Those Eureka Moments

Phoe6 writes "If you're one of those insufferable people who can finish the Saturday New York Times crossword puzzle, you probably have a gift for insight. The puzzles always have an underlying hint to solving them, but on Saturdays that clue is insanely obtuse. If you had all day, you could try a zillion different combinations and eventually figure it out. But with insight, you'd experience the usual clueless confusion, until--voilà--the fog clears and you get the clue, which suddenly seems obvious. The sudden flash of insight that precedes such "Aha!" moments is characteristic of many types of cognitive processes besides problem-solving, including memory retrieval, language comprehension, and various forms of creativity. Although different problem-solving strategies share many common attributes, insight-derived solutions appear to be unique in several ways. PLoS Biology explains the Neural Basis of Solving Problems with Insight. The Complete Research Article is here."

Comments

Difficult study

[Illserve]

This is an interesting idea, and I'd been keen to believe it. But there are some severe methodological issues, first that subjects are pressing a button to indicate that they've solved the problem based on their phenomological experience. As far as I can tell from reading this bit, they could be picking up any of a variety of mental processes that have nothing to do with the insight experience. Most obviously, it could merely be the intent to push the button.

Hopefully the real experiment is more bulletproof than this fluff piece suggests.

Re:Difficult study

[Anonymous Coward]

The study itself seems to have the subjects press one of three buttons - an 'A-Ha' button, a 'no-aha' button, and an 'I don't know' button. So that is controlled for (partially since they are three different buttons presumably requiring three different motor commands). What is definitely not controlled for in the complete paper is the evaluation of self that the subjects are doing -- the subjects are evaluating whether or not they had an 'A-Ha' moment. This evaluation will result in two different responses (the I don't know button wasn't used very much). It could be this evaluation and response that is leading to the difference in fMRI/EEG recordings...

Overall, the cognitive neuroscience field in humans (which is where most of the fMRI/EEG/MEG/TMS stuff comes out of) is horribly controlled. Often experiments seem to be designed for the biggest splash and less for good science. The journals further this by pushing bad science because it has an interesting headline -- PLoS is a new journal, and wants to get into the public eye in order to establish itself. So they publish cool sounding, yet severely flawed experiments...

Nature and Science went through a phase a couple years ago when fMRI was just new and 'we could finally see within the human brain'. It led to a huge amount of bad science being pushed through those two journals because it was the new, exciting, sexy research. Now that the honeymoon is over you see much less (and much better) fMRI work in those journals.

Re:Difficult study

[Anonymous Coward]

That "methodolical issue" is a known problem with speeded responses (i.e. getting people to respond as fast as they can). But, in this case, with intervals of a few seconds, it really is a weak argument. The response can be influenced by factors outside of awareness. But, you would have a hard case to make that a slow and considered response isn't primarily driven by what you have made decisions on within consciousness. Also, your critique is rather vacuous without proposing an alternative.

No, I am not one of the authors and have nothing to do with this reasearch except that I am a Cognitive Psychologist.

An interesting point

[Anonymous Coward]

would be whether the cognitive and neural events that lead to insight are as sudden as the subjective experience.

Re:Insight, no.... Programming Yes

[awol]

I found cryptic crosswords (a corollary to the NYT Saturday Xword) an excellent life lesson. Until I started doing them, I had always found that working away at a problem would eventually lead to a solution, Eureka moment or not. However with cryptics, particularly as I was learning them (or a new compiler) I found that some clues just I could not grok and learning to give up was a wonderful lesson.

I firmly believe that insight is one of the more wonderful gifts that one can have and something that makes human beings extremely powerful. for example apocryphal or not, the falling apple that lead to gravity or the tram travelling away from the clock on the station building for time dilation are two examples of moments that depend on extraordinary insight.

I think that insight represents our ability to see abstract patterns in things and recognise those patterns in many forms. One of my favourite examples is the proof that a complex number (rcis[theta])^n can be expressed as r^ncisn[theta] in cis notation the proof is complex and nasty but just the simple insight that it can be expressed as (re^i[theta])^n makes the proof trivial. Recognise the pattern and proceed with the discovery.

Re:Eureka is overrated

[arvindn]

I think you're confusing science and problem solving. I experienced this confusion first hand. In high school, I was really good at problem solving, particlarly math. I was addicted to the "Aha!" feeling. I even went to the IMO, and thought I had it made for a career in math.

In college, I discovered that math was in reality very different from what I'd expected. The Aha! was simply not there. It was a different beast altogether. Everything went in several incremental steps rather than one flash of insight. It required vertical rather than lateral thinking. Fortunately math wasn't my major, and I eventually dropped out.

