TEXT E Imagine you found out that
ideas invented by a computer were rated higher by independent experts than ideas
created by a group of humans asked to perform the same task. Would you praise
the designer of the "creative computer" for a great achievement or would you
question why human talent -- usually so potent in coping with complex cognitive
challenges -- created such poor ideas Or maybe you would question your view of
the notion of creativity. In fact, such a scenario was played out when we used a
simple computerized routine to generate ideas and compared them as superior to
human ideas when they performed the same task Creativity is
considered the ultimate human activity, a highly complex process, difficult to
formalize and to control. Although there is a general agreement regarding the
distinctive nature of the creative product(idea, painting, poem, and so on).
there is a controversy over the nature of the creative process. Some researchers
hold that the creative thinking process is qualitatively different from
"ordinary" day-to-day thinking, and involves a leap that cannot be formulated,
analyzed, or reconstructed -- the creative spark. Others adopt a reductionism
view that creative products and the outcome of ordinary thinking, only
quantitatively different from everyday thinking. Because
creative ideas are different from those that normally arise, people often
believe that such ideas require conditions dramatically different from the
usual. The notion goes that, in order to overcome mental barriers and reach
creative ideas, total freedom is necessary -- no directional guidance,
constraints, criticism, of thinking within bounded scope. Then ideas can be
drawn and contemplated from an infinite space during the creativity process.
This view prompted the emergence of various idea-generating methods:
brainstorming, synectics, lateral thinking, random stimulation, and so on, all
of which consist of withholding judgement and relying on analogies from other
members in the group of on randomly selected analogies. This family of methods
relies on the assumption that enhancing randomness, breaking rules and
paradigms, and generating anarchy of thought increase the probability of
creative idea emergence. Do these methods work A number of
researchers indicate that they do not. Ideas suggested by individuals working
alone are superior to ideas suggested in brainstorming sessions and the
performance of problem solvers instructed to "break the roles, get out of the
square, and change paradigms" was not better than that of individuals who were
not given any instruction at all. The failure of these methods
to improve creative outcomes has been explained by the unstructured nature of
the task. Reitman observed that many problems that lack a structuring framework
are ill-defined in that the representations of one or more of the basic
components -- the initial state, the operators and constraints, and the goal --
are seriously incomplete, and the search space is exceedingly large. Indeed,
many ill-defined problems seem difficult, not because we are swamped by the
enormous number of alternative possibilities, but because we have trouble
thinking even of one idea worth pursuing. This passage is mainly about ______.
A.creative sparks B.creative computers C.an ultimate human activity D.idea-generating methods