Creative Heuristics #5: The Neuroscience of Epiphanies

Posted by Mark Ridinger on November 9, 2014
Posted in: Heuristics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Epiphany   Epiphanies—also sometimes called eureka or “aha! moments”—are those flashes of insight that are often part of the creative process. As discussed before, they tend to come when our minds are at rest and in a place of what has been called cognitive ease; diverted from trying to find a solution to a vexing problem we had been considering previously in a more analytical fashion. When we have an epiphany, we tend to know it right away, and there is a very pleasant feeling associated with that moment, and usually a sense that a real breakthrough has been achieved. Also of note, problems solved with insight do not occur in some step-wise incremental fashion; one goes from no conscious appreciation of a solution to the complete solution in one leap. Increasingly, neuroscientists have been studying these moments and some interesting findings have been made recently.

In order to study epiphanies, neuroscientist rely on administering various tests that are typically best solved by insight, one of the most common being remote associates tests, or RAT. An example is to ask an individual to find a word that is associated with three other words. For example the correct solution to pine, crab, and sauce would be apple (pineapple, crab apple, and apple sauce).

The tools used to measure the brain’s response to solving these insight problems are generally two: electroencephalography (or EEG, the recording of tiny electrical fluctuations on the scalp with electrodes) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (or fMRI, which detects changes in regional blood flow in the brain). They are complementary in that EEG has very good temporal resolution but limited spatial (anatomical) resolution, and the opposite is true for fMRI.

So what has been discovered to date? Solving problems with insight, versus a methodical analytical approach, results in a burst of high frequency gamma-band EEG activity (postulated to be indicative of complex cognitive processing) over the right temporal lobe, and a corresponding spike in blood flow on fMRI studies in the right anterior temporal gyrus, as well as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the hippocampus. Also noted however is a burst in alpha-band activity (which is associated with neural inhibition) in the occipital lobe, where the visual cortex resides. The effect of this is to diminish visual data input, (referred to as “sensory gating”, and fits with my premise of insight being a “looking in” process). These data also support the long held contention that insight is a “right brain” function predominantly.*

 

Also discovered is that the state of mind one is in predisposes or primes the brain to solve a problem either insightfully or analytically. Analytical priming shows increased activity (decreased alpha-band on EEG) in the occipital lobes (the “looking out” to survey a threat from a predator, for example), while preparation for insight shows activation of the ACC and temporal lobes. The ACC is particularly interesting, as it seems to function as both a monitor of other brain regions and as a switch. In short, stimulation of the ACC seems to increase the relative importance of weakly activated associations (less obvious solutions or links). Previous research has suggested that the right hemisphere is particularly well suited for these types of connections due to its more lateral and broad semantic network, and that it contains both more numerous and longer (more distant) axonal connections versus the left hemisphere. Thus, activation of the ACC switches the brain into being more of an insightful problem solver.

Also of note is the discovery that individuals more adept at solving problems with insight tend to have greater right hemisphere as well as diffuse visual cortex activity while at rest, and it’s the moments just prior to and during the solving of a problem with insight, that the switch is made to a more inward focus. This fits nicely with the ideas previously put forth in this blog that creativity involves intense curiosity (the data collection phase if you will—the outward facing time where one “looks up to the stars”) and then a desire to connect things in a novel way (the inward phase).

As already discussed here, humor and positive mood in general (and the absence of anxiety) has been shown by cognitive psychological experiments to enhance insight, intuition, and other aspects of creativity. Are there any neuroscience correlates? There appears to be. For example, there is an observed electrical potential called the N400 that is elicited when the brain detects two sequential words (or concepts or stimuli) that may have some degree of relatedness or similar semantic context. A repeated theme to understanding creativity and insight is the notion that connecting ideas that are not obviously related is at the heart of the creative process. The N400 (as measured by EEG) tends to be larger when the brain determines two words, for example, don’t fit well together, and smaller when they are judge to have better semantic relatedness. Studies have demonstrated that when a positive mood is induced, words that are more incongruent (less obviously connected) elicit a smaller N400 potential than the same words in a neutral state. Positive mood and the absence of anxiety then appears to open our minds to allowing for more varied and broader interpretations of incoming stimuli.

