October 30, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

So, the question is “Is Ratbert making another bad analogy?” I believe the answer to this question depends on the mapping between the source and target domain.

Quick refresher: “Source domain” refers to the domain/knowledge from which the information is being “imported” so to speak. In the case of the cartoon, the source domain would be knowledge about the aging of good wine.

“Target domain” refers to the domain/knowledge to which the information is imported or the analogy is being drawn. In the cartoon, knowledge of Ratbert is the target domain.

“Mapping” refers to the drawing of correspondences between the source and target domain. In the cartoon, this would involve establishing the ways in which Ratbert is like a fine wine and herein lies the determination of whether this is a good or a bad analogy.

Ratbert is making the correct inference for this particular analogy - that Dogbert is saying that initially Ratbert’s wisdom may be lacking but over time will improve with age.

However, in verifying this inference, Dogbert reveals that there is more to the analogy that meets the eye.

He is probably quite correct in making the statement that the analogy holds to the extent that Ratbert resembles a grape.  The crux of the matter is exactly HOW Ratbert resembles the grape.

If the resemblance is confined to the fact that Ratbert is  round, covered in a thin skin, and grape-colored, then the analogy falls apart. However, if it is because Ratbert shares some of the structural characteristics with grapes that result in fine wine (thick skin, late to ripen, possessing complex flavors that are only revealed with age), the analogy holds.  In other words, analogies succeed, not because of physical similarities between the source and the target domain but because of structural similarities.

For Ratbert’s wisdom to age to perfection with time, the wine analogy would suggest that it would help for him to have a “thick skin” (the better to withstand the ravages of the environment), be “slow to ripen” (play, not take life too seriously, take each stage of life as it comes and gain a range of diverse experiences in the process) and be a complex individual with many facets to his personality and many interests.

The structural mapping between source and target domain is the critical component to the success of an analogy.  When the mapping only involves mapping the surface features between domains, you have a useless or even misguided analogy at worst and a trivial analogy at best.

Insight, inferences, problem solutions,and effective communication are all made possible by the  structured mapping of correspondences between the source and target domain.

The greater the depth and complexity of the mapping - the better the result.  Not an easy task by any means but one well worth the effort.

Posted in Analogy, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

September 29, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

When I was a teaching assistant for my advisor (Dr. Thomas B. Ward), I had the pleasure of experiencing his Cognitive Psychology class lectures. One of my favorite lectures (not surprisingly) was his lecture on Creativity. In this lecture, he discussed three different approaches to the study of creativity: The “Classical” view, the “Romantic” view and the “Cognitive” view.

The “Classical” view assumes that creativity is a product of the divine or the unknowable. It results from inspiration; a flash of “brilliance” provided by God, or a Muse. Those taking this approach to creativity believe that the creator is merely a vessel or conduit for creativity. Consequently, they have little control over the timing or contents of the creative act.

The “Romantic” view assumes that creativity results from special cognitive processes or personality traits possessed by creative individuals. These traits include motivation, persistence in the face of obstacles, and the ability to engage in divergent thinking and/or form remote associations. Though all people possess these processes and traits to a certain degree, creative individuals possess them to a greater extent than “normal” individuals.

The “Cognitive” view of creativity assumes that creativity results from normal cognitive processes (e.g., memory retrieval, conceptual combination, analogy) operating on normal knowledge structures (e.g., concepts, schemas). In fact, the Cognitive view argues that creativity is essential for our ability to function effectively in our environment. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Creativity | No Comments »

August 14, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I read a piece in Psychology Today about the relationship between Genius and Madness. Because the magazine’s articles tend to be on the “fluffy” side of science, I expected the usual “suffering, struggle, and madness accompany the creative muse……” from them. I was pleasantly surprised to see the writer of this article did not take this approach.

The focus of the article turned out being that it takes more than talent and inspiration to create - it also takes a LOT of hard work. Specifically,

“As with mental disorders, there is something mysterious and unexplainable about the creative process. But all significant creative leaps have two very important components—talent and technique. By far the most universal and necessary aspect of technique is dogged persistence, which is anything but romantic.”

The author also pointed out what many psychologists studying the personality traits of eminently creative individuals have noted - that most eminently creative individuals are persistent, hard working, and do not let setbacks or failures deter them from their goals.

“Even acknowledged creative geniuses find that endurance must follow intuition. Einstein’s ideas were not worked out in a day. It takes a great deal of discipline, and often many bouts of trial and error, to work out an idea. Follow-through is critical to the realization of an idea. Discipline is not a hallmark of minds in the throes of emotional distress. “Despite the carefree air that many creative people effect,” says Csikszentmihalyi, “most of them work late into the night and persist when less driven individuals would not.”

In essence, the article points out that it takes more than “out-of-the-box” thinking to create. Once the idea has been generated, it takes a great deal of effort and persistence to turn that idea into a reality whether the end product is a work of art, a new product, or a revolutionary new way of doing business.

Click here to read the full Psychology Today article 

Posted in Creativity | 1 Comment »

August 8, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I have been reading “Creativity, Cognition, and Knowledge.” It is a cognitive science account of the relationship between (of course) creativity, cognition, and knowledge. Edited by Dartnall, the book contains a series of essays exploring the way knowledge and the representation of that knowledge can give rise to creative output.

In Dartnall’s introduction, he made a comment concerning “Emmy,” a program written by David Cope. Emmy takes as input several musical compositions from a single composer and, using a series of simple rules and transformations, creates novel musical pieces in the style of that composer. Reports from those who have heard these novel creations say the pieces created by Emmy are difficult to distinguish from those of the composer on which the pieces were based. In addition, they have been described as “soulful” and “delicately finessed and preternaturally beautiful.”

Dartnall questions whether Emmy, or any other computer program for that matter, can be considered to be “creative”.

When I hear things like this I always wonder why this is an issue.

If a person can not distinguish the creative output of a computer program from the creative output of a person, and if the output would be deemed “creative” if created by a person, then why is the same output created by a computer deemed “not creative”?

Why does the source of the idea matter?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Creativity | No Comments »

August 8, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

This Analogy and Creativity Blog has been created as forum for my thoughts about analogy, creativity, and the relationships between them.

Because I find writing to be an excellent tool for clarifying my thinking about a topic, this blog should help me to better understand the topics about which I am writing.

Because the blog is a public forum for a discussion of these topics, I also hope to gain greater understanding of the topics through the input and feedback of others.

So join me in my exploration. Let us see what we can discover together.

Posted in General | No Comments »