Generative Thinking

Generative Thinking — One Move, Committed

Fixation is the default state. When a generator (human or LLM) has been working on a problem, attention concentrates on the current framing and subsequent ideas tend to be local variations on it. This skill is the interrupt: spend one move stepping sideways, then resume.

The discipline matters more than the move. Pick ONE technique per invocation, run it without second-guessing, and produce explicit reframings or candidate entry points — not a brainstorm list in the same frame.

When to reach for this

Claude activates this skill when:

• The last 2+ iterations are variations of one idea (fixation signal)
• The user says "widen this", "think bigger", "I'm stuck", "what am I missing", "too narrow", "break out of"
• A problem is framed as a binary ("X or Y") and neither option is good
• An agent loop is producing convergent variations — suspect the frame, not the search depth
• The user explicitly wants a pre-mortem on the framing (not the plan) before committing

Do NOT activate this skill as a default before every consequential task — fixation is the trigger, not stakes. If the current frame is working, let it work.

Core discipline

Three rules that apply across every move below. Violations make the output ideation-flavored but structurally identical to what came before.

1. Generation before evaluation. De Bono's core distinction: lateral thinking cares about movement value, not truth value. A provocation is not a proposal. Evaluate only after the move has produced 3+ candidate framings.
2. One move, committed. Do not rotate through five techniques as a menu. Pick the move that matches the diagnosis, execute it fully, surface what shook loose, then stop. Menus produce noise; commitment produces distance.
3. Output framings, not ideas. The deliverable of a generative move is usually a new statement of the problem or a new entry angle, not another solution candidate inside the old frame. If the output could have been produced without the move, the move didn't fire.

Stop condition. Stop when the move has produced 3+ non-trivial framings, or a single framing that reorganizes the problem (one sharp surprise beats five adjacent). Do not keep generating because the list looks short — volume is not the product.

The fire test. After every move, ask: could this output have been produced without the move? If yes, the move did not fire. Either commit harder (push the provocation further, make the reframe more aggressive, re-roll the random word, invert on a different axis) or the move was mismatched to the stuck-pattern — re-diagnose and pick the better-matched move. Re-diagnosis after a miss is not menu-rotation; menu-rotation is cycling through techniques without commitment. One move at a time, each one fully, and if it misses, diagnose why before the next.

Tail sift. The fire test with a number attached. Post-trained models carry a typicality bias: asked for one candidate they return the modal one, and asked for a list they return the top-k modes — a bestseller list, not a sample (Zhang et al. 2025). The 3 framings a move produces are subject to this too. So before evaluating, over-generate — 5 to 8 candidates rather than 3 — and write next to each one the probability, 0 to 1, that a generator still inside the old frame would have produced it. Drop everything above the threshold; the remainder is the move's actual output. Start the threshold at 0.3 and lower it if the survivors still read as adjacent. Writing the number is the mechanism, not decoration: prompts that request a distribution with verbalized probabilities recover diversity that prompts for instances or lists do not, quality holds when the candidates are reasoned rather than listed, and lowering the stated threshold moves output further into the tail. The gain scales with model capability; on a small model the sift adds burden without adding distance.

Diagnostic → Move

Match the stuck-pattern to the move. When unsure, default to Reframe.

Reframe

The problem-as-stated is rarely the problem-to-solve. Mutate the sentence:

• Change the verb: "reduce X" → "redistribute X", "time-shift X", "prevent X from mattering"
• Change the subject: "our team can't ship faster" → "reviewers are the bottleneck" → "the artifact is too reviewable"
• Change the scope: zoom out (whose problem is this upstream?) or zoom in (which one user, which one minute?)
• Change the frame: from "problem to fix" to "signal to interpret"

Produce 3 reframings. Fired if: at least one makes the original statement sound naive, or shifts who owns the problem.

Provocation (Po)

Edward de Bono's method. Prefix a deliberately wrong, impossible, or absurd statement with Po: to signal it is not a proposal — it is a stimulus. Then extract movement: what principle, consequence, or adjacent idea does this surface?

Four recipes (de Bono's formal provocations):

• Escape: remove an essential feature. Po: the database has no writes.
• Reversal: flip the causal direction. Po: users pay us to NOT use the product.
• Exaggeration: push a quantity to the absurd limit. Po: onboarding takes six months.
• Wishful thinking: assume impossible capability. Po: we know what the user will click next week.

The canonical example: a factory pollutes a river. Po: the factory is downstream of itself. Impossible, but it generates: move intake downstream of discharge. Internal incentive to not pollute. Closed-loop water. The provocation is discarded; the movement stays.

Fired if: the provocation is genuinely impossible or absurd (not merely edgy), AND extracting movement yields a principle that survives translation back to the real constraints. If the "provocation" is a thing you could actually do, it's a proposal, not a Po — push it further.

Random stimulus

Pick a word, object, or domain with no connection to the problem. Force a connection. The forced-feel is the point — it routes around the habituated pathway.

