This paper argues that design fixation, in part, entails fixation at the level of meta-representation, the representation of the relation between a representation and its reference. In this paper, we present a mathematical model that mimics the idea of how fixation can occur at the meta-representation level. In this model, new abstract concepts derived from the meta-representation are not simple combina- tions of the design ideas expressed in the primary representation. Instead, the process of meta-representation corresponds to the abstraction of new features at a higher, hierarchically separated level of representation from an existing one. We show a computational process of pattern extraction from existing design representations that results in the crystallization of design ideas or 'chunks' at an abstract level. The relation between the representation and its referent is explicitly described in these 'chunks', yet the 'chunks' have different properties from the properties of the original representation. THE FACADE OF FIXATION In Maier's classic study on functional fixation (Maier, 1931), subjects are placed in a room with two cords hanging from the ceiling, one near a wall and one in the center of the room, and with a number of objects including a tool (pliers). The subject's challenge is to tie the two cords together; however, the cords are suffi- ciently far apart that it is not possible for the subject to outstretch arms to reach the two cords. Most subjects are unable to complete the task and never utilize the pliers as a weight for a pendulum. The claim is that the subjects are functionally fixated on representing the pliers as a tool for forcefully grabbing an object, rather than as a weight for a pendulum to swing one cord toward the other, the preferred solution to the problem. They remain fixated on each tool as a tool for its gener- ally intended use rather than any other use, and are thus unable to solve the problem (Duncker, 1945). Other explanations for this type of fixation include an
[1]
J. Deloache,et al.
The role of perseveration in children's symbolic understanding and skill
,
2003
.
[2]
John S. Gero,et al.
Design Optimization Problem Reformulation Using Singular Value Decomposition
,
2009
.
[3]
Masaki Suwa,et al.
Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements
,
2000
.
[4]
Jeffrey V. Nickerson,et al.
A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems
,
2010,
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.
[5]
Jennifer L. Chiu,et al.
Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations
,
2011
.
[6]
John S. Gero,et al.
Learning symbolic formulations in design: Syntax, semantics, and knowledge reification
,
2010,
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.
[7]
J. Deloache.
Dual representation and young children's use of scale models.
,
2000,
Child development.
[8]
K. Duncker,et al.
On problem-solving
,
1945
.
[9]
G. Goldschmidt,et al.
Reasoning by Visual Analogy in Design Problem-Solving: The Role of Guidance
,
2000
.
[10]
D. Dennett.
The Intentional Stance.
,
1987
.
[11]
J. Perner.
Understanding the Representational Mind
,
1993
.
[12]
Thomas Suddendorf,et al.
The Rise of the Metamind
,
1997
.
[13]
J. Deloache,et al.
Dual Representation and the Linking of Concrete and Symbolic Representations
,
2009
.
[14]
A. Lillard,et al.
Pretend play skills and the child's theory of mind.
,
1993,
Child development.
[15]
Margaret Anne Defeyter,et al.
Acquiring an understanding of design: evidence from children's insight problem solving
,
2003,
Cognition.
[16]
N. Maier.
Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness.
,
1931
.