Reproductive thinking. Patterns of productive thinking. It is important to get rid of the “midges” in the mind

UDC 159.955

PRODUCTIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE THINKING: COMMONITY OR ANTAGONISM?

E.V. Getmanskaya (Moscow)

Annotation. The fluidity of the boundaries of productive and reproductive thinking is explored, the specifics of both ways of thinking and their interdependence are revealed, as well as the operational tools (mechanisms) of productive and reproductive thinking. Key words: lateral and vertical thinking; divergent thinking; critical thinking; “analysis through synthesis”; free association.

Modern psychology, on the one hand, differentiates creative and reproductive thinking as different “ways” of thinking, and on the other, affirms their common nature, syncretism. By exploring this dichotomy, both domestic and foreign researchers, first of all, pave the way to a generalized definition of the concept of creative thinking, the characteristics of which, in a comparative study with reproductive thinking, reveal their essence more contrastingly and more clearly.

The genesis of scientific categories of productive-creative and reproductive thinking is largely associated with the categories of intuition and reflection. Let us turn to the dictionary entry “intuition”, written for the “Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron” by the Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyov: “Intuition,” we read in the dictionary, “(from Latin intuere - to look) is the direct perception of something as true, expedient, morally good or beautiful. The opposite of reflection. It is impossible to deny intuition as a fact, but it would be unfounded to look for in it the highest norm of philosophical knowledge, before which reflective thinking would lose its rights.” V.S. Solovyov, anticipating the heightened interest in psychology of the twentieth century. to creative and reproductive thinking, poses the problem of their equilibrium or nonequilibrium functioning and the very nature of these “ways” of thinking. Philosophical reading of V.S. Solovyov problems of intuitive and reflective thinking at the beginning of the twentieth century. transformed in the second half of the century into the format of categories of creative and reproductive thinking and becomes a significant problem of modern psychology.

A comparative approach to the study of categories of productive and reproductive thinking in the twentieth century. represented by the works of A.V. Brushlinsky, E. De Bono, G. Lindsay, in the psychology of recent decades the comparative principle of studying the problem is used by V.A. Sonin, I.P. Kaloshina. When starting to analyze research on the stated topic, it should be emphasized that there is no strict polarization of the processes of creative and reproductive thinking in them. The angle of view of our study of the problem is the existing fluidity of the boundaries of creative and reproductive thinking, similarities and differences, commonality and antagonism

their processes. First of all, let us dwell on the terminological aspect of the problem, namely, the semantic synonymy existing in science of both the concept of creative thinking and the concept of reproductive thinking.

Thus, E. De Bono introduces the term lateral thinking, which is translated as “lateral”, unconventional thinking; accordingly, template thinking means vertical, or logical, thinking. Lateral thinking, according to the scientist, is associated with changes in concepts and perceptions and is based on the behavior of self-organizing information systems; it partially correlates with divergent (multidirectional) thinking, since both are associated with the generation of something new. Divergent thinking “is only part of the process of lateral thinking, which is associated not only with the generation of alternatives, but also with changing patterns (systems), with the transition to new and better patterns.” The end product of lateral thinking is insight, as opposed to the variety of broader-area alternatives characteristic of divergent thinking. Creative thinking, from the position of E. De Bono, is a special type of lateral (non-standard) thinking, covering a wider area. In some cases, the results of out-of-the-box thinking are brilliant creations, while in others they are nothing more than just a new way of looking at things. Thus, carrying out terminological innovations, E. De Bono comes to the internal hierarchy of the processes of creative and reproductive thinking.

The development of E. De Bono’s views regarding the specifics of reproductive thinking and the difference in the scales of lateral and creative thinking is reflected in the concept of solving non-standard problems by V.A. Sonina. The researcher defines reproductive thinking as visual thinking based on images and ideas drawn from real sources; in the real sense, reproductive thinking is mental activity according to a certain standard, rule, or standard. Productive thinking, according to the logic of the scientist, is based on creative imagination, active processing of emotional, cognitive and sensory experience into new combinations.

Productive thinking is characterized by the identification of the essence, the conceptual level of reflection, the internal essence, external manifestations that determine the empirical and theoretical types of knowledge. Creative thinking in the VA system Sonina - the discovery of new knowledge, the production of one’s own original ideas, in demand by time, by the reality of life. “Thinking creatively means the desire and ability to consider information without putting it into boxes. This way of thinking forces us to look for new relationships between facts that are new to everyone, without relying on preconceived beliefs.” In most cases, creative thinking requires talent to manifest itself, while lateral thinking is available to anyone who is interested in obtaining new ideas.

