflict many many decades ago, and it was what should be the width of the wing, right? If the plane is gliding, cruising at the highest altitude 30,000 feet, it needs a smaller width, but while takeoff and landing it needs a bigger width right. And and designers always found out there must be one optimal width which will take care of both these needs. And you know, today what is happening, we are actually having two different widths. Right?. And another assumption was that, you know, we need to have one width, right for both the scenarios, right? So what you see right now, if you have seen the if you’re on the emergency exit, and you would have seen the wing, you’ll see a portion coming out right, a portion of the wing coming out and it just goes inside, when it glides at the highest speed and when while takeoff or landing that thing comes out right, once. So these are these are, you know, the innovators who look at a product and try to find out what is still the unresolved conflict, which is impacting the customer. And then they accept it as a riddle. Okay, and keep on thinking about it till they get an answer. So let me put you into a scenario here Shubham.
Shubham Agarwal :	I suddenly i suddenly I suddenly seem to love paradoxes now.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. In fact, it’s a very interesting quote by Niels Bohr, he is one of the scientist. He used to say, now that we have found a paradox, we have a hope of making progress. In fact, scientists love paradoxes. Because if a problem is converted into a paradox, they know now you have to solve it, and you have to keep thinking about it until you find out the wrong assumption. Because reality is in harmony with itself. That’s the underlying assumption there is, like, like a riddle is, what is a riddle is it’s actually a logically inconsistent statement, right? Like in the example that we said four cannot be three. So you find a way out of it, right? So considering a design conflict, as a riddle is the way out because your mind starts thinking there must be a way out because reality, it’s possible to make a make a harmonious reality. Okay. So let me ask you something.Sure.Let’s take a product category. And let us see, is there a unresolved conflict and I’m telling you a template to become an innovator.
Shubham Agarwal :	Okay. Lovely
Satyashri Mohanty :	Okay. So, let’s, let’s take the example of suitcases right. And we discussed last time that one of the biggest innovation came in when somebody decided to put wheels below it, right. Yeah. But now let’s look at still what is the unresolved problem. Imagine you’re going in the airport, and there are various kinds of airports, you still feel there is a problem that is still unresolved. Think as a user, is there, is there something that there’s still unresolved?
Shubham Agarwal :	One is that I have to decide if I should put my luggage for check-in, or should I carry it along? In the plane?
Satyashri Mohanty :	You know that is Yeah, that is that is about the I’m talking about the perspective of,
Shubham Agarwal :	like, the size or the dimensions of it?
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, you can think on any way, but I’m just asking what is still unresolved problem with, you know, all these suitcases that we have?
Shubham Agarwal :	Okay, so one, one problem that I face is that when I am going up the stairs, I have to still lift it.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Fantastic. So if you see here. So we’re saying that, okay, if if you’re faced with a staircase, right, you have, and and you still need to use a suitcase, you have no option but to lift it. Okay. Now, this is an unresolved problem. Right?
Shubham Agarwal :	That’s right.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Just imagine that, you know, this is this is a riddle for you. And you think about it. Are you willing to spend, let’s say, you know, next years, many years to actually solve this, solve this conflict. But there is an underlying conflict here that if I want to use a suitcase, and I face a staircase, I need to carry it right. Otherwise, I have to let go of the suitcase. Okay? So that’s, that’s similarly if you find there are many unresolved conflicts around us, for example, good food versus good health. I want to have good food. But if I focus on good food, I have to compromise on health. Right? Can there be a breakthrough solution here? doing exercise for
Shubham Agarwal :	Infact I think, too yum is a product that is trying to answer that.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. I think a lot of people are trying to answer that, then can I have a tasty product, which is healthy as well, right? Yeah. But it has to be as tasty as junk food.
Shubham Agarwal :	And that is the yeah that is still a conflict
Satyashri Mohanty :	Similarly, exercise, you want a six pack abs, but you love your sleep as well.
Shubham Agarwal :	That’s a conflict that how
Satyashri Mohanty :	Work life versus personal life, phone battery versus having those many high energy intensive feature apps. right?
Shubham Agarwal :	Correct.
Satyashri Mohanty :	So there is a whole list of products if you take any product category and look at the customer, and you still find out there must be an unresolved conflict and if you observe the customer, and and see what’s the unresolved conflict, what is the problem and every problem is because of a unresolved conflict, right, and you verbalise that, and you treat that as a riddle, right, which means that you say, I can have the cake and eat it too. reality can be harmonious, there must be a wrong assumption. So if your line of thinking is like that, then you sit through the problem for you know, for days together till you get an hint. Look at the riddle you I gave you a hint question, right? And that’s very important those hint questions, trigger creativity, right? You build new associations, for example, I’ll tell you in Japan, bullet trains are very popular right now. And they had a big problem in the initial design. The shape of the train was such that whenever train is to come out of a tunnel, there used to be a huge booming sound. And people who stayed near to those tunnel, they, they were, you know, getting disturbed, so they didn’t like it. So it was it was really a big conflict in front of you bullet trains have a big advantage, but at the same time, it creates a nuisance for people nearby those tunnels, right? It’s a big advantage for people inside the bullet train. Yeah, but it’s, it’s a problem for people outside when there are particularly homes near the tunnel. Now, now, you know, you see this conflict and the designers really thought about it till one designer got an inspiration from where, you know, by observing the way the Kingfisher you know, dives down and dives down to pick up the fish, the way it dives down, it creates minimal splash okay very minimal splash. And and that is how they found out a way out of this conflict that you know, the design of the of the nose of the bullet train, it may not be conventional. And and so that the amount of you know, the, the accumulation of air that was happening and at the end of the tunnel that that booming sound coming in, right. So they got inspired and now you see almost every Bullet Train looks like the beak of a Kingfisher bird. So what this example just tells you that when you are sitting with an unresolved paradox, and your mind is thinking for a hint, right? You have all this trigger questions and and I want to believe that this guy must be sitting with the problem in some forest and you would have seen the Kingfisher and you are like wow, I got an idea now. So, creativity is triggered when you hit a dead end. And you have all these questions, and you are now searching for another environment where this conflict is solved. Yeah. Okay.
Shubham Agarwal :	Right. So, Satya I understand the point and paradox, and this is lovely. So how does it, How does it relate to the conflict cloud tool that we’re discussing today? Yeah. So if you see here, the, the conflict cloud has the structure, which says, these two actions are in conflict with each other? What is the underlying need for each one of them? Right, and then tries to find out what are the hidden assumptions. So it follows that structure, that the features are in conflict with each other, but every feature meets a valid need. Okay? So then you find out what is the wrong assumption, behind so the structure of the cloud is like that, I think the best would be to take the example of interpersonal conflicts where the same technique is used. And, and then we can better understand the structure of this entire tool.
Shubham Agarwal :	Sure
Satyashri Mohanty :	So if you look at an interpersonal conflict, right, and, you know, I’m going into a personal space of emotions, right? This is no longer about the the world of physical design here, human emotions are involved. Right?
Shubham Agarwal :	If you can solve that you can solve anything.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. So let’s look at it. Right. So let’s look at a scenario. And and let’s, let’s, I’ll take you as my guinea pig, so, I will, I will create an example out of your family. I’ll take that liberty. Right.
Shubham Agarwal :	Okay.
Satyashri Mohanty :	So let’s say there is a scenario here. And it so happens that your spouse is a homemaker. Okay. Okay. And, and you are, you are in a job, which involves a lot of work and staying back. working late, that kind of job. Now, it’s a Friday night. Okay.
Shubham Agarwal :	All right
Satyashri Mohanty :	And you come back late, little tired. Okay. And what do you want right now is maybe enjoy a movie with your spouse and maybe a comedy movie have some junk food, glass of bear, and then and then that’s, that’s your idea of fun, right on a Friday evening, you are little tired down. Now just imagine your spouse on the other hand has been at home for the entire day. Yeah. And she’s getting bored seeing
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah she wants to step out.
Satyashri Mohanty :	She’s been on calls she just wants to step out and and see the outside world. And, she’s very excited that when you come back both of you will can go and and maybe go out in for a party for a drive or something which is in the in the outdoor right. Now you are faced with a conflict here.
Shubham Agarwal :	Right now you are entering very dangerous waters, i have been only very recently married.
Satyashri Mohanty :	So it’s better you learn this technique.
Shubham Agarwal :	So what happens look at the conversation that happens, and which is a very damaging part of this conversation, and I’ll tell you how to use the tool to have a more empathetic conversation. Right. So the damaging part of the tool is, you come in and you say, you know, I’m let’s let’s watch a movie. Yeah. Yeah. And she’s saying, No, I want to go out. Right? And then and then the discussion is about, you know, you you’re not caring enough or you’re selfish. And, and
Shubham Agarwal :	It becomes into a quarrel
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, and then things can go back to what you did, you know, a few years back and so on, so forth. Right. And so, that discussion does not take anywhere.
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah
Satyashri Mohanty :	But there is a very easy way to solve this conflict if you consider this as a riddle. Look at this, I’m saying consider interpersonal conflict as a riddle as a paradox. That should not be there, but it is there. Okay, let’s let’s now Now let’s look at this. Now, you know, one of the ways to, to solve this conflict is say was, you go out I stay at home.