So both positive mood and as discussed before, small does of alcohol, improve our ability to solve problems with insight, but is there any other way to induce insight? Perhaps. Although still very early on, studies using simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation (or tDCS, which is the application of low current to the brain via scalp electrodes) of the right frontal-temporal cortex and inhibition of the same region on the left, resulted in marked improved ability of subjects to solve problems that require insight.

 

Creative Heuristics #5: Over the preceding decades, many observations and cognitive psychological experiments have been made that lend support to the notion that the right hemisphere of the brain takes the lead when we solve problems with insight, and have moments of epiphany. Although still early on, neuroscience is confirming these observations and helping us to understand how insight may be deliberately enhanced.

 

* As previously discussed, the creative process as a whole (of which the moment of insight or epiphany is just one part) requires both divergent and convergent thinking, and thus is certainly a bi-hemispheric process.

 

-Mark HT Ridinger

 

Creative Heuristics #4: Codifying Creativity

Posted by Mark Ridinger on October 27, 2014
Posted in: Heuristics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Cx Schema2_jpg I know what you might be thinking: “Codifying creativity—isn’t that oxymoronic?” And to some degree perhaps yes. But attempting to establish a methodical framework should not be considered the antithesis of creativity. We shouldn’t shy away from trying to understand the creative process so we can facilitate it, particularly within the setting of an organization or enterprise.

What is clear is that creativity as a codified process very much requires a divergent and convergent thought process, and hence is very much both a left and right brain activity*. I think there is a bias towards believing that creativity only operates in the divergent realm. But it is in fact very much a bi-hemispheric process. Additionally, creativity involves the combination of originality and task appropriateness. Any framework that attempts to foster achieving a creative solution must therefore take into account these dimensions.

In both reviewing the literature as well as formulating my own thoughts from my experience, I have realized that there is a common thread among all the various methodologies put forth, and it goes pretty much like this (see also the figure above):

 

1. Clarify the problem: Are you asking the right question? Searching for the proper solution?

2. Prepare: There is no substitute for doing good old fashion homework. What is the state of the art? What have others said, thought, attempted in the past that is relevant?

3. Ideation and reality mining: Come up with a lot of possible solutions (a future Creative Heuristic will discuss some well documented techniques). Here, quantity reigns superior over quality. Now is not the time to be critical or discerning; allow yourself and the team to be foolish even. Suspend judgment on any ideas or solutions put forth by the group.

4. “Walk away”—allow for incubation and gestation of the challenge and the ideas put forth; allow your mind to wander free of conscious thought on the problem. This allows the unconscious mind to work and churn on the task. Utilize good creative hygiene!

5. Eureka! What inspired solutions has your subconscious mind put forth while you were exercising, on a long walk, in the shower? Write them down!

6. Evaluate those new solutions: Now is the time to switch back to convergent and analytical thought. Which idea is best?

7. Make real and share: Time to get ideas, solutions and options into a concrete form. Share with others—preferably those outside the current team. Opt for generalists over specialists who may be locked into their own silo of domain expertise. Now is the time to test your solutions and expect and evaluate criticisms.

8. Implementation and production: Is the solution both novel, task appropriate and feasible?

 

Creative Heuristic #4: Solving challenges with a creative approach can be facilitated with a framework like the one above. It’s a process that very much utilizes both hemispheres of the brain and both divergent and convergent thinking.

 

[* By “divergent thinking” I mean the ability to come up with many responses to a challenge or issue, as contrasted with “convergent thinking,” or the process to come up with the correct answer to problems that have only one answer.]

 

-Mark HT Ridinger

 

 

 

 

Creative Heuristics #3: Getting in the Mood with Good “Creative Hygiene”

Posted by Mark Ridinger on October 4, 2014
Posted in: Heuristics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

archimedes  There are certain states of mind and mood that increase our ability to solve problems using insight, be they Aha! moments or more deliberate attempts at being creative.