To a large extent, the analysis of creative and reproductive thinking in the scientific systems under consideration is focused on the essential characteristics of lateral thinking, built on the principle of implicit comparison with the characteristics of reproductive thinking. For evidence, let us turn to some points of the descriptive list of mechanisms of lateral thinking according to E. De Bono, formulated as follows:

Lateral thinking is aimed at creating as many alternative solutions as possible. It continues to seek other approaches even after a promising path has been found;

With lateral thinking, if the conclusion turns out to be correct, it is not at all required that every action we take is correct. This way of thinking is similar to building a bridge. It is not at all necessary that all parts of the bridge at each stage of construction look like a complete whole, but when the last link takes its place, the bridge immediately takes on a completed appearance;

A laterally thinking person understands that this or that model cannot be reconstructed from the inside - this is possible only as a result of some external influence. And he welcomes any such influence, since it plays the role of a motivating push. The more inappropriate such shocks seem, the more likely it is that the established pattern will be changed. To look for only what looks suitable is to help perpetuate the existing model.

Thus, the logic of E. De Bono defines lateral thinking as a cognitive style, similar to divergent, which allows one to find the correct answers found in an unconventional way.

Well-known areas of psychological analysis of productive and reproductive thinking do not provide a holistic view of the problem, since these concepts are studied only from one side: attention is fixed either on the goal, or on the means, or on their result. It often turns out to be quite difficult

The task itself is to compare the results of these studies. The difficulties are associated, in particular, with the fact that the generalized definition of productive thinking does not specify procedures for such comparison. The semantic correlation of the presented generalized definitions of creative and reproductive thinking is their constitutive, but not the only characteristic. An extremely important characteristic of the two modes of mental activity is their structure: mechanisms flow from the structure. Understanding the structure of a mental phenomenon - its macro- and microelements, as well as the relationships between them - is an important part of the theoretical research platform. To obtain a structural model of thinking processes, it is apparently necessary, having accepted generalized definitions of productive and reproductive thinking, to focus, first of all, on the mechanisms of the process of their occurrence. The focus on mechanisms and the inclusion of various aspects of the analysis of two ways of thinking into a holistic view of them is determined by a systematic approach. It allows you to correlate the results of studies of various aspects of a complex object and develop grounds for combining these results, to present the object as a system.

Thus, the system of “productive - reproductive thinking” by A.V. Brushlinsky is described as a closed loop of “analysis through synthesis”, as a universal initial mechanism of the thought process, asserting the impossibility of dividing thinking into reproductive and productive. “Any thinking,” the scientist emphasizes, “at least to a minimal extent, is creative, since it is always a search (forecasting) and the discovery of something essentially new, i.e. continuous inclusion of a cognizable object in new connections.” The author focuses on the genetic connections of reproductive and productive thinking and considers it incorrect to differentiate the two main types of mental activity. According to A.V. Brushlinsky, the new and the old, revealed in the course of thinking, do not belong to two different objects, but are different qualities of the same object. Consequently, there are not two different types of thinking, one of which - productive - would cognize only new objects, and the other - reproductive - would deal only with long-known objects. If the new and the old belong not to two separate objects, but to one and the same thing, then the “border” between one and the other is very mobile, dynamic and not fixed once and for all. In the process of thinking with the help of analysis through synthesis, a person continuously includes the “old” object in new connections and thereby reveals it in ever new qualities. Thus, analysis through synthesis as the universal initial mechanism of the thought process means the impossibility of dividing thinking into reproductive and productive. “Field of activity” of reproductive thinking by A.V. Brushlinsky reduces it, calling it “just memory,” polemicizing the

most with the very widespread psychological interpretation of the category of reproductive thinking as thinking with the help of which a person solves problems of a type that is well known to him for a long time.

