I think Dr. Nersessian’s research follows closely with Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Scientists, and other creators of course, perform their problem solving in Piaget’s formal operational stage by targeting their zone of proximal development. What I found interesting in Dr. Nersessian’s research is that it blends with a portion of Simonton’s argument. Simonton suggested that in order to be creative, a person must move toward the “soft” side of his heirarchal ordering. By scientists creating models (sometimes mentally), they are actually accessing the concrete stage of Piaget’s theory. The model is formulated using abstract thought processes and hypothetical reasoning (Piaget’s formal operational stage), but in using the model, the scientist is often reverting by to Piaget’s concrete stage of development, relying on observations of the physical representation of the model. This process mirrors the slide down Simonton’s heirachal scale.
Similarly, Dr. Nersessian shows that Blooms taxonomy is still an effective process for solving problems. The levels of the pyramid in ascending order are as follows, beginning at the base: knowledge (remembering), understanding (describing/explaining), applying (what you know), analyzing (the results), evaluating (the accuracy), creating (forming a new hypothesis to test). In both Simonton’s and Nersessian’s versions of creativity, one must go up and down the Bloom’s taxonomical pyramid in order to create innovative solution to problems.