Perhaps the most famous anecdotal story of inspiration is Archimedes’ moment of inspiration that occurred while he was bathing. The ancient Greek scientist reportedly shouted “Eureka!” (meaning, “I have found it”) upon realizing that water displacement could be used to compute density, and thus he could solve the task of determining whether a crown of King Hiero II was pure gold or an alloy. As it turns out, activities like bathing and showering, or other tasks that promote relaxation and allow the mind to wander (a long walk in the country, fishing etc.), are associated with such moments of epiphany. This is often referred to in the literature as ‘random episodic silent thought’, or REST.

In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman discusses how being in a state of what he terms cognitive ease (as opposed to cognitive stress) allows our more intuitive mind (what he refers to as system 1 thinking) to function better. This comes at some cost to our analytic, or system 2 thinking mind however, and we tend to be less analytical and skeptical. This makes sense, as part of the creative process is withholding judgment and collecting a wide range of ideas and solutions (and will be discussed in a future Create Heuristic essay). Interestingly, being in a state of cognitive stress or anxiety in general, tends to narrow our scope of attention, and makes incorporating novel or broader stimuli less likely. There is evolutionary correlates to this as early humans would have been served well to focus on a threat from a predator, for example, and to not be distracted by less (immediately) relevant data.

Going a step further, beyond just being at a state of REST or ease, in turns out that an upbeat, positive mood enhances our ability to think insightfully and this is true whether that condition occurs spontaneously or whether it is induced in a laboratory setting. For example, neuroscientist Mark Beeman and his colleagues found that showing a clip of Robin Williams doing stand-up boosted the success rate of solving insight problems by about 20%. Humor seems to allow the brain to make connections between weak associations—a key to creativity. As the brilliant comedian John Cleese of Monty Python’s Flying Circus and Fawlty Towers fame said, “the main evolutionary significance of humor is that it gets us from the closed mode to the open mode quicker than anything else.” Another fascinating finding is that humor is a two way street: positive mood enhances insight, and solving problems with insight enhances mood. Apparently, we enjoy being creative!

There is also evidence that alcohol can enhance the ability to solve insight problems better and more quickly. Researchers at the University of Illinois, Chicago, found that a cohort that had achieved a blood alcohol level of .075% performed much better at solving word problems that required insight than their sober counterparts. Why? They postulated that “moderate intoxication may be one way to alter attentional states to be more conducive to creative processing.” The idea is that the right hemisphere can be freer to “ignore” the focused, attention state of the left, and connect weaker and more distant thoughts and associations with some alcohol on board. (A future Creative Heuristics essay will discuss the neuroscience of inspiration.)

Sleep and the transitional condition between wakefulness and sleep, called the hypnagogic state, also facilitate the creative mind and process. Many famous creatives have credited hypnagogia to their ability to invent and innovate. Thomas Edison, for example, was said to hold his metal keys in his hand as he rested in an armchair, with a metal plate on the floor directly below. As he was about to fall asleep, the keys would slip form his hand and clang on the plate, waking him and hopefully allowing him to benefit from any insights! Actual sleep itself is critical for achieving insight as well. In a paper published in the journal Nature, ‘Sleep Inspires Insight’, Ullrich Wagner and his colleagues discovered that eight hours of sleep greatly “facilitates extraction of explicit knowledge and insightful behavior.” They theorized this occurred due to some form of restructuring of newly acquired memories that occur during sleep.Finally, color may influence or enhance creative mood; specifically the color blue versus red. Subjects, in a study published in Science, were divided up between those performing tasks on a computer screen with a red background or a blue one. “Red groups did better on tests of recall and attention to detail, like remembering words or checking spelling and punctuation. Blue groups did better on tests requiring imagination, like inventing creative uses for a brick or creating toys from shapes.”

 

Creative Heuristic #3: Foster a culture of innovation and original thinking by encouraging and promoting good “creative hygiene”. Inspiration and creative insight can be augmented by allowing the mind to be well rested and free to wander, and be in a state of cognitive ease. Positive mood and humor—and the absence of anxiety—further enhance our ability to be creative. And when in doubt, add a glass of wine to the mix!