Introducing his differentiation of signs of reproduction and productivity in thinking, I.P. Kaloshina, in accordance with the activity approach to mental phenomena, understands “creative thinking as a component of creative activity that performs certain functions in it.” A detailed definition of creative activity is given by her through the system of the following characteristics, according to which creative activity:

It is aimed at solving problems that are characterized by the absence in the subject area (or only in the subject) of both a method for solving the problem and the subject-specific knowledge necessary for its development - postulates, theorems, laws and other provisions. Such tasks I.P. Kaloshin calls them creative; in psychological literature, the characterization of creative problems often comes down to only indicating the absence of a solution;

Associated with the creation by the subject, at a conscious or unconscious level, of new knowledge for him as an indicative basis for the subsequent development of a method for solving a problem;

It is characterized for the subject by an uncertain possibility of developing new knowledge and based on their method of solving the problem. The uncertainty is due to the lack of any other knowledge that strictly determines the specified development.

The target (or epistemological) basis for the interpretation of creative and reproductive thinking is stated in the concept of the American psychologist G. Lindsay. Creative thinking in this system is “thinking, the result of which is the discovery of a fundamentally new or improved solution to a particular problem.” When studying critical (reproductive) thinking, G. Lindsay descends from epistemological to criterion analysis of the category, defining critical thinking as a specific criterion for creative thinking. Critical thinking in G. Lindsay's system is a test of proposed solutions in order to determine the scope of their possible application. Creative thinking is aimed at creating new ideas, and critical thinking is aimed at identifying their shortcomings and defects. To identify truly useful, effective solutions, creative thinking must be complemented by critical thinking. The purpose of critical thinking is to test the proposed ideas: whether they are applicable, how they can be improved, etc. Creativity will be unproductive if the resulting products are not critically checked and sorted. Carrying out the appropriate selection properly, G. Lindsay considered it necessary, firstly, to comply with the well-known

distance, i.e. be able to evaluate your ideas objectively, and, secondly, take into account the criteria or restrictions that determine the practical possibilities of introducing new ideas.

Reproductive (template, logical) thinking is often defined in conjunction (or antithesis) with creative thinking, according to the principle of explicit or implicit comparison. Implicit comparison is the goal-setting principle of E. De Bono’s systemic description of vertical thinking, which presents the main criteria for vertical thinking in internal antithesis with lateral (creative) thinking:

Vertical thinking, choosing a single path of action, discards all other possible options;

When a person thinks vertically, he chooses the approach to solving a problem that seems most promising to him, trying out various options until he discovers the most promising one;

With vertical thinking, moving towards solving a problem, they follow a strictly designated direction, using a very specific method or set of techniques;

Modern psychology defines the degree of differentiation of creative and reproductive thinking differently, and in some scientific positions differentiation is considered impossible at all, such, for example, is the point of view of A.V. Brushlinsky. Along with this, if we follow the logic of E. De Bono, creative and reproductive thinking exist on antagonistic principles. To clearly differentiate them, E. De Bono resorts to a direct and consistent comparison of the multiple functions of vertical and lateral thinking, for example: vertical thinking is selective, lateral thinking is creative; vertical thinking is a process with an end result, and lateral thinking is a probabilistic process, etc.

The mechanisms of creative and reproductive activity (as operational tools) are considered by psychologists depending on the theoretical positions they occupy. From the standpoint of the activity approach, the mechanisms of any mental phenomenon, including creative activity, are defined as a system of corresponding actions and techniques. In particular, I.P. Kaloshina refers to the mechanisms of controlled creative activity as the following four invariant actions associated with the inclusion of the structure of a given creative task into a new structure in order to establish new relationships between unknown and known phenomena in the task:

The first action is the transfer of macroelements of the new structure to the task (subsuming known and unknown phenomena in the task under the categories of macroelements of the new structure);

The second is the transfer of a new structure, or basis of macroelements, to the problem of microelements (decomposition

Siberian Psychological Journal

known phenomena in the problem of their constituent elements);

Third, transferring the relationships between macroelements of a new structure to the task (establishing new relationships between unknown and known phenomena in a long task);

- “the fourth action is the construction of an unknown phenomenon - a method for solving a problem - on the basis of known phenomena and new established relationships.”

E. De Bono, as a mechanism for the functioning of creative and reproductive thinking, pointed out the discrepancy between what a person has and what he wants. It can come down to the need to avoid something, achieve something, get rid of something, or understand your hidden desires. E. De Bono divided “problems of inconsistency” into three types:

Those that require a larger amount of information or better methods for processing it to resolve it;

Those that require no additional information to solve, but only a regrouping of existing data - an intuitive rearrangement;

Those that boil down to the absence of a problem. “You have nothing to focus your efforts on to achieve a better result, because you don’t even suspect that it is possible. You must realize that there is still a problem and the fact is that the situation can and should be improved.”

