Creative Problem Solving as Overcoming a Misunderstanding

Solving or attempting to solve problems is the typical and, hence, general function of thought. A theory of problem solving must first explain how the problem is constituted, and then how the solution happens, but also how it happens that it is not solved; it must explain the correct answer and with the same means the failure. The identification of the way in which the problem is formatted should help to understand how the solution of the problems happens, but even before that, the source of the difficulty. Sometimes the difficulty lies in the calculation, the number of operations to be performed, and the quantity of data to be processed and remembered. There are, however, other problems – the insight problems – in which the difficulty does not lie so much in the complexity of the calculations, but in one or more critical points that are susceptible to misinterpretation, incompatible with the solution. In our view, the way of thinking involved in insight problem solving is very close to the process involved in the understanding of an utterance, when a misunderstanding occurs. In this case, a more appropriate meaning has to be selected to resolve the misunderstanding (the “impasse”), the default interpretation (the “fixation”) has to be dropped in order to “restructure.” to grasp another meaning which appears more relevant to the context and the speaker’s intention (the “aim of the task”). In this article we support our view with experimental evidence, focusing on how a misunderstanding is formed. We have studied a paradigmatic insight problem, an apparent trivial arithmetical task, the Ties problem. We also reviewed other classical insight problems, reconsidering in particular one of the most intriguing one, which at first sight appears impossible to solve, the Study Window problem. By identifying the problem knots that alter the aim of the task, the reformulation technique has made it possible to eliminate misunderstanding, without changing the mathematical nature of the problem. With the experimental versions of the problems exposed we have obtained a significant increase in correct answers. Studying how an insight problem is formed, and not just how it is solved, may well become an important topic in education. We focus on undergraduate students’ strategies and their errors while solving problems, and the specific cognitive processes involved in misunderstanding, which are crucial to better exploit what could be beneficial to reach the solution and to teach how to improve the ability to solve problems.

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

[2]  Mary Elizabeth Bulbrook An Experimental Inquiry into the Existence and Nature of 'Insight' , 1932 .

[3]  Allen Newell,et al.  Elements of a theory of human problem solving. , 1958 .

[4]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Information-processing models of cognition , 1981, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Laura Macchi,et al.  The interpretative heuristic in insight problem solving , 2014 .

[6]  M. Wertheimer Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie , 1925 .

[7]  Laura Macchi,et al.  The role of pragmatic rules in the conjunction fallacy , 2001 .

[8]  L. Macchi,et al.  The interpretative function and the emergence of unconscious analytic thought , 2016 .

[9]  Laura Macchi,et al.  Reasoning and pragmatics , 2000 .

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

[11]  D. Medin,et al.  Thinking about Biology : Modular Constraints on Categorization and Reasoning in the Everyday Life of Americans , Maya , and Scientists , 2005 .

[12]  Ines Gloeckner,et al.  Relevance Communication And Cognition , 2016 .

[13]  M. Scheerer,et al.  Problem Solving , 1967, Nature.

[14]  L. Macchi Pragmatic Aspects of the Base-rate Fallacy , 1995 .

[15]  L. Macchi,et al.  When analytic thought is challenged by a misunderstanding , 2015 .

[16]  D. Kahneman A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[17]  S. Levinson Cross-cultural universals and communication structures , 2013 .

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

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

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

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

[22]  L. Macchi,et al.  The Argumentative and the Interpretative Functions of Thought: Two Adaptive Characteristics of the Human Cognitive System , 2019 .

[23]  Kevin M. Brooks,et al.  Thoughts beyond words : When language overshadows insight , 1993 .

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

[25]  David G. Rand,et al.  Why We Cooperate , 2014 .

[26]  J. Dessalles,et al.  Arguing, reasoning, and the interpersonal (cultural) functions of human consciousness , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[27]  Macchi,et al.  Partitive Formulation of Information in Probabilistic Problems: Beyond Heuristics and Frequency Format Explanations. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[28]  G. Mosconi Discorso e pensiero , 1990 .