 

-Mark HT Ridinger

Creative Heuristic #2: The Narrative and Human Imagination.

Posted by Mark Ridinger on September 21, 2014
Posted in: Heuristics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

lascaux-cave-art Telling—and listening—to stories goes back to the dawn of mankind. Before there was writing of course, stories which were often embellished to become more that that—to become narratives—were the only way to pass knowledge from generation to generation. What’s behind the narrative process, and how does the creative use of such matter to you today?

In a recent interview in The Financial Times, author and historian Yuval Noah Harari discusses the premise of his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind. In it he advances the theory that humans have surpassed other species primarily due to our ability to create compelling fictional accounts or narratives. This makes it possible, he argues, for people to band together—to help or fight each other—be it to believe in the possibility of bringing down animals much bigger and stronger in an organized hunt, to the idea of currency, or a cause worth fighting or dying for.

“Any band of Neanderthals, Harari suggests, can raise a few dozen people for a hunt but humans can tell the stories needed to ensure co-operation in groups of 150 or more – numbers large enough to organize mass hunting using prepared traps, raise modern armies, or subdue the natural world.”

The narrative seems critical to our ability to understand and relate to each other as well. For example, a study published last year in Science showed that reading literary fiction helps people understand others’ mental states and beliefs, a crucial skill in building relationships, and certainly part of a healthy “EQ”.

The power of the narrative is also getting the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA). The agency’s biotechnology office is studying how the narrative process is critical in how we process events— most notably traumatic ones– and how that impacts post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and can contribute to radicalization as well. “Narratives may consolidate memory, shape emotions, cue heuristics and biases in judgment, and influence group distinctions.”

In other words, narratives can be used for good or bad. Indeed, Nassim Taleb discusses what he calls the “narrative fallacy” in his book The Black Swan at length. We are vulnerable to the seduction of the narrative he argues, and that can result in cognitive biases not the least of which makes us susceptible to the allure of correlation (as opposed to causality) from data mining and big data (particularly relevant issue today). In other words, our minds are desperate to find meaning, and we need to be on guard for that.

The common thread I’m trying to weave with these varied accounts of the narrative process is that without creativity, these narratives (fictional or otherwise) wouldn’t be possible (and therefore be used for either good or nefarious ends). And without imagination on the part of those that listen, they would have no power; creativity and imagination are two sides of the same coin. The creativity of the person writing the narrative is very important of course, but he relies on the imagination of those receiving the narrative, which then, given their capability for empathy and ‘theory of mind’, can understand and co-opt that narrative as their own. It remains a uniquely human capability—at least in this degree of complexity we assume. (Perhaps animals have ways to tell “stories” in a limited way, as has been suggested by observing ants and bees doing a dance to communicate distant food sources etc.)

The famous fax machine analogy also comes to mind: one fax machine is worthless—two have some value and many, a lot of value. But just as that fax on the receiving end has to decode the signal to recreate an image—a facsimile—so does the human imagination decode the narrative. But in the case of humans as opposed to the lowly fax machine, this reconstruction can vary dramatically from individual to individual and be modified as well, adding a special dimension that is unique to them and their experiences. And just as the more fax machines there are is directly and exponentially related to the usefulness and value of the machine (Metcalfe’s law), so does the size of the network of those tapping the creative narrative, and hence the power of social media (and, unfortunately, it’s increasing use by radicalized terror groups.)

 

Creative Heuristic #2: Use the power of creative narratives for good. Use them to inspire your coworkers, employees, and customers—do so in a way that taps into their imagination and so that narrative becomes in part their own as well.

-Mark HT Ridinger

Creative Heuristics #1: Creative Archetypes and The Beyonders

Posted by Mark Ridinger on September 15, 2014
Posted in: Heuristics. Tagged: , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

da vinci mash-up

“One of the most powerful wellsprings of creative energy, outstanding accomplishment and self-fulfillment seems to be falling in love with something— your dream, your image of the future.”