The first type of problem can be solved using vertical thinking. But to cope with problems of the second and third types, it is necessary to resort to methods of lateral thinking. Thus, the advisability of using lateral thinking is to counteract the process of transforming the problematic situations we create into frozen patterns.

Two types of main problem situations are proposed by A.V. Brushlinsky. The first type is characterized by the fact that a person cannot help but notice a problem situation arising in the course of his activities. This obvious (obvious) problematic situation contains a pronounced contradiction between the desire and the inability to continue previous actions. Thus, it constitutes the necessary initial, initial conditions for thinking: it naturally encourages the resolution of the contradiction that has arisen, i.e. First of all, understand the reasons for the failures that have begun in the implementation of certain activities. The strongest motivation for thinking is formed precisely in a problem situation of this type. The second type of non-obvious problem situations includes those that, arising in the course of a certain (primarily cognitive) activity, may go unnoticed. For example, reading and rereading this or that text (articles, books, letters), a person for a long time does not notice the formal and logical contradictions in those thoughts

own or strangers that are in it. So, a task arises from a problem situation of any type, is closely related to it, but differs significantly from it. Thus, a problematic situation is a rather vague, not yet very clear, little-conscious impression or experience, as if signaling: “something is wrong,” “something is not right.” In this kind of problematic situations, from the position of A.V. Brushlinsky, and the process of thinking begins. It begins with an analysis of this problematic situation itself. As a result of its analysis, a task arises and is formulated, a problem in the proper sense of the word.

One of the methods of resolving a problem situation recognized by modern psychology is free association (G. Lindsay). According to the scientist: “If you want to think creatively, you must learn to give your thoughts complete freedom and not try to direct them in a certain direction.” This is called free association. The procedure is simple: gather a group of people to “free associate” on a given topic (brainstorming). The purpose of brainstorming is to get as many new ideas as possible, since the more ideas that are proposed, the greater the chance of a really good idea emerging. The group situation stimulates the processes of generating new ideas, which is an example of a kind of social assistance.

In modern science, the problem of the relationship between productive and reproductive thinking is not analyzed in the same way. There are theories of their complementarity, polarity, and theories that separate reproductive and creative thinking into fundamentally different measurement systems. In the theory of E. De Bono, lateral and vertical thinking complement each other, namely: vertical thinking multiplies the effectiveness of lateral thinking, skillfully using its ideas. G. Lindsay defines the result of creative thinking as the discovery of a fundamentally new or improved solution to a particular problem. We find a different approach to understanding the nature of creative and reproductive thinking in the works of I.P. Kaloshina. From a scientist’s point of view, between creative activity and reproductive activity, there are similarities and there are significant differences. The differentiation of reproductive and creative thinking, from the point of view of a scientist, is based, first of all, on the difference in the structure of activities for solving creative and non-creative problems. A.V. Brushlinsky, proposing “analysis through synthesis” as the universal initial mechanism of the thought process, asserts the impossibility of dividing thinking into reproductive and productive.

The study of creative and reproductive thinking is determined by the nature of human life. The development of social relations and human intelligence creates new opportunities for both reconstructive and creative activities. Next

General psychology and personality psychology

It should be noted that the analysis of the systems for studying creative and reproductive thinking outlined in the article is not complete. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that, despite the large number of works on this problem by domestic and foreign authors and the long period devoted to the study of the creative process, not all psychological aspects of the latter have been sufficiently studied. The goal set by the author of the article is

more modestly - to identify the essential features and patterns of creative and reproductive thinking necessary for their subsequent use in the process of organizing the cognitive activity of students. Knowledge of the mechanisms and characteristics of both ways of thinking makes it possible to control the internal thought processes of an individual in the course of solving cognitive problems.

Literature

1. Bono E. Lateral thinking. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. 315 p.

2. Bono E. The birth of a new idea: On unconventional thinking: Trans. from English M.: Progress, 1976. 143 p.

3. Brockhaus F.A., Efron I.A. Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary: modern version. M.: Eksmo: Forum, 2007. 959 p.

4. Brushlinsky A.V. Subject: thinking, learning, imagination. Moscow: Publishing house MSSI; Voronezh: MODEK, 2003. 406 p.