Shubham Agarwal :	Yeah.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. But if you see if you give that solution, if you give that solution, both of them will not agree. You know why? And this is where I’m seeing the riddle comes in. Because both of them want to enjoy each other’s company while doing that activity, now here comes the real real paradox that, you know, both of us enjoy each other’s company. So we want to actually identify an activity which both of us enjoy.
Shubham Agarwal :	Right. And that’s a common need that we enjoy each other’s company. And we have a common objective, right? But right now we are faced with a situation where you have a different need. Because you’ve just come from the office.
Shubham Agarwal :	I want to relax,
Satyashri Mohanty :	That’s your need, you just want to relax and catch a movie with your wife and do some gossip. That’s, that’s the, that’s your need, right? Your wife’s need is to go out, right? which is to the real need is to, you know, see people see the buzz in the city, and get that outdoor feeling. That’s, that’s her need. Right? And that’s why she wants to go out now. Just imagine what I did in front of you is to draw out the conflict cloud structure, which says that there must be a common objective, which is both of us want to do an activity where both of us enjoy, right? Otherwise, there is no conflict, we could we could just, you know, go our own ways, right?
Shubham Agarwal :	Correct
Satyashri Mohanty :	Because we have a common objective, right? We have a conflict here, we both want to do something together. And that’s where the riddle comes in. And your need is yeah I need to do some activity where I’m not straining myself physically, and her needs to do an activity, which is little outdoorsy. Okay. Now comes that can we treat this as a riddle means what can we find out an activity, which kind of meets both the needs? And then you can think of, you know, all the assumptions. For example, you can ask a deeper question, right? Really speaking, what is really tiring for you? And you might say, you know, what driving is what I’m worried about you and say boss, let’s let’s call for a taxi and or I will drive for you, your spouse might offer. So what happens in this discussion is, when you identify each other’s need, and also identify the common objective, and verbalise it, right? Each person tries to verbalise the valid need of the other. Right? It’s a very powerful conversation, for example, instead of saying that you are selfish and go into a rant of blame game, what you could do is, instead of talking about your side of the story, and say boss, let me try to understand where you are coming from, it’s a very important conversation, you are tired, it is very important that you switch out from your shoes and try to get in the shoes of the other person and try to find out, let me try to understand where you’re coming from. And this, this dialogue, when you say that, I think you have been in the house for so long, right? And you’re getting bored, and you want to go out now. Right? This itself is what empathy is all about. Right? Once you have that conversation she would be very happy because now you have understood her instead of looking at what she’s saying about going out. You are now trying to find out where is she coming from and verbalising it right? It brings about changes in her itself, right? And at the same time you present your need you say boss, I am just so tired right now right? And I’m just feeling too tired and then you say boss. But we need to find out a common objective, both of us have to do an activity which both of us should enjoy. So let’s find out the answer to this. Right, okay, right. So this is how you treat as a puzzle. Now, the important point is when you try to verbalise the needs, you’re verbalising the deeper emotions and and neuroscience has, is is telling us that these deeper verbalization of emotions actually triggers positivity in the brain itself. For example, if there’s a very negative emotion, right, you verbalise it, you actually suppress it, right? For example, try asking somebody, are you angry? If he’s angry? Now he’ll say, No, no no I’m not angry. And actually the change happens in him, he suddenly asked himself, am I really angry? Am I really am I so that that change happens, right? And if you are verbalising a positive emotion, it reinforces right? So, if you see here, what we did here is we looked at three scenarios. One is the riddle a paradox, other is a design conflict and third is an interpersonal conflict. Right?
Shubham Agarwal :	Right.
Satyashri Mohanty :	A single tool can be used for all the three. It draws its inspiration from the way we approach riddles in life. Right. We we say that, if we don’t solve it, we are restless and that’s a very positive state to be in. So the way I see it Shubham, you know, a lot of people tell me that, is this tool a logical tool? Is it a creativity tool? Is it a, you know, a tool which deals with emotions? I would say it all bundles up into one. It is a logical tool, you know why? Because you need to ask deeper questions about what this feature, what is the real need of the system? Why do you want to leave this allowance here in the engine? And what need gets fulfilled? And why you don’t want that allowance? What need gets fulfilled? or Why do you want to go out? Right, what need gets fulfilled? It’s a very logical question, right. But when you verbalise the needs, and particularly when it comes to the interpersonal level, when you verbalise those needs, put it on the table, you trigger emotions. Okay? And when you reach a dead end, right, and you are going into the zone of creativity, right? So just imagine one single tool, a thinking tool, it triggers many parts of your brain.