 

-E. Paul Torrance

 

According to a recent survey of 1,500 chief executives conducted by IBM’s Institute for Business Value, “creativity” was deemed to be the most important leadership skill for the enterprise of the future. So what are the characteristics and traits of creative people? What sort of folks do they tend to be, if any, and how can they be identified, if at all?

Paul Torrance was the creator of the eponymous Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, a validated instrument that does a good job of measuring divergent cognition, serves as an additional tool for gifted program placement (beyond IQ tests), and has shown to have predictive ability in measuring future creative achievement and output, as I have blogged about in the past.

Near the end of his career, he re-examined his data and also his decades of interviews with students, and ended up with what he called the Beyonders Checklist that described traits of creative individuals. These are:

  • Love of work
  • Tolerance of mistakes
  • Feeling comfortable as a minority of one
  • Well-roundedness
  • Persistence
  • Purpose in life
  • Diversity of experience
  • High energy
  • Creative self-concept
  • Risk taker
  • Open to change
  • Deep thinking

A fifty year follow up analysis by Mark Runco et al. found that the first four traits in particular showed significant correlation to either professional or personal creative achievement.

Separately, Nancy Andreasen, an American neuroscientist and neuropsychiatrist, has written about her findings in years of interviewing highly creative individuals. She found that:

  1. Creativity tends to run in families, with both a possible nature and nurture component. (e.g. she found half of her subjects came from very high-achieving backgrounds, with at least one parent who has a doctoral degree, and the majority grew up in an environment where learning and education were highly valued.)
  2. These subjects are adventuresome and exploratory. They take risks and must confront doubt. Creative people tend to be very persistent, even when confronted with skepticism or rejection.
  3. Many creative people are polymaths (people with broad interests in many fields). The classic example is Da Vinci.
  4. They tend to be autodidacts. She wrote, “Because their thinking is different, my subjects often express the idea that standard ways of learning and teaching are not always helpful and may even be distracting, and that they prefer to learn on their own.”
  5. Her creative subjects and their relatives have a higher rate of mental illness (the most-common diagnoses include bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety or panic disorder, and alcoholism.)

It strikes me, that taken together, both Torrance’s “checklist” and Andreason’s observations give a very similar sketch of creative archetypes, and allows for a heuristic of sorts to help identify them:

Creative Heuristic #1

These are passionate and intensely curious individuals, self-motivated and taught, that often come from a family of “creatives” (and, unfortunately, may suffer disproportionately from some forms of mental illness.) Furthermore, I would posit that these characteristics are also those found typically in Generalists, as discussed previously.

Given the importance of creativity and innovation to organizations today, using this heuristic as part of a broad strategy of hiring and recruitment should be helpful.

 

-Mark HT Ridinger

Attributes of Generalists v. Specialists

Posted by Mark Ridinger on September 11, 2014
Posted in: Musings. Tagged: , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Are You a Generalist or a Specialist?

I’m taking a page from author Nassim Taleb’s use of tables to highlight thematic differences in a conceptual framework (e.g. Antifragile). And yes I take some poetic license here!

 

Specialist Evolved Generalist
20th Century 21st Century
Silos Bridges
Data Imagination
Expert Polymath
Institutionally trained Autodidact
Knowledge worker Creative worker
Left brain Left and right brain
Convergent thinking Convergent + divergent thinking
“Reductionistas” Respects holism (“holophiles”)
Cognitive stress Cognitive ease
Niche Realm
Anxiety Humor
All nighters Hypnagogic states/sleep
Being “productive” Wei wu wei
Looking down and out Looking up and in
i (The Machine) I (The Self)
FOMO FOFOMO (fallacy of FOMO)
Theoretical Experiential
Binary Fractals
Code Prose
Memorization Mindfulness
Extrapolation Iteration
Bricks Stones
Rigidity Plasticity
Correlation Meaning
Red Blue
Rehearsal Improvisation
Major Minor
Adderall Wine
Semantic Network: Steep Flat
Splitter Grouper
DIKW Wisdom = IQ (int) CQ (int) EQ
Hedgehog Fox
Regurgitate Innovate
Jeopardy! Shark Tank
Sympathy Empathy

Copyright © 2014 Mark HT Ridinger

The Rise of the (Evolved) Generalist

Posted by Mark Ridinger on September 9, 2014
Posted in: Heuristics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Silo_bridge

“Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people.”

