Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:03:00.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Domain-General Creativity

On Generating Original, Useful, and Surprising Combinations

from Part I - Creativity and Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

By
Dean Keith Simonton
Edited by
James C. Kaufman ,
Vlad P. Glăveanu  and
John Baer
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Abstract

The author argues that all creative ideas, whether in the arts or the sciences, use the same set of generic processes and procedures – just as persons speaking different languages operate under the same fundamental linguistic principles. The argument begins with the basic observation that all forms of creativity are combinatorial, the generation of new combinations from given ideas. However, because not all combinations are creative, it is necessary to provide a formal definition of what can be considered such. In words, creativity is defined as the joint product of its originality, utility, and surprise. This definition then implies that combinations must be generated by a procedure or process that is blind to the utility values. However, blindness does not imply the lack of constraints on the chosen combinatorial mechanism. The chapter then closes with a discussion of the theory’s explanatory scope, research applications, and theoretical syntheses.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 41 - 60
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bain, A. (1977). The senses and the intellect. Robinson, D. N., Ed. Washington, DC: University Publications of America. (Original work published 1855).Google Scholar
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths & mechanisms (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72–110.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.Google Scholar
Carson, S. H. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cope, D. (2014). Virtual genius. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 166–182). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cziko, G. A. (2001). Universal selection theory and the complementarity of different types of blind variation and selective retention. In Heyes, C., & Hull, D. L. (Eds.), Selection theory and social construction: The evolutionary naturalistic epistemology of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 15–34). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Dailey, A., Martindale, C., & Borkum, J. (1997). Creativity, synesthesia, and physiognomic perception. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 1–8.Google Scholar
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2011). From past to future art: The creative impact of Picasso’s 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 360–369.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 822–848.Google Scholar
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). GRIT: Perseverence and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics: The growth of ideas from early concepts to relativity and quanta. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117, 994–1024.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. (2002). Staring Emmy straight in the eye – and doing my best not to flinch. In Dartnall, T. (Ed.), Creativity, cognition, and knowledge: An interaction (pp. 67–104). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kantorovich, A., & Ne’eman, Y. (1989). Serendipity as a source of evolutionary progress in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 20, 505–529.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koza, J. R. (1992). Genetic programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 12, 181–194.Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1940). The behavioral mechanisms concerned with problem solving. Psychological Review, 47, 43–58.Google Scholar
Mandler, G. (1995). Origins and consequences of novelty. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 9–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. (2001). Einstein, Picasso: Space, time and the beauty that causes havoc. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ness, R. B. (2013). Genius unmasked. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2003). Evolutionary models of innovation and the Meno problem. In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 54–78). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method (Halstead, G. B., Trans.). New York: Science Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
Rostan, S. M. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and cognitive controls: An empirical investigation of critically acclaimed productivity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 97–110.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, A. (2015). Flight from wonder: An investigation of scientific creativity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 92–96.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Creativity, innovation, and nonobviousness. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 12, 461–487.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154.Google Scholar
Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L., & Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 65–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity as blind-variation and selective-retention: Constrained combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156–179.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2011a). Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention: Multiple-variant definitions and blind-sighted integration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 222–228.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2011b). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15, 158–174.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Combinatorial creativity and sightedness: Monte Carlo simulations using three-criterion definitions. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(2), 5–17.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Creativity, problem solving, and solution set sightedness: Radically reformulating BVSR. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 48–65.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2012c). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2013a). Creative problem solving as sequential BVSR: Exploration (total ignorance) versus elimination (informed guess). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2013b). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 253–266.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2013c). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In Chan, J. & Thomas, K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69–83). Cheltenham Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53–61.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2015a). Numerical odds and evens in Beethoven’s nine symphonies: Can a computer really tell the difference? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33, 18–35.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2015b). Thomas Alva Edison’s creative career: The multilayered trajectory of trials, errors, failures, and triumphs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 2–14.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (2013). Creativity. In Reisberg, D. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 795–807). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1992). Models of cultural evolution. In Griffiths, P. (Ed.), Trees of life: Essays in philosophy of biology (pp. 17–39). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1981, July 31). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 5015–504.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in human creativity: Is variation blind or sighted? Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 159–176.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2012). Creative combination of representations: Scientific discovery and technological invention. In Proctor, R. & Capaldi, E. J. (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 35, 1–33.Google Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (2004). On structure in the creative process: A quantitative case-study of the creation of Picasso’s Guernica. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 23–54.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Case studies of genius: Ordinary thinking, extraordinary outcomes. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 139–165). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolport, L. (1994). The unnatural nature of science: Why science does not make (common) sense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×