5. Kaloshina I.P. Psychology of creative activity: Proc. allowance. 3rd ed., add. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2008. 671 p.

6. Lindsay G. Theories of personality: Textbook. allowance. M.: SP+, 1997. 719 p.

7. Sonin V.A. Psychology of solving non-standard problems. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2009. 384 p.

PRODUCTIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE THINKING: GENERALITY OR ANTAGONISM Getmanskaya E.V. (Moscow)

Summary. Investigated in clause mobility of boundaries of productive and reproductive thinking puts a problem of finding-out of specificity of both ways of thinking and their interdependence. Also clause come to light operational tools (mechanisms) of productive and reproductive thinking which cause a problem of management of thought processes of the individual during the decision it of cognitive problems.

Key words: lateral and vertical thinking; divergent thinking; critical thinking; "the analysis through synthesis"; free association.

creative graphics design learning

Human thinking includes mental operations of various types and levels. First of all, their cognitive meaning can be very different. Many scientists distinguish different levels of thought depending on any forms, signs, criteria, etc.

In the psychological literature, three types of thinking in its elementary forms are distinguished, and several “paired” classifications are also used. In general, the relationships between different types of thinking have not yet been identified. However, the main thing is clear: the term “thinking” in psychology denotes qualitatively heterogeneous processes.

Thus, we can distinguish the classification of types of thinking according to different criteria. The above classification is provisional and is not complete. Since all of the listed types of thinking in humans coexist in complex relationships and can be represented in the same activity (see Fig. 1). However, depending on its nature and ultimate goals, one or another type of thinking dominates. In terms of their degree of complexity, in terms of the demands they place on a person’s intellectual and other abilities, all of these types of thinking are not inferior to each other.

Rice. 1

As shown in Fig. 1, in thinking as a process of generalized and indirect cognition of reality, its productive and reproductive components are intertwined in a contradictory dialectical unity, and their relative weight in specific mental activity can be different. Under the influence of life's ever-increasing demands on its creative component, it became necessary to distinguish special types of thinking - productive and reproductive.

It should be noted that in Soviet literature there is an objection to the identification of such types, since any thinking process is productive. However, most psychologists who study thinking consider it appropriate to distinguish these types (P.P. Blonsky, N.A. Menchinskaya, Ya.A. Ponomarev, O.K. Tikhomirov).

In the literature, these types (sides, components) of mental activity are called differently. The following terms are used as synonyms for the concept of “productive thinking”: creative thinking, visual-figurative, independent, heuristic, creative, artistic, lateral, unconventional. Synonyms for reproductive thinking are the following terms: reproductive (non-creative) thinking, verbal-logical, visual-effective, rational, receptive, discursive, template, etc. In this work, the terms productive and reproductive thinking are used.

Productive thinking is characterized by a high degree of novelty of the product obtained on its basis, its originality. This thinking appears when a person, having tried to complete a task based on its formal logical analysis with the direct use of methods known to him, becomes convinced of the futility of such attempts and he has a need for new knowledge that allows him to complete the task: this need ensures high activity subject performing the task. Awareness of the need itself indicates the creation of a problematic situation in a person.

Finding what you are looking for involves the discovery of features unknown to the subject, relationships that are essential for completing the task, natural connections between features, and the methods and techniques by which they can be found. A person is forced to act in conditions of uncertainty, to outline and try a number of possible implementation options, to choose between them, sometimes without sufficient grounds for doing so. He looks for the key to a solution based on hypotheses and their testing, i.e. methods rely on a known foresight of what can be obtained as a result of transformations. Generalizations play a significant role in this, making it possible to reduce the amount of information on the basis of the analysis of which a person comes to the discovery of new knowledge, to reduce the number of operations carried out in this case, “steps” to achieve the goal.

As L.L. emphasizes Gurov, very fruitful in finding a way to solve a problem when performing tasks is its meaningful, semantic analysis, aimed at revealing the natural relations of objects in the task. In it, a significant role is played by figurative components of thinking, which allow one to directly operate with these natural relationships of objects. They represent a special, figurative logic that makes it possible to establish connections not with just two, as in verbal reasoning, but with many links in the analyzed situation, to act, according to L.L. Gurova, in multidimensional space.

