In nearly every discipline, whether scientific, industrial, educational, or philosophical, the question arises with regularity: How do we invent something new? This question seems exceptionally pressing now that AI has entered the conversation. Of course, many seem to think such questions demand complex answers, theories, models, or technological breakthroughs.

I disagree. I would argue that the real answer is strikingly simple. If we want to invent something new, we must first be willing to confront what is old, what is broken, and what is taken for granted. That means we must stop avoiding problems and begin studying them. Of course, that’s probably easier said than done, but I have some ways to help. We just have to be willing to think outside of the box.

Most people, most organizations, and most systems are built for predictability. We favor routine, normalization, and efficiency. As a result, we develop cognitive habits (often rooted in Epistemic Rigidity) that insulate us from discomfort. We don’t just ignore problems; we design systems to avoid them. That’s our clue! Problems become reputational risks rather than catalysts for growth. But innovation, by its very nature, demands that we face problems head-on. Invention starts not with the solution, but with the accurate identification of what is no longer working.

To invent something new, then, is not merely an act of creation. It is an act of confrontation. It requires individuals and teams to name the dysfunction, to challenge the assumptions that sustain it, and to step away from the comforts of familiarity. In this regard, invention is not just technical, it is psychological. Or better said, it’s behavioral. Accordingly, it requires a level of cognitive and emotional flexibility that few are trained to cultivate.

Indeed, the Adversity Nexus, the theory of Epistemic Rigidity, and the 3B Behavioral Modification Model can help us understand what’s going on and why. However, to truly fix the issues, we need something specific. In my opinion, this is where Contrastive Inquiry becomes essential.

I have written about this before, but Contrastive Inquiry is a structured method that begins by examining what is accepted as true, identifying its contrast, and then converting that contrast into a question. For example, if one accepts the statement, “We’ve always done it this way,” the contrast might be, “What if we didn’t do it that way?” From this, the Contrastive Inquiry becomes: “What happens when we discard the conventional method entirely?” That question, if pursued honestly, often opens the door to insights that were previously inaccessible.

The reason this method is so powerful is that it forcibly disrupts the mental calcification that occurs when individuals or institutions become so anchored to a belief, a method, or a system that they are unable to imagine alternatives (Epistemic Rigidity). By framing inquiry through contrast, one introduces deliberate cognitive dissonance. That dissonance, when sustained in a disciplined environment, leads to innovation, not by accident, but by design.

Contrastive Inquiry also bypasses another common obstacle to invention: the Einstellung effect. This psychological bias causes individuals to approach problems using solutions that have worked in the past, even when better options are available. The only way to override this pattern is to introduce a method that explicitly rejects the default starting point. Contrastive Inquiry provides that override mechanism.

It is not enough to say “think outside the box.” That phrase has become a cultural cliché, divorced from functional process. Real innovation doesn’t come from abstraction, it comes from methodology. It comes from deliberately training people to question the box, compare it to its opposite, and then examine what lies between or beyond. This is not guesswork. It is inquiry. It is rigor. And it is repeatable.

To invent something new, we must understand that invention is not an act of genius; it is the result of persistent, structured, contrast-based thinking. Great inventions have almost always emerged not from strokes of brilliance, but from uncomfortable questions. From refusing to accept easy answers. From acknowledging that what is, might not be what should be. And from rejecting the notion that problems are interruptions, rather than instructions.

So when we ask the question—How do we invent something new?—we should stop looking for cleverness and start looking for clarity. The first step is to stop avoiding problems. The second is to challenge the inherited logic that produced those problems in the first place. And the third is to adopt a process—like Contrastive Inquiry—that turns those challenges into the very foundation of innovation.

Invention, then, is not a mystery. It is mastery. And mastery begins with contrast.

The Example of all Examples

It sounds funny to say this, but a very strong and illustrative example of this would be the development of the Contrastive Inquiry Method itself. Somewhat paradoxically, it took Contrastive Inquiry to invent the Contrastive Inquiry method. I’m not sure how to explain that, so, for the sake of both clarity and audience education, let’s walk through another real discovery derived from using Contrastive Inquiry, the creation of my 3B Behavior Modification Model.

Example: Inventing the 3B Behavior Modification Model Using Contrastive Inquiry

Step 1: Identify the Problem (Avoid Avoiding It)

Something I noticed was that traditional behavior modification models, especially in leadership and education, focused heavily on external behaviors—reward, punishment, reinforcement schedules, etc. However, I also noticed how these models often fail in sustainable change. It seemed that many fall back into old ways in a matter of months, and sometimes, in a matter of weeks. My theory was that it is because they don’t address why people behave as they do in the first place. Repeated attempts to correct behavior through instruction, incentives, or consequences always seem to fail to produce deep, lasting change in many people. Clearly, something was missing.

Contrastive Statement:

1. Accepted model: Behavior can be changed by modifying reinforcement.
2. Contrast: What if behavior can’t be changed through reinforcement alone?
3. Inquiry: What actually drives behavior if reinforcement isn’t sufficient?

Step 2: Challenge the Model

This simple question opened up a completely different path of exploration. Ultimately, it helped me ask: If reinforcement is insufficient, what else could be influencing behavior? Of course, this approach leads to deeper questioning. Some examples include:

• What comes before behavior?
• What cognitive or emotional factors precede the decision to act?
• Are we modifying symptoms instead of causes?
• What are some of the causes and effects?

These questions shift the focus upstream toward the emotional and cognitive antecedents of behavior, not just the behavior itself. It also began to paint behavior as the ultimate effect, not a driver or cause. Indeed, this opened the door to even more questions, but you can see the point. What it ultimately helped me do was see that perhaps the underlying assumptions were inaccurate. Hence, I explored that possibility rather than trying to support my previous understanding.

Step 3: Explore the Emotional Foundation

I’ll spare you the details of that exploration, but it was through this structured inquiry that it became evident that emotion drives bias, bias drives belief, and belief drives behavior. I had identified a fascinating cascade that had not been adequately captured in mainstream models. What I want you to understand is that the 3B Model emerged not from brainstorming in isolation, but from deliberately contrasting the accepted focus on behavior with a new emphasis on emotional architecture.

Thus, the invention of the 3B Model was itself an act of contrastive thinking:

• Old view: Behavior is the target or initiator.
• New view: Behavior is the effect or outcome.
• Contrastive Inquiry: What if the focus on behavior is why behavior doesn’t change?

By turning the problem inside out, the solution becomes visible: go deeper than behavior. Address emotional biases, not just conduct. Structure the process. Define the hierarchy—Emotion → Bias → Belief → Behavior → Outcome → Emotion → Bias → Etc. What I want you to understand is that this is not guesswork or intuition; I was able to invent this as a direct result of a structured method of invention.

Closing Note on Broader Utility

I have used Contrastive Inquiry as the vehicle for discovery in the vast majority of my work. Ultimately, this same method could be applied to invent solutions in medicine, organizational development, product design, political theory, education, or even mechanical engineering. For instance, one could take the accepted view “seminal vesicles are rarely responsible for chronic prostatitis” and use Contrastive Inquiry to ask, “What if that rarity is actually diagnostic bias?” leading to new investigations and treatment pathways (hint-hint).

The method is not the invention; it is the machine that creates the invention. When properly applied, it doesn’t just inspire ideas, it constructs them. Indeed, if we want progress, we must be willing to question with boldness – EVERYTHING!