How creative should creators be to optimize the evolution of ideas? : A computational model

There are both benefits and drawbacks to creativity. In a social group it is not necessary for all members to be creative to benefit from creativity; some merely imitate or enjoy the fruits of others' creative efforts. What proportion should be creative? This paper outlines investigations of this question carried out using a computer model of cultural evolution referred to as EVOC (for EVOlution of Culture). EVOC is composed of neural network based agents that evolve fitter ideas for actions by (1) inventing new ideas through modification of existing ones, and (2) imitating neighbors' ideas. The ideal proportion with respect to fitness of ideas is found to depend on the level of creativity of the creative agents. For all levels or creativity, the diversity of ideas in a population is positively correlated with the ratio of creative agents.

[1]  D. W. Goodwin.  Alcohol and the writer , 1988 .

[2]  Domenico Parisi,et al.  Groups of Agents with a Leader , 2022 .

[3]  Paul G. Higgs.  The mimetic transition: a simulation study of the evolution of learning by imitation , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  Liane Gabora,et al.  The cultural evolution of socially situated cognition , 2008, Cognitive Systems Research.

[5]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  How Learning Can Guide Evolution , 1996, Complex Syst..

[6]  Torsten Norlander,et al.  Effects of Alcohol On Scientific Thought During the Incubation Phase of The Creative Process , 1996 .

[7]  R. Lewontin,et al.  Does Culture Evolve , 1999 .

[8]  Torsten Norlander,et al.  Effects of Alcohol on Picture Drawing During the Verification Phase of the Creative Process , 1997 .

[9]  Michael L. Best,et al.  Adaptive value within natural language discourse , 2006 .

[10]  E. Smith,et al.  Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology1 , 1998, Current Anthropology.

[11]  Liane Gabora,et al.  Modeling Cultural Dynamics , 2008, AAAI Fall Symposium: Adaptive Agents in Cultural Contexts.

[12]  William Styron.  Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness , 1990 .

[13]  Torsten Norlander,et al.  Effects of Alcohol on a Divergent Figural Fluency Test During the Illumination Phase of the Creative Process , 1998 .

[14]  A. Ludwig.  The price of greatness , 1995 .

[15]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[16]  Michael L. Best,et al.  How Culture Can Guide Evolution: An Inquiry into Gene/Meme Enhancement and Opposition , 1999, Adapt. Behav..

[17]  N. Andreasen.  Creativity and mental illness: prevalence rates in writers and their first-degree relatives. , 1987, The American journal of psychiatry.

[18]  L. Gabora.  Ideas are not replicators but minds are , 2004, q-bio/0402002.

[19]  D W Goodwin.  Alcohol as muse. , 1992, American journal of psychotherapy.

[20]  Albert Rothenberg,et al.  Creativity, mental health, and alcoholism , 1990 .

[21]  Natalio Krasnogor,et al.  A Study on the use of ``self-generation'' in memetic algorithms , 2004, Natural Computing.

[22]  Mark Jeffreys,et al.  The Meme Metaphor , 2000, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[23]  A. Karmiloff-Smith.  Précis of Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  Liane Gabora,et al.  The fate of evolutionary archaeology: survival or extinction? , 2006, 1309.5667.

[25]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  The International Handbook of Creativity. , 2006 .

[26]  Todd Lubart,et al.  Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity , 1995 .

[27]  A. Flaherty.  Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive , 2005, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[28]  Frank J. Sulloway.  Born to Rebel , 1996 .