People talk about the need to think outside of the box as though everyone understands what that means. It is assumed to simply mean being more creative and open minded in your thinking. But shouldn’t we ask what the “box” is that we want to get out of?

We’ll get to an answer for that in a moment. First, here is a simple creative thinking test you should take to better understand what follows. Choose from the list below which parts are necessary for a car, and write down the numbers of those items:

1. Carpeting… 2. Wheels… 3. Mirrors… 4. Trunk… 5. Radio… 6. Seats… 7. Steering wheel… 8. Roof… 9.  Ash trays… 10. Keys… 11. Gas tank… 12. Glove box… 13. Brake pedal… 14. Seat belts

How many items are on your list? Some readers may have just two or three things noted as necessary. Those of you who saw where this was leading are looking at a blank piece of paper. The whole process of looking at what is “necessary” involves making assumptions, of course, and this is a clue to what the “box” is. We have a whole set of ideas about how things “should be” or “have to be” or “always are” when we look at anything around us. This is the box that our thinking is often trapped in.

To think outside of the box, then, isn’t just designing a better rear-view mirror, but questioning the assumption that a car needs one to begin with. Perhaps a monitor showing a camera view of everything behind the car would work as well or better. Of course, you could also get creative in designing a mirror too. You might question whether it needs to be inside, for example. It could be a periscope that gives a view inside from the other mirror up above the roof outside. In either case, the point is that to get out of the box you go beyond the limitations imposed by what you and others already think about the subject.

By the way, if you argue that some of the things on the list really are necessary, you really need this article. For example, some might say that whatever is designed in place of seal belts, they are still required by law, and so necessary. Of course, this just points to another assumption: that cars have to be designed according to current regulations. Thinking outside the box means challenging that preconceived notion too. It is possible after all, that laws can be changed.

Of course ideas or changes are not automatically good just because they are new. But among all the possible ideas and inventions that could actually be good and useful, some of them will always be outside the normal assumptions being made - outside of the box. Sure, there are a ton of bad ideas there too, but we only find the good ones if we get out there and winnow through them.

How do you do that? There are actually many ways to stimulate more creative thinking. There are brain boosters, certain environments that are more conducive to creativity, and dozens of good problem-solving and idea-generating techniques you can learn. For now, you can start right here, with what this lesson about the “box” suggests: If the box is built from your assumptions and preconceived ideas, then you can break out by attacking those building blocks.

Specifically, when approaching a creative project, write down all the beliefs, feelings and ideas you and others have about the subject. Then ask why each of these exists, and what might replace them. Get at the roots of the matter too, by challenging the premises to have radical new thoughts

Here’s an example of the latter: A creative discussion about how to build a school is premised on the idea that the school should be built. Is that true? Perhaps an existing building could be used, or maybe there are ways to teach now without the students congregating in one place. In the end the school may be built, but it can’t hurt to ask the questions, and if there is a better solution out there, you may need to think outside of the box like this to find it.

We don’t have a precisely-numbered measure of your “creativity quotient,” yet, like we have for your intelligence quotient, or “IQ.” But tests which do try to measure your creative ability generally look at three criteria. These are the quantity of your ideas, their originality, and the possible usefulness or “quality” of those ideas. With that in mind, here are some techniques for doing better in all three areas.

Creativity Through Quantity

More ideas means a higher probability of a few good ideas. This has been shown in both research and most of personal experiences. How, then, do we generate more ideas?

Start by practicing. If you had to write down as many uses as you could in ten minutes for a piece of string (a common creativity exercise), you might get a dozen ideas the first time you try. Do it a few times, though (with different items), and you’ll soon find that you are coming up with twice as many ideas. This is especially true if you do this with others. Their ideas will get you thinking in new ways.

You can also learn one or more of the many specific techniques for generating ideas. They include mentally combining concepts to create new ones, tearing apart things and processes to change the components, challenging premises and more. If you want instructions in how to use these special methods, they can usually be found online by searching “problem solving techniques,” or “creativity techniques.”

A Higher Creativity Quotient Means More Original Ideas

Existing ideas have likely been tried. What is new, then, can more likely add value to what is already here. New to you may not be new to the world, of course. I am regularly dreaming up of new inventions which I later find already existed somewhere. But you have to start with what is original to you.

Do a creativity exercise like the one mentioned above, where you try to find as many uses as you can for some common object. Then show your ideas to someone else. If they don’t laugh at some of them, or if you are not embarrassed by a few of them, they are not crazy enough. To have more original ideas you need to lower your inhibitions and let the thoughts flow.

It isn’t that a silly or outrageous idea is inherently useful. In fact, most of them will not be of any direct value. For example, who would really want to use chewing gum as a defensive weapon, as one gentleman wrote down during a brainstorming exercise? The image of him throwing a sticky wad of gum at an attacker is just ridiculous. But upon reflection, it occurred to me that gooey balls with transponders in them could be thrown at fleeing suspects or their vehicles. These would stick to anything and be trackable with a device the police would have. This is where the primary value of crazy and original ideas is - they lead to better ideas.