Template: "How is [problem] like [random]?" then "What does that suggest?"

Sourcing for humans: a random Wikipedia article, a nearby physical object, an Oblique Strategies card, a concept from an unrelated field on the current desk. Commit to the first thing you land on; re-rolling defeats the method.

Sourcing for an LLM agent: an LLM asked directly for a random word does not produce one — the same attention that locked the frame picks a word adjacent to it, and post-training biases the pick toward whatever is typical. Two sources work:

• External: ask the user for a word, any word; fetch a random Wikipedia article; draw an Oblique Strategy by tool.
• Internal, hashed — String Seed of Thought (Misaki & Akiba 2025). Write out a long random string (40+ characters, mixed letters, digits and symbols, no visible pattern). Then write out the reduction — sum the character codes, or compute a rolling hash — modulo the size of a pre-listed vocabulary, and take the word at that index. references/stimulus-vocabulary.md holds 128 nouns from distant domains for exactly this; the Oblique Strategies deck works the same way. Measured: the recipe reaches near-PRNG faithfulness on long-reasoning models, and on open-ended generation it beat both an injected PRNG seed and a random-number tool call, because the string can be re-hashed for several local choices and the derivation is on the page. Two failure modes, both measured: a lazy extraction that reads only the first character (LLM-generated strings have strong positional bias — 947 of 1000 QwQ-32B strings opened with "7"), and skipping the written arithmetic, after which reasoning models hallucinate the result. Use the whole string; write the sum. Models under ~8B cannot execute the reduction reliably — hand them an external source.

Fired if: the connection is genuinely forced (the first 10 seconds feel wrong), and working through the force produces an angle that was not in your prior search space. If the random word feels "relevant" immediately, you re-rolled, picked from attention, or read one character of the seed — get a new one.

SCAMPER

For iterating on an existing artifact. Walk the seven prompts once; do not pick favorites in advance.

• Substitute — swap a component, material, person, step
• Combine — merge with something else, including something it competes with
• Adapt — borrow a mechanism from elsewhere that solves a related problem
• Modify / magnify / minify — change a dimension, frequency, or weight drastically
• Put to another use — who else could use this, for what?
• Eliminate — what happens if this part simply is not there?
• Reverse / rearrange — swap order, roles, or polarity

Fired if: at least one prompt produced a candidate you would not have reached by asking "what's a better version of this?". If all seven outputs are adjacent polish, the artifact is not the unit of analysis — zoom out and try Reframe.

Inversion

Solve the inverse problem, then negate the solution. Works because failure modes are often more concrete than success paths.

• "How would I guarantee this fails?" → each failure mode is a protective requirement
• "What would the worst possible version look like?" → the inverse shape of the good version
• "If an adversary wanted us to choose X, why?" → surfaces the hidden trap in X

Fired if: inverting surfaced a concrete risk, mechanism, or incentive the forward framing was hiding. If negating the inverted answer gives you the same thing you already had, the inversion was too symmetric — invert on a different axis (goals → incentives, success → unobservable, user → operator).

Structured analogy (perspective shift)

Move the problem into a distant domain by its relational structure, not by asking the distant domain a question. "How would biology solve this?" is the cross-domain baseline in Shen, Druckmann & Zou (2026), and it collapses almost as hard as no domain prompt at all: across 150 generations per problem, about 5% of proposed domains were unique, and solution diversity (Vendi score) was 8.3 against 5.8 for the unconstrained baseline. Explicit structure-mapping scored 90–173% higher on solution diversity, produced solutions judged novel 50–69% of the time against 1.6–38% for the baselines, and reached domains further from the problem. The written mapping is what changes the outcome.

Four steps, after Gentner's structure-mapping theory:

1. Extract. List the problem's objects with their functional roles, and the relations between them — predicates over two or more objects ("a stationary source releases a substance into a heterogeneous medium"). Attributes of single objects are not mapped.
2. Map by function. Pick a distant domain and write object ↔ object pairs with the reason each pair holds. "Delivers a payload" is a mapping basis; "is a liquid" is not. Partial coverage is allowed — the analogy needs a subset of the relations, not all of them.
3. Search the target side. Find an existing, named method in the distant domain that operates on the mapped objects and preserves the shared relations. Search there, not for solutions to the original problem. (Drug delivery ↔ groundwater contamination gave reactive-transport plume models; EEG source localization ↔ seismology gave the double-difference earthquake location algorithm.)
4. Transfer back. Re-substitute the source objects and state what the method becomes in the original domain.

Domain menu, when step 2 needs a starting point: natural (biology, ecology, geology), trade (kitchen, ER triage, shipping dock), role (CFO, child, historian, adversary), scale (100x, 1/100x).

Fired if: the mapped domain is one the problem's own literature would not cite, AND step 3 returned a named, existing method — not a metaphor. If the object pairs match by resemblance rather than role, or the "method" is the original problem restated in new nouns, the mapping was surface-level; redo step 2 with a further domain.