In studies conducted under the guidance of S.L. Rubinstein, “analysis through synthesis” is put forward as an effective technique used in productive thinking. Based on such an analysis, the desired property of an object is revealed when the object is included in the system of connections and relationships in which it more clearly reveals this property. The found property opens up a new circle of connections and relationships of the object with which this property can be correlated. This is the dialectic of creative cognition of reality.

In this process, as many researchers note, there is often an outwardly sudden perception of a solution path - an insight, an “aha-experience”, and it often occurs when the person was not directly involved in solving the problem when performing the task. In reality, such a decision is prepared by past experience, depends on previous analytical-synthetic activity and, above all, on the level of verbal-logical conceptual generalization achieved by the decisive factor. However, the process of searching for a solution is largely carried out intuitively, under the threshold of consciousness, without finding its adequate reflection in the word, and that is why its result, “breaking through” into the sphere of consciousness, is recognized as an insight, supposedly not related to the activity previously carried out by the subject aimed at discovering new knowledge.

Although thinking as a process of generalized and indirect cognition of reality always includes elements of productivity, its proportion in the process of mental activity may be different. Where the share of productivity is quite high, they speak of productive thinking itself as a special type of mental activity. As a result of productive thinking, something original arises, something fundamentally new for the subject, that is, the degree of novelty here is high. The condition for the emergence of such thinking is the presence of a problem situation that promotes awareness of the need for the discovery of new knowledge, stimulating the high activity of the subject solving the problem.

The novelty of the problem dictates a new way to solve it: discontinuity, the inclusion of heuristic, “search” tests, a large role for semantics, and meaningful analysis of the problem. In this process, along with verbal-logical, well-conscious generalizations, intuitive-practical generalizations are very important, which do not initially find their adequate reflection in the word. They arise in the process of analyzing visual situations, solving concrete practical problems, real actions with objects or their models, which greatly facilitates the search for the unknown, but the process of this search itself is outside the clear field of consciousness and is carried out intuitively.

Weaving into conscious activity, being sometimes extended, over time, often very long, the process of intuitive-practical thinking is recognized as an instantaneous act, as insight due to the fact that the result of the decision first “breaks through” into consciousness, while the path to it remains outside it is realized on the basis of subsequent more detailed, conscious mental activity.

As a result of productive thinking, the formation of mental new formations occurs - new communication systems, new forms of mental self-regulation, personality traits, and abilities, which marks a shift in mental development.

So, productive thinking is characterized by the high novelty of its product, the originality of the process of obtaining it, and, finally, a significant influence on mental development. It is a decisive link in mental activity, as it provides real movement towards new knowledge.

From a psychological point of view, there is no fundamental difference between the productive thinking of a scientist who discovers objectively new patterns of the surrounding world, not yet known to mankind, and the productive thinking of a student who makes a new discovery only for himself, since the basis is based on general mental patterns. However, the conditions for their search for new knowledge are different, as is the level of mental activity leading to discovery.

In order to somehow designate these differences, most researchers prefer to use the term “productive thinking” in relation to this type of thinking of schoolchildren, and the term “creative thinking” to denote the highest level of mental activity carried out by those who discover knowledge that is fundamentally new for humanity, creates something original, having no analogue.

Psychologists have spent a lot of effort and time figuring out how a person solves new, unusual, creative tasks. However, there is still no clear answer to the question about the psychological nature of creativity. Science has only some data that allows us to partially describe the process by which a person solves problems of this kind, to characterize the conditions that facilitate and hinder finding the correct solution.

J. Guilford was one of the first to try to formulate creative thinking. He believed that the “creativity” of thinking is associated with the dominance of four features:

A. Originality, non-triviality, unusualness of the ideas expressed, a pronounced desire for intellectual novelty. A creative person almost always and everywhere strives to find his own solution, different from others.

B. Semantic flexibility, i.e. the ability to see an object from a new angle, discover its new use, and expand its functional application in practice.

B. Figurative adaptive flexibility, i.e. the ability to change the perception of an object in such a way as to see its new, hidden sides.

D. Semantic spontaneous flexibility, i.e. the ability to produce a variety of ideas in an uncertain situation, particularly one that does not contain guidelines for these ideas.

Subsequently, other attempts were made to define creative thinking, but they brought little new to the understanding of it that was proposed by J. Guilford.

