Imagine you found out that ideas invented by a computer were rated higher by independent experts than ideas created by a group o

admin2011-01-02  43

问题    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.
It is implied in the passage that ______ the probability of creative idea emergence.

选项 A、total freedom in thinking will increase
B、synectics tend to increase
C、brainstorming might decrease
D、breaking rules and paradigms increases

答案C

解析 该题问:本文暗示什么增加或减少了创造性思维出现的可能?本文第三段提到,有人认为total freedom synectics (共同研讨)、breaking rules and paradigms有助于创造发明。但是,第四段第一、二两句明确指出Do these methods work? A number of researchers indicate that they do not。所以,选项A、B、D不正确,由第四段第三句中的Ideas suggested by individuals working alone are superior to ideas suggested in brainstorming sessions...(单独工作的人提出的想法比集体讨论提出的想法好),可知,选项C应为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ADeO777K
0

最新回复(0)