Back to what you said, its perfectly true of science, but this article is about problem solving. Eureka doesn't herald new discoveries, but it sure makes the world go round, helping people find non-obvious solutions to tricky little everyday problems.

Re:Saturday puzzle, or "Shortz is shit"

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is true. It is also true that the current editor of the NYTimes puzzle, Will Shortz, has made the Times puzzle a Eureka-free zone: his puzzles are rote, grinding, stultefying bores.

His predecessors at the Times wrote charming, witty and fun puzzles, filled with exactly what this article is about: eureka moments, moments of insight because of the double entendres or humorous literary references, etc.

And, Will Shortz is equally horrible on NPR. He just doesn't understand "fun": anagrams are not interesting unless there is a coincidence on the meaning side as well, and not an obvious one, but a witty one.

Re:EEG?

[Anonymous Coward]

By combining the EEG technique with functional MRI they can image the entire brain. Functional MRI (fMRI) will allow you to see the entire brain at once, but at a much lower spatial-temporal resolution compared to EEG. Using both techniques is a decent solution to the problem, but since neither technique is completely understood (including some of the issues you pointed out) it still leaves us with only a partial understanding...

Incubation and the 3 Bs

[SolemnDragon]

Eureka moments require a few different things to happen in order to bring them about. First, it requires an attempt to solve the puzzle in linear fashion, setting up the problem in mind and at least someplace to start in approaching it.

Next, an incubation period, where you go and do something else, or stare into space and 'woolgather,' that fuzzy day-dream-like state in which you actually start organising thoughts, although it may not feel like it. The three Bs come into play here- bed, bath, and bus- the three likeliest placest to have a eureka moment, because those are incubatory periods, in which your brain starts approaching the puzzle from different angles.

There are other good places- i find washing dishes helps, it's an activity that lets my mind wander and it's always been a quiet spot in the day after dinner. I know someone who goes for long walks.

Sleeping on a problem really does help, partly because the brain trains during sleep, and you'll wake up better at the problem-solving activities because your brain has run through them in sleep. It may not solve abstract problems, but it at least helps with concrete skills, so who's to say it doesn't help with abstract thinking abilities as well?

Beyond that, all i can think is... what kind of eureka moment results in... an article about eureka moments??

Re: Taking a break

[gidds]

I find I can do it my email. Lots of times, I'll be half-way through writing an email explaining some problem, and then find I have to rewrite parts as I come to understand them better. Often I don't need to send the email at all, as by the time I've finished it, I've solved the problem!

Of course, it does help to have someone to send email to. Right now I'm working on a piece of software with one other author; we tend to code separately, but do most of our design by email -- this not only forces us to get things clear in our heads, but the input from someone else can remind you of factors you'd forgotten, or lead you to simpler and/or more elegant solutions.

Re:Taking a break

[adamofgreyskull]

I seem to remember reading about a programmer who had a little toy duck sitting on his monitor, and whenever he got stuck, he would explain the code to the duck, and he would suddenly "get it"...

If I only I had a duck, then I wouldn't have to endure my house-mate jeering at me when he finds a stupid mistake in 2 minutes when I've been stuck for hours...

I wonder if it would work with a sock-puppet...

So what's the connection?

[MajorG17]

What is the common word between pine, crab, and sauce? (RTFA if you don't know what I mean)

In the shower

[kcdoodle]

In the shower, on the toilet, walking up the stairs, driving to work, almost anyplace but at my keyboard.

This is where I solve the really tough problems.

The simple stuff is what I do every day. The tougher problems like the large scale designs and unique solutions for unique problems rarely get solved while I am at work.

I think about the big problems for hours or days and the solution finally comes to me.

The only downside of solving problems in the shower, is that I am doing it on my time and the boss doesn't pay me for that.
That is why I NEVER feel guilty about slahdotting at work.


I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. -Tosk the Hunted

Where's Waldo

[Gunark]

One thing this article doesn't mention is that it turns out that your aptitude for "insight" is directly correlated with your ability on pereception-related problems.

For example, people who do well on Where's Waldo-type problems will tend to do well on seemingly unrelated insight problems (like NYTimes crossword puzzles :)

This is also true for people who are really good at flipping the Necker cube.

If anyone is interested, this is from two studies done by Schooler in the 1990's. The article here actually references those two:

Schooler JW, Melcher J (1997) The ineffability of insight. In: Smith SM, Ward TB, Finke RA, editors. The creative cognition approach. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. 97-133.

Schooler JW, Ohlsson S, Brooks K (1993) Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. J Exp Psychol Gen 122: 166-183. Find this article online