                                                                    –Steve Jobs

 

I have to say off the bat that evoking Steve Jobs quotes is getting a bit too in vogue for my taste, but when one finds the essence of what they want to communicate encapsulated so well, resistance is futile.

I don’t know if Jobs ever uttered the term ‘evolved generalist’, but his quote on creativity and what type of person is likely to create and innovate—and how—is exactly what I wish to communicate here, and serves as the cornerstone of my talk (“Looking Up and In: The Creative Mind and Process”) and my case for the rise of the Generalist.

I’ll skip the de rigueur Wikipedia definition of generalist (and specialist for that matter), and state my definition: The Generalist (as coined in the 21st C) is an individual uniquely suited (due to interest, background, experiences, and personality archetypes) to bridge silos of domain expertise (typically inhabited by specialists), in such a way as to produce novel ways of looking at a problem, or determining a new approach or method, all of which produces a beneficial solution, product, or idea.

Note there are several parts to this definition:

  1. Bridging of silos: Specialists tend to be caught in their own silo of domain expertise. Bridging silos helps to break free of enculturation and conformity bias;
  2. Background of diverse experiences and interests that have been reflected on: Creative archetypes are typically polymaths and autodidacts– so is the Generalist;
  3. Adept at synthesizing something novel, the end product of which…
  4. has an actual benefit and value.

I want to be clear here: I am not arguing that there is no need for specialists. I am, however, making the case for generalists— that’s a big difference. If I had some bizarre malformation of, say, my pinky– some disorder that occurred in only one out of 10 million people– what do I want to do? I want to go to the pinky specialist! The surgeon that has operated on more Bizarre Pinky Disorders than anyone else, and written papers in Science: Pinky, and lectured to the Royal Society of Pinky Surgeons and so on. But if I am in the C-suite of an enterprise, or on the board of directors of a startup or any institution that is trying to thrive in the current climate of rapid change and disruption, I want some Generalists on board—and an evolved one even better! Need someone to churn out the best bug free code in the shortest time—get a specialist; want someone to help create a culture of innovation, avoid the pitfalls of dogmatic thinking, and connect disparate dots—get thee to a generalist! And there has never been a greater need in our history—perhaps urgency—for said folks.

Even the experts’ (a type of specialist) presumably safe bastion of forecasting is under siege. For example, Phillip Tetlock’s analysis of over 80,000 forecasts made by 284 professional forecasters found that experts are less accurate predictors than non-experts in their area of expertise! Given our poor ability to predict the future, who will thrive and add more value to an organization—the specialist, entrenched in his world view, umvelt, or silo, or the silo spanning generalist–the polymath and (dare I use the term) renaissance (wo)man? Generalists, with (by my definition) their broad and horizontal interests are better evolved to connect ideas and experiences; they are more likely to look for new encounters (both of the physical and intellectual world) and reflect on them—allow them to incubate and gestate—and reap the rewards of the epiphanies of the creative mind.

In a piece that appeared on Harvard Business Review blog (“All Hail the Generalist”), Vikram Mansharamani opines: “The time has come to acknowledge expertise as overvalued. There is no question that expertise and … logic are appropriate in certain domains (i.e. hard sciences), but they certainly appear less fitting for domains plagued with uncertainty, ambiguity, and poorly-defined dynamics (i.e. social sciences, business, etc.).”

Machines already trump us in chess and Jeopardy!. Finding connections and associations across disperse domains of knowledge and disparate ideas are still a human bastion—it is the seed of creative thought. “Knowledge work” was the growth sector of the last century, slowly now being replaced by machines. “Creativity work” is rising. Here, the Generalist rules.

 

-Mark HT Ridinger

 

fox_hedgehog

 

Be a fox, not a hedgehog!