The interpretative heuristic in insight problem solving

The study of insight problem solving could well become one of the most important topics in the contemporary debate on thought. Dealing with insight problems today requires of necessity reconsidering the concept of bounded rationality. Simon’s work has inspired us to reflect on the specific quality of the type of boundaries which, by limiting the search, allow and guarantee the act of creativity; finding the solution to insight problems is emblematic of this creativity and provides a paradigmatic case. According to Simon, the solution to insight problems requires a search for an alternative space. He considered the “Notice Invariants Heuristic” to be a powerful tool for focusing this search which must always be guided by salience. Therefore, in the case of insight problems the heuristic is not a weak method of solving problems; indeed, it is the only way, an innovative and creative approach to reach the solution. In our view, the solution to these problems is not attained by abstraction, but only by a pertinent interpretation of the context (interpretative heuristic) in the light of the goal, allowing the problem solver to abandon the default representation. We therefore propose that this interpretative heuristic is inherent to all insight problem solving processes and, in more general terms, is an adaptive characteristic of the human cognitive system; this of course implies that the dual process theory will have to be challenged and discussed.

[1]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Science Perspectives on Psychological , 2022 .

[2]  Peter Carruthers,et al.  The Opacity of Mind: An Integrative Theory of Self-Knowledge , 2011 .

[3]  Herbert A Simon,et al.  The understanding process: Problem isomorphs , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  Ron Sun,et al.  Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. , 2010, Psychological review.

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Invariants of human behavior. , 1990, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  M. Wertheimer A Gestalt perspective on computer simulations of cognitive processes , 1985 .

[7]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[8]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  Laura Macchi,et al.  Pragmatic approach to decision making under uncertainty: The case of the disjunction effect , 2006 .

[10]  S. Levinson Interactional biases in human thinking , 1995 .

[11]  Laura Macchi,et al.  The underinformative formulation of conditional probability , 2007 .

[12]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. , 1971 .

[13]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Rationality and reasoning , 1996 .

[14]  J. Greeno Hobbits and orcs: Acquisition of a sequential concept ☆ , 1974 .

[15]  Lee W. Gregg,et al.  Knowledge and cognition , 1974 .

[16]  Jonathan St. B. T. Evans,et al.  Spot the difference: distinguishing between two kinds of processing , 2012, Mind & Society.

[17]  John L. Bradshaw,et al.  In two minds , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  Craig A. Kaplan,et al.  In search of insight , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  S. Frederick Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[20]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Understanding written problem instructions. , 1974 .

[21]  Ernst Mach,et al.  The Analysis of Sensations. , 1916 .

[22]  Laura Macchi,et al.  Intuitive and analytical processes in insight problem solving: a psycho-rhetorical approach to the study of reasoning , 2012 .

[23]  M. Wertheimer Über Schlussprozesse im produktiven Denken , 1920 .

[24]  S. Ohlsson Restructuring revisited: I. Summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving. , 1984 .

[25]  K. R. Hammond Human judgment and social policy , 1980 .

[26]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Conceptions of Giftedness , 2005 .

[27]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing , 2012 .

[28]  S. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .