Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is not clear in this case whether it is necessary to maintain the area of the sum of the two specific shapes dealt with in the text, or to shift to the area of the shape, however organized, as the sum of the two right-angled triangles, or the area of one rectangle only, as well as the sum of the square and the parallelogram.
We consider as default contextualization the preferred organization of stimulus and the generalized interpretation of the text of the problem (Macchi and Bagassi 2012).
The inference to the stereotype, given its importance, must be processed with care. Take for example “The pencil is in the cup”, suggesting “The standard-type pencil is projecting out of, but is supported by the cup”. Compare this with “The coffee is in the cup” where the inference is liquid rather than beans, completely in the cup rather than projecting from it, or with “The key is in the lock” where the key projects horizontally, not vertically. The particular relation intended by ‘in’ has to be inferred by reference to the context and the objects to which it relates (Levinson 1995, p. 234).
Spatial orientation is a decisive factor in the perception of forms (Mach 1914): two identical shapes seen from different orientations take on a different phenomenic identity.
References
Bagassi M, Macchi L (2006) Pragmatic approach to decision making under uncertainty: the case of the disjunction effect. Think Reason 12(3):329–350
Carruthers P (2011) The opacity of mind: an integrative theory of self-knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Evans JSBT (2009) How many dual-process theories do we need? In: Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) In two minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 33–55
Evans JSBT (2012) Spot the difference: distinguishing between two kinds of processing. Mind Soc 11:121–131
Evans JSBT, Over DE (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press, Hove
Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:223–241
Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42
Gilhooly KJ, Macchi L, Ball L (2014) Special issue on Insight and creative problem solving. Think Reason 20(4) (in press)
Greeno JG (1974/04) Hobbits and orcs: acquisition of a sequential concept. Cognit Psychol 6(2):270–292
Hammond KR (1996) Human judgment and social policy. Oxford University Press, New York
Hayes JR, Simon HA (1974) Understanding written problem instructions. In: Gregg L (ed) Knowledge and cognition. Lawrennce Erlbaum Associates, Potomac
Hélie S, Sun R (2010) Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychol Rev 117:994–1024
Kaplan CA, Simon HA (1990) In search of insight. Cognit Psychol 22:374–419
Levinson SC (1995) Interactional biases in human thinking. In: Goody EN (ed) Social intelligence and interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 221–261
Levinson SC (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT press, Cambridge
Macchi L, Bagassi M (2006) Biased communication and misleading intuition of probability. Meeting on Intuition and Affect in Risk Perception and Decision Making, Bergen
Macchi L, Bagassi M (2007) The underinformative formulation of conditional probability. Behav Brain Sci 30(3):274–275
Macchi L, Bagassi M (2012) Intuitive and analytical processes in insight problem solving: a psycho-rhetorical approach to the study of reasoning. Mind Soc 11:53–67
Mach E (1914) The analysis of sensations. Open Court, Chicago
Mosconi G, D’Urso V (1974) Il farsi e il disfarsi del problema. Giunti-Barbera, Firenze
Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall, NJ
Ohlsson S (1984) Restructuring revisited I: summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving. Scand J Psychol 25:65–78
Simon HA (1990) Invariants of human behavior. Annu Rev 4:1–19
Simon HA, Hayes JR (1976) The understanding process: problem isomorphs. Cognit Psychol 8:165–190
Simon HA, Newell A (1971) Human problem solving: the state of theory. Am Psychol 21(2):145–159
Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119:3–22
Stanovich KE, Toplak ME (2012) Defining features versus incidental correlates of type 1 and type 2 processing. Mind Soc 11:3–13
Stanovich KE, West RE (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci 23:645–726
Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE (eds) (1986) Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge University Press, New York
Wertheimer M (1925) Uber Schlussprozesse im produktiven Denken. In Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie. Verlag der Philosophischen Akademie, Erlangen
Wertheimer M (1985) A gestalt perspective on computer simulations of cognitive processes. Comput Hum Behav 1:19–33
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macchi, L., Bagassi, M. The interpretative heuristic in insight problem solving. Mind Soc 13, 97–108 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-014-0139-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-014-0139-7