Creative Cognition

This article written by multiple authors confronts the traditional ideas of creativity in, particularly the idea that the creative process is something that can only be attributed to geniuses such as famous inventors. In exploring creative cognition, and creativity’s role in everyday life, such as in the execution of language and in imagination, the authors provide new evidence that challenge this historical notion and provide for future studies.

Creative Cognition

2 Goals

1. “To gain understanding of creative and “non-creative thought”
2. To conduct experiment observation of the creative process

The question of this article is whether or not the cummulative creative progress belongs a select few geniuses, or should the credit be spread more broadly. Before exploring this, the authors explain that there is not yet a definite answer to this question. However, they do come up with a set of claims.

We claim that (a) the hallmark of normative human cognition is its generative capacity to move beyond discrete stored experiences, (b) the processes that underlie this generativity are open to rigorous experimental investigation, and (c.) creative accomplishments , from the most mundane to the most extraordinary, are based on those ordinary mental processes.

These assumptions were formed in the hopes of understanding creativity, and were the steps toward utilizing Creative Cognition. The authors claim that we are missing a crucial piece in understanding creative cognition. As a majority of lifes situations are generative situations, it makes sense to them that research in cognition should be performed through these tasks as opposed to receptive ones. The authors use the rest of the article to highlight the generativity of what they call “ordinary human cognition” in relation to creative cognition and support their claims with examples.

    The authors first try to prove that their idea of creative cognition means that it is possible for normal humans to have the capacity for creativity as it is a key component in cognition. They go on to explore the creative process by giving examples such as the thoughts we generate in everyday life, as in ability to craft language, creating a multitude of novel combinations with words and letters. Processes such as these satisfy the criteria set for the execution of creative thinking: novel and utility. The authors use these examples as building blocks to further support their overarching topic.

    When the authors then return to creative cognition, they give examples of the approach. These approaches are reflected against the traditional ideas of creativity, being that it was something only rare geniuses were capable of. The authors believe that through the investigation of processes such as imagination provide new evidence that once again challenges this historical notion. A particular example used is what the authors call “preinventive structure,” in which something is creative internally before actual construction. The authors then go on to list other aspects such as insight and creative imagery which further support their claims.

The article concludes with the authors have provided evidence that not entirely disproves the initial argument, but provides more to researched on the topic.