Nersesian

Reading Dr.Nersesian’s book and attending the group meeting followed by her lecture last Thursday was a valuable experience for me. Apart from the insights derived from her talk capturing the way scientists think, it helped me reflect upon the thought process involved in problem solving. This session was especially beneficial following Dr.Simonton’s talk the week earlier with his views on the big “C”s referring to the pschycology of scientific and creative minds.

Dr.Nersesian discussed how throughout history we have evidence of scientists using analogical reasoning in the “social-cognitive-cultural-context” where they applied what they already knew to new domains to reach breakthroughs in their fields of work. What I found unvaluable was the outline she offered the group to follow for drawing analogies, both near or distant and applying it to imaginary models. Simply put, she advised the use of analogy or imagery and to look at the reasoning process in an integrated manner. She stressed on the initial part of the process as the stage to begin constructing from basic concepts, followed by developing physical or relative concepts. This would precede the step of deconstructing the information obtained when an individual  needed to start thinking intentionally and self-question “What am I trying to do?” She encouraged the listeners to break free of constraints and dare to be different from the existing situation at that moment. And, finally she suggested the use of diverse advancements in technology to find futuristic solutions, and test for plausibility. Throughout her talk, she reinforced the concept of using concrete imagery to introduce abstract concepts.

I agree with Dr.Nersesian’s views on creative inventions happenning as a result of model-based reasoning for problem solving. Though her talk focused on scientists and scientific discoveries (she offered examples of Maxwell and Rutherford’s work), I tend to believe the reasoning process would apply to other fields as well. As a graphic designer, I have always relied on the ‘design process’ as a guide to arrive at visual communication solutions for creative projects. I would hesitate to entirely eliminate the circumstance of the birth of a new concept arising in a flash of inspiration. It does happen, though it is definitely not an everyday occurence.

Reading Dr.Nersesian’s book and attending the group meeting followed by her lecture last Thursday was a valuable experience for me. Apart from the insights derived from her talk capturing the way scientists think, it helped me reflect upon the thought process involved in problem solving. This session was especially beneficial following Dr.Simonton’s talk the week earlier with his views on the big “C”s referring to the pschycology of scientific and creative minds.
Dr.Nersesian discussed how throughout history we have evidence of scientists using analogical reasoning in the “social-cognitive-cultural-context” where they applied what they already knew to new domains to reach breakthroughs in their fields of work. What I found unvaluable was the outline she offered the group to follow for drawing analogies, both near or distant and applying it to imaginary models. Simply put, she advised the use of analogy or imagery and to look at the reasoning process in an integrated manner. She stressed on the initial part of the process as the stage to begin constructing from basic concepts, followed by developing physical or relative concepts. This would precede the step of deconstructing the information obtained when an individual  needed to start thinking intentionally and self-question “What am I trying to do?” She encouraged the listeners to break free of constraints and dare to be different from the existing situation at that moment. And, finally she suggested the use of diverse advancements in technology to find futuristic solutions, and test for plausibility. Throughout her talk, she reinforced the concept of using concrete imagery to introduce abstract concepts.
I agree with Dr.Nersesian’s views on creative inventions happenning as a result of model-based reasoning for problem solving. Though her talk focused on scientists and scientific discoveries (she offered examples of Maxwell and Rutherford’s work), I tend to believe the reasoning process would apply to other fields as well. As a graphic designer, I have always relied on the ‘design process’ as a guide to arrive at visual communication solutions for creative projects. I would hesitate to entirely eliminate the circumstance of the birth of a new concept arising in a flash of inspiration. It does happen, though it is definitely not an everyday occurence.

Advertisement