Again, the first thing to do to improve the originality of your ideas, is to practice. Write down all the craziest uses you can think of for a dollar bill or a tree branch. Then see if by working with the associations created, you can work with one of these ideas until it is something possibly useful. Try asking crazy questions too. The more you let yourself be original, the easier it gets.

Having More Useful Ideas

Of course, one of the biggest reasons to boost your creativity quotient is to have more useful, perhaps even profitable ideas. Concentrating on the first two components above will help get you there. To really boost the quality of your ideas, though, work in areas that actually mean something to you, and where you can actually apply what you think of. It may be fun to think of new flying machines or ways to cure world hunger, and it’s good mental exercise, but if you are not in a position to do something with those ideas, you will not be as good at testing them or refining them into something truly useful. Start closer to home.

For example, look at the problems you actually can do something about around the house or in your life, and exercise your creativity on these. Think of a new way to organize the garage, for example, or find a new and creative way to get the kids to clean their rooms. By actually putting your ideas into action you tell your mind that this is more than just mental exercise, that it is important to real life. This gets your unconscious mind working overtime on new ideas. It is a sure way to boost your creativity quotient.

The IQ test is meant to measure one’s “intelligence quotient,” and so provide a basic rating of how smart a person is. When we try to measure people in this way, we hope it will predict how well they will perform in either their profession or academic work. Of course we know that this doesn’t work very well. We can all think of examples of highly intelligent people who are less successful than those with “weaker” minds.

In the world of academics, studies have shown that a student’s habits of self discipline are far more likely to predict high grades than the score on an IQ test. Obviously the usefulness of the latter kind of testing is limited, but what is the alternative? On possibility is the “intelligence application,” or “IA test.”

The IA Test

The idea here is not to measure how well you can use your brain on “paper problems.” This measuring of “brain potential” is what the IQ test is about. An IA score would be a rating of how well you actually apply your intelligence in your life. As far as I know, nobody has yet developed a systematic test of this sort. What would it consist of, then?

Most likely it would start with a standard IQ test of some sort. That measure of “what you have” would then be used in conjunction with a measure of “what you do with it” to come up with an IA score. The first number (your IQ score) might be added to or subtracted from according to measures of “application.” But what would we use for these? There are many possibilities.

If we used income as an “intelligence application  measure,” we might start with zero for an average income for that particular IQ level, and add or subtract points for being above or below that. This is based on the idea that being more intelligent should lead to a higher income if one is applying that intelligence well. We could divide IQ scores into ten levels, and for each, find the average income or create a scheme for what ones income “should be.” Then we could add a point for each level a person is above their “presumed” income, or subtract one for each level below.

Of course, this measure assumes that higher income is either an objective value, or at least a goal of the person being tested. That brings up the first serious problem with this new kind of test. Do we want to use an objective set of values against which to measure how well people apply their intelligence, or should we measure according to the person’s own stated goals? There are tough challenges with both approaches. The first requires some agreement on what is universally valuable. The second assumes that people really know what they value.

This is the problem with the all the possible measures. We can create measures of some sort to see how well a person does in relationships, health maintenance, creative output, and even happiness, but we cannot so easily say what the value of those things is, or how much the person being tested really desires those things. At first this problem of standards and measurements may make it seem that we cannot develop an intelligence application test. But we can choose a standard (or develop two tests). As for the measuring, we already do it.

If you’ve ever said about a person, “He doesn’t use what he’s got,” or “She’s so smart, but she doesn’t do anything with it,” you were measuring. You can’t say such things without having some idea of what a person could be doing better. These kinds of comments are a measuring of performance against that idea or standard. Granted it isn’t precise, but it acknowledges that such things are measured.

The IA test would simply make it more precise. A statistician will tell you that when things are difficult to measure, you don’t give up: You just measure more. For example, if all you have is flawed rulers to measure a door with, you don’t use one once. You can get closer to a true measurement by using them all several times and taking the average. If you are measuring the relative happiness of people in various groups, whether the groups are determined by country of residence or IQ level, you can to some extent overcome the flaws in measurement by making enough of them. When a group consistently scores higher after thousands are tested using many methods, the data becomes more accurate and useful.

At the level of the individual, then, we would also want to measure many things in many ways, because of the uncertainty of any one measurement. We might measure income, as noted, but then measure again according to what income the person thinks would be ideal. We could also adjust this for age. We might measure success in relationships in six different ways, and the application of intelligence to household chores in several ways. Using all of these various measures, we might arrive at a IA test which can assign a score that actually means something. Or maybe not.

Perhaps the idea of “intelligence application” is most useful not for developing a new test, but for pointing out how flawed some kinds of tests can be. I’ve seen the same man score 70 on one IQ test and 140 on another, and I know of a millionaire who can’t read. If after generations of these tests being used they cannot be more accurate or predictive than that, there may not be too much hope for an IA test either. Life itself is the real “IA test,” and perhaps for a long time to come the closest measurements we’ll get will be the intuitive ones that lead to the comments, “He sure knows how to use what he’s got,” or “She just isn’t living up to her potential.”

Copyright Steve Gillman. For tips on how to Increase IQ and to get the Brain Power Newsletter and other free gifts, visit Increase Brainpower .com