Shubham Agarwal :	This is really good. And this is really great. Because probably I now understand why I love this tool so much, because it kind of, you know, it can be applied to anything in life is what I can understand, right?
Satyashri Mohanty :	In fact, Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, no, I would say, you know, there’s a famous saying An apple a day, keeps the doctor away. I would say if you draw a conflict cloud every day one, okay, you you maintain a healthy brain.
Shubham Agarwal :	Nice, nice. In fact, for all the listeners, the way we write and design, the conflict cloud is also very interesting. And there’s a set pattern, how you do it. And the link is in the details, to see how, you know, you can look at the conflict cloud and probably design one for yourself, while you understand the flow of how we write a conflict cloud in this discussion, right?
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, we can give a link to an article where people can read more about the grammar of, you know, creating or writing this or verbalising this tool.
Shubham Agarwal :	Right. So, Satya before we you know, go ahead, so can can this tool also be used for identifying customer problems, which you said, you know, in your previous podcast, as well, in one of the previous episodes, it’s an important part of the innovation.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah. So So it’s very important that when we look at customer problems, and one of the things that we strongly believe is, if you want to disrupt an industry, you got to look at a customer problems. The real problems is the unverbalised ones, not the verbalised ones, righ?
Shubham Agarwal :	Let’s let’s look at an example.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, you remember, we discussed the genset example, where we were able to find out the unverbalised the problem which was around the seven day lead time, so so the unverbalised problem, in fact, if you see all these disruptions that has happened, let’s say around iPhone or you know, nobody said that they wanted a phone like that, right. And I remember a famous quote by Henry Ford and he said that if I had gone to people to ask, what is the problem they are facing in mobility, they would have asked for faster horses. Right. And, and that’s, that’s, that’s more thing that if you’re looking at unverbalised problems, the only thing that you have to look at is is generate empathy and observe the customer very closely and see what problems they are facing. And and see the underlying conflicts, because every problem is not resolved because there was a conflict, otherwise people would have resolved it. Right? Right. So you observe a customer like for example, we we discussed the case of the suitcases, right? Yeah, it is, you don’t have to ask if you ask a person what’s the problem with a suitcase? He might not even understand what what you’re talking about. Because he expects that you got to carry it on the on the staircase, right? Yeah, you got to observe him and and draw a conclusion that you know, that’s a problem for him. In his mind, it is given right? and if you see the other product,
Shubham Agarwal :	I made my peace with it.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, you made a piece with like, for example, Walkman Walkman, when it was first conceptualised before that people had that if you want music, right, you can’t move around you have to stay in one place. Right? And and that’s a conflict, if you want music, you have to stay in one place and if you want to move around, you’re let go of music. That’s the conflict. Right until somebody said, You know, I can I can create a device which is mobile, so you can you can jog with the with music and and that’s that’s how I think accumorita or I don’t remember who the inventor is. He conceptualised it by observation of the problem and understanding the underlying conflict.
Shubham Agarwal :	Right, Great. I think that this is extremely, extremely, extremely helpful. And beautifully presented, I would say, I have not enjoyed any more episode personally, I would say, on thinking processes, each one have been great. But you know, when you look at a solution, which can help solve almost everything in the world, it’s just phenomenal. Right? So Satya, where do we go from here as a next step?
Satyashri Mohanty :	So as a next step, we will pick up more areas, and particularly I want to discuss mystery analysis.
Shubham Agarwal :	Mystery analysis? Okay.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah, it’s like an effect which has happened, which is beyond all explanations, right? How do you now understand it’s like, it’s like, how do you think like Sherlock Holmes, a murder has happened? And you don’t know who did it? Right. How do you think in those environments, you got to use a different form of logic? We discussed inductive, we discussed deductive, you got to use a third form of logic, which is called abductive, abductive reasoning, right?
Shubham Agarwal :	Oh wow, oh wow i have not ever heard of it.
Satyashri Mohanty :	Yeah yeah, so we will discuss that part in our next episode.
Shubham Agarwal :	Lovely, thanks a lot Satya, for your time and for all the listeners if you have any doubts or concerns or questions around conflict cloud, while we will discuss while we would share a link in the details, which you can go to and see how the conflict cloud is made.As suggested by Satya, we would want to mention that this episode on conflicts, paradoxes and contradictions is a synthesis of 3 thought leaders on the topic – eli goldratt, physicist Leonard Mlodinow and Genrich Altshuller, the inventor of what is known as theory of inventive problem solving. You can still write to us on our social media handles, or you can visit our website and write to us there until the next episode. Thank you. Thank you, Satya. Once again. Satya Thank you.