Brainstorming methods are examples of popular tools for divergent thinking used to generate new ideas for solving problems and seeding design projects. The objective is to maximize the number and diversity of ideas while critical analysis is postponed for convergent phases. However, without appropriate mechanisms for navigating the infinite parameter space of designs, the divergent leaps can become piloted by irrelevant factors failing the objective. A new entropy-inspired design method (EIDeM) for divergent thinking is proposed that replaces the instinctual avoidance of problems with more organized and probabilistically favorable problem-positive exploration. In nature, a macrostate manifested by a large number of microstates can spontaneously overwhelm a smaller macrostate, making the presence of the latter rare or practically nonexistent. Similarly, the enormous number of characteristics manifesting problems can be forbidding for a problem-negative thinker. However, the abundant problematic factors can be considered as spontaneous natural phenomenon governed by the laws of probability, enabling extensive guides for searching new manifestations for the complementary functions of interest with improved performances. The conflicts can also be used as isolated targets for conscious efforts to detach from cognitive limiting fixations. The EIDeM integrates well with conventional design methods, and seems to be especially suitable for relaxing compulsory functions that have turned into bottlenecks slowing down or totally halting the overall development. The versatile use of the EIDeM is demonstrated using two artificial design scenarios, and real-life applications are also reported. Wider reproduction of the EIDeM's potential could enhance the pace of the forward-going humankind. 1Introduction Generally accepted good design practices include controlled alternation between divergent and convergent thinking phases (Van Boeijen et al. 2020) . Methods for divergent thinking can be used to generate new ideas to solve problems or seed design projects, ideally free from the designer's conceptual or knowledge-based fixations explained by unconscious adherence or conscious blocking (Youmans and Arciszewski 2014). Good examples of general-purpose methods for divergent thinking are popular brainstorming techniques (Osborn 1953; Whiting 1958). SCAMPER, which is an acronym of words Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use , Eliminate, and Reverse, provides reminders about various ways the subject of ideation should be considered to gain new aspects on the problem (Eberele 1996). A similar list is provided by the WWWWWH, an acronym of words Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How (Sloan 2010). Morphological chart helps to divide designs into smaller function-based portions around which a great number of characteristics and their combinations can be ideated (Zwicky 1967). To solve certain types of design problems, TRIZ matrix uses conflicting factors as coordinates to locate potential approaches (Altshuller 1999). Among other features, a more general-purpose derivation of TRIZ called ASIT reduces these approaches to a fewer and more abstract forms (Horowitz 1999 and 2023). Using these methods, designers can take cognitive steps away from the current design focuses and gain new insights beyond the apparent limits of the non-provoked thinking. Convergent thinking is then needed for analytically excluding non-feasible or sub-optimal ideas from the further scrutiny. Convergent thinking can be assisted with methods such as Pugh matrix (Pugh 1981), PMI (De Bono 1986), and COCD box (Byttebier et al. 2007). NON-PEER-REVIEWED PREPRINT 1/22 NON-PEER-REVIEWED PREPRINT An intuitive approach to engage with problems, which must be managed to make viable designs or which the designs try to solve, is the exclusion of the problematic factors. This is reasonable to some extent, especially during the convergent phases of designing (Van Boeijen et al. 2020), because the problematic factors as such are nuisance. However, the instinctual avoidance of problems could unnecessarily limit the divergent exploration. Viable and optimal designs could become rejected due to misjudged problematic factors, or the designs are not discovered at all without looking at right places with appropriate mindset. It is easy to see why the problematic parameter space of designs is so vast and unavoidable in probabilistic sense, even if a single parameter is considered. As an example, the number of different shaft lengths for an axe is infinite, while only a small range is convenient considering the human anatomy, are cost efficient to manufacture, and so on. And the relative size and complexity of the problematic space increases, exponentially, as more parameters are incorporated in the designs, even if the parameters have definite ranges (figure 1). Luckily, some design methods do encourage to consider also the problems as potential sources of opportunities, with more or less organized manner. Reverse brainstorming helps to establish new aspects on designs by listing ways how to make them worse (Whiting 1958). More specific approach titled ”Convert Harm into Benefit” in TRIZ matrix proposes to utilize problematic factors to obtain a positive effect, remove them by combining together, or increase their intensity to a degree until they stop being problematic (Altshuller 1999). Synectics, which is a somewhat laborious method, utilizes invented analogies to represent the problem in different imaginary contexts for provoking new and non-intuitive solutions (Gordon 1961; Van Boeijen et al. 2020). Sharing similar motivations, the PMI (De Bono 1986) and COCD box (Byttebier et al. 2007) were developed to limit unjustified rejection of novel ideas during convergent phases. Pugh matrix (Pugh 1981) can be used to better understand designs that satisfy certain requirements inadequately in relative sense, and possibly remedy them by borrowing characteristics from the other compared designs. NON-PEER-REVIEWED PREPRINT 2/22 NON-PEER-REVIEWED PREPRINT Figure 1. An example of the exponential escape of the number of assumed-faulty microstates (darker right-hand bars) in comparison to the working microstates (lighter left- hand bars) in limited imaginary designs. The numbers of microstates are calculated using the formula SP; where S is the number of parameter settings required to manifest a particular microstate (working or faulty) , and P is the number of parameters per design . In this example, one of the three specific settings per parameter are required to have a working microstate, and seven settings lead to assumed-faulty microstates. Word “assumed” is used to provoke seeing the abundant problematic microstates as potential missed opportunities. False-working microstates also exist and are ideally recognized using convergent thinking. Whether the problem-positive expansion of ideation is utilized or not, divergent thinking is prone to become piloted by fixations limiting the ideation (Youmans and Arciszewski 2014). For example, the conventional brainstorming, during which participants become exposed to ideas of others, can suffer from collaborative fixation leading to reduction of explored domains and ideas conformed to each other (Kohn and Smith 2011). Even prior visual fixations on earlier designs has been found to associate with the success of the idea generation in alternative-uses test (Kwon et al. 2020). Combining the effects of the irrelevant secondary factors with the problem-negative mindset can severely limit the search space of ideation. Thus, it would be beneficial to improve the efficiency of the divergent leaps by having a problem-positive divergent-thinking method utilizing relevant NON-PEER-REVIEWED PREPRINT 3/22 NON-PEER-REVIEWED PREPRINT