A problem is a situation in which an agent seeks to attain a given goal without knowing how to achieve it. Human problem solving is typically studied as a search in a problem space composed of states (information about the environment) and operators (to move between states). A problem such as playing a game of chess has possible states, and a traveling salesperson problem with as little as 82 cities already has more than different tours (similar to chess). Biological neurons (...) are slower than the digital switches in computers. An exhaustive search of the problem space exceeds the capacity of current computers for most interesting problems, and it is fairly clear that humans cannot in their lifetime exhaustively search even small fractions of these problem spaces. Yet, humans play chess and solve logistical problems of similar complexity on a daily basis. Even for simple problems humans do not typically engage in exploring even a small fraction of the problem space. This begs the question: How do humans solve problems on a daily basis in a fast and efficient way? Recent work suggests that humans build a problem representation and solve the represented problem—not the problem that is out there. The problem representation that is built and the process used to solve it are constrained by limits of cognitive capacity and a cost–benefit analysis discounting effort and reward. In this article, we argue that better understanding the way humans represent and solve problems using heuristics can help inform how simpler algorithms and representations can be used in artificial intelligence to lower computational complexity, reduce computation time, and facilitate real-time computation in complex problem solving. (shrink)

Paradoxes are an unavoidable part of work life. The unusualness of attempting to simultaneously satisfy contradictory imperatives can result in creative outcomes that simultaneously satisfy both imperatives by inducing search for, and selection of, novel and useful solutions. Likewise, extant research suggests that paradoxes can also result in anxiety, defensiveness, and persistence of old ways of doing things. However, there is little work attempting to describe how paradoxes affect cognition and when it results in higher or lower creativity. To tackle (...) this issue, a theory of paradoxical creativity is developed. Paradoxical creativity is the attempt by an individual to creatively resolve a contradiction by simultaneously achieving competing demands. The theory is implemented into a computational model and a simulation is used to describe how paradoxes affect creative cognitive process and how these processes in turn result in higher or lower degrees of creativity. The results show that creative output is enhanced when paradoxes have a balanced effect on the cognitive processes responsible for an individual’s capacity to search for new information and willingness to tolerate new ideas. Hence, individuals with high baseline levels of creative cognition are more likely to suffer negative creative performance consequences resulting from contradictory demands. For those individuals, contradictory demands may produce more alternatives, which increases uncertainty and time to insight (if insight is ever reached). This suggests that incentives or rewards to resolve contradictions may have the unintentional effect of reducing creative output in some circumstance. (shrink)