Toward an evolutionary-predictive foundation for creativity

Abstract

Dietrich and Haider (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21 (5), 897-915, 2014) justify their integrative framework for creativity founded on evolutionary theory and prediction research on the grounds that Btheories and approaches guiding empirical research on creativity have not been supported by the neuroimaging evidence.^Although this justification is controversial, the general direction holds promise. This commentary clarifies points of disagreement and unresolved issues, and addresses mis-applications of evolutionary theory that lead the authors to adopt a Darwinian (versus Lamarckian) approach. To say that creativity is Darwinian is not to say that it consists of variation plus selection -in the everyday sense of the term -as the authors imply; it is to say that evolution is occurring because selection is affecting the distribution of randomly generated heritable variation across generations. In creative thought the distribution of variants is not key, i.e., one is not inclined toward idea A because 60 % of one's candidate ideas are variants of A while only 40 % are variants of B; one is inclined toward whichever seems best. The authors concede that creative variation is partly directed; however, the greater the extent to which variants are generated non-randomly, the greater the extent to which the distribution of variants can reflect not selection but the initial generation bias. Since each thought in a creative process can alter the selective criteria against which the next is evaluated, there is no demarcation into generations as assumed in a Darwinian model. We address the authors' claim that reduced variability and individuality are more characteristic of Lamarckism than Darwinian evolution, and note that a Lamarckian approach to creativity has addressed the challenge of modeling the emergent features associated with insight.Keywords High order cognition . Creativity . Darwinian evolution . Communal exchange . Selection . Dual process . Neuroscience . Prediction . Cognitive neuroscience As Dietrich and Haider (2014) suggest, synthesizing creativity into an integrated framework that incorporates evolutionary theory and literature on prediction could enrich our understanding of how this mental faculty has transformed human civilizations. This commentary briefly addresses their negative pronouncement on efforts toward a neuroscience of creativity, clears out some errors in their application of evolutionary theory to creativity, and clarifies points of disagreement and unresolved issues in order to pave the way for an integrated understanding of how the creative process works. Prospects for a neuroscience of creativityThe rationale Dietrich and Haider give for embarking on the research program described in this paper is that Ball theories and approaches guiding empirical research on creativitydivergent thinking, defocused attention, right brains, low arousal, prefrontal activation, alpha enhancement, etc. -have not been supported by the neuroimaging evidence.^We believe it is important to point out ...

Prefrontal activation related to spontaneous creativity with rock music improvisation: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study

“…Our investigation of cortical responses focused on the PFC, which has been previously reported as a higher-order neural network and is shown to be involved in musical and other types of creativity 10,13,16–18 . The PFC is functionally subdivided on the underlying cytoarchitecture defined by BA; each area may contribute independent elements of the creative process 13,34 .…”

The social benefits of balancing creativity and imitation: Evidence from an agent-based model.

“…The ABM used here, referred to as "EVOlution of Culture", abbreviated EVOC, is a model of cultural evolution that uses neural network based agents that (1) invent new ideas, (2) imitate actions implemented by neighbors, (3) evaluate ideas, and (4) implement successful ideas as actions (Gabora, 2008a). 2 EVOC was used because it is amenable to testing the above hypotheses concerning creativity; discussion of general questions about how culture evolves including comparison with other approaches (e.g., Boyd & Richerson, 1985) can be found elsewhere (Gabora, 2008b(Gabora, , 2011(Gabora, , 2013Gabora & Kauffman, 2016). The approach is consistent with a growing effort in cognitive science to leverage computer modeling techniques and knowledge of cognition to understand aggregate social outcomes (Goldstone & Gureckis, 2009).…”

Search and Coherence-Building in Intuition and Insight Problem Solving

“…Haider and Frensch (1999), Wagner et al (2004), Gaschler et al (2013), Haider et al (2013), Dietrich and Haider (2015) have been pursuing the idea that during learning of skills there are such transitions. They used for example the number reduction task (Wagner et al, 2004).…”

“…For the tumor problem restructuring requires a broad associative search with a high variation rate (Hélie and Sun, 2010). Importantly, the search process is not blind, but guided by constraints which are stated by the instruction and the goal representation which is strongly tied to the concept of “skin” (Dietrich and Haider, 2015). New associations are possible and a state of balance between the given concepts could be attained.…”