Page 109 - Deep Learning

92 Creativity

is not guaranteed to occur. Even unwarranted impasses sometimes remain
unresolved within the limits on patience, time or other resources.
4. Aftermath. The consequences of insight vary. Sometimes the solution is
achieved quickly and unhesitatingly, and the person subjectively experi-
ences himself as having seen the entire solution in the mind’s eye at once.
This is the proverbial Aha-experience; I refer to it as full insight. At other
times, success is achieved only after further analytical problem solving;
I refer to this as partial insight. Sometimes analytical problem solving
resumes but ultimately ends in failure because the new idea was not, in
fact, helpful; I refer to this as false insight.

This four-part pattern is called the insight sequence. Its main feature is the
successive alterations in mode and tempo, from steady initial progress to a state
of slow progress or no progress at all; this is interrupted by a short moment of
rapid, qualitative change, which in turn might be followed by a second period
of steady progress; see Figure 4.1. The existence of the insight sequence is not in
doubt, because we experience it in everyday life, we can sometimes observe it
in the laboratory, we can catch it in brain images and we can find it in autobio-
graphical and historical accounts of creative projects. 12–14 The claim is not that
creative thought processes always or necessarily exhibit such alterations in
mode and tempo, but that they sometimes do. Although the existence of this
pattern is not in doubt, we have almost no information about prevalence. We
do not know how often problem solving in real life conforms to this pattern,
nor do we have much data on what proportion of solutions to so-called insight
problems observed in laboratory studies conforms to this pattern. 15
Even if rare, the insight sequence cries out for explanation. The paradox
is that a person sometimes enters an impasse that is unwarranted in the sense
that he does in fact possess all the knowledge and competence required for
the desired solution. If he is capable of solving the problem (as proven by
his eventual success), then why does he experience an impasse? If the rel-
evant cognitive resources are available, then why are they not brought to
bear? What causes impasses? The second half of the insight paradox is that
unwarranted impasses, once entered, can be resolved. If something is block-
ing the productive application of the person’s knowledge and competence to
the problem at hand, then why does he not stay in the impasse until limits
on time and resources force him to give up? Why does the blockage not
persist?
The main purpose of a theory of insight is to explain the sequence of
alterations in mode and tempo that defines the insight sequence. To do so,