E. Bono offers a different interpretation of creative thinking. He presents it as a special kind of non-template (lateral)

thinking that aims at new ideas. In some cases, the results of unconventional thinking are ingenious creations, in others they are nothing more than simply a new way of looking at things, and therefore something less significant than genuine creativity. In most cases, creative thinking requires talent to manifest itself, while lateral thinking is available to anyone who is interested in obtaining new ideas.

E. Bono also divides stereotyped and unconventional thinking, as productive and reproductive. He argues that the difference between them is that with patterned thinking, logic controls the mind, while with unconventional thinking, it serves it.

Creative thinking is characterized by the fact that it produces new, previously unknown results. At the same time, the opinion is expressed that the novelty of thinking products is a necessary but insufficient indicator of creative thinking. Thus, the question arises about new definitions of the difference between creative and non-creative thinking. The following distinction is often made between these thought processes: non-creative (schematic) thinking is expressible using an algorithm, while creative thinking is non-algorithmic.

However, most psychologists consider it appropriate to distinguish types of thinking - productive and reproductive.

Characterized by less productivity, reproductive thinking nevertheless plays an important role in both cognitive and practical human activity. On the basis of this type of thinking, problems of a structure familiar to the subject are solved. Under the influence of the perception and analysis of the conditions of the problem, its data, what is being sought, and the functional connections between them, previously formed systems of connections are updated, providing a correct, logically justified solution to such a problem, and its adequate reflection in the word.

Reproductive thinking is of great importance in the educational activities of schoolchildren. It ensures understanding of new material when it is presented by a teacher or in a textbook, application of knowledge in practice, if this does not require significant transformation, etc. The possibilities of reproductive thinking are, first of all, determined by the presence of an initial minimum of knowledge in a person; it, as shown research is easier to develop than productive thinking, and at the same time plays a significant role in solving new problems for the subject. In this case, it appears at the initial stage, when a person tries to solve a problem that is new to him using methods known to him and becomes convinced that familiar methods do not provide him with success. Awareness of this leads to the emergence of a “problem situation”, i.e. activates productive thinking, ensuring the discovery of new knowledge, the formation of new systems of connections, which will later provide him with the solution of similar problems. As already noted, the process of productive thinking is spasmodic, part of it is carried out subconsciously, without adequate reflection in words. First, the word expresses its result (“Aha! Found it! Guessed it!”), and then the path to it itself.

Awareness of the solution found by the subject, its verification and logical justification are again carried out on the basis of reproductive thinking. Thus, real activity, the process of independent cognition of the surrounding reality, is the result of a complex interweaving and interaction of reproductive and productive types of mental activity.

The novelty of the problem dictates a new way to solve it: discontinuity, the inclusion of heuristics, search tests, a large role for semantics, and meaningful analysis of the problem. In this process, along with verbal-logical, well-conscious generalizations, intuitive-practical generalizations are very important, which do not initially find their adequate reflection in the word. They arise in the process of analyzing visual situations, solving concrete practical problems, real actions with objects or their models, which greatly facilitates the search for the unknown, but the process of this search itself is outside the clear field of consciousness and is carried out intuitively.

Intertwined with conscious activity, being sometimes extended over time, often very long, the process of intuitive-practical thinking is recognized as an instantaneous act, as insight due to the fact that the result of the decision first breaks into consciousness, while the path to it remains outside it and is realized based on subsequent more detailed, conscious mental activity.

From a psychological point of view, there is no fundamental difference between the productive thinking of a scientist who discovers objectively new patterns of the surrounding world, not yet known to mankind, and the productive thinking of a student who makes a new discovery only for himself, since the basis is based on general mental patterns. However, the conditions for their search for new knowledge are very different, as is the level of mental activity leading to discovery.

In order to somehow designate these differences, most researchers prefer to use the term productive thinking in relation to this type of thinking of schoolchildren, and the term creative thinking to denote the highest level of mental activity carried out by those who discover fundamentally new knowledge for humanity, create something original that has no its own analogue.

Characterized by less productivity, reproductive thinking nevertheless, it plays an important role in both cognitive and practical human activity. On the basis of this type of thinking, problems of a structure familiar to the subject are solved. Under the influence of the perception and analysis of the conditions of the problem, its data, what is being sought, and the functional connections between them, previously formed systems of connections are updated, providing a correct, logically justified solution to such a problem, and its adequate reflection in the word.

Reproductive thinking is of great importance in the educational activities of schoolchildren. It ensures understanding of new material when it is presented by a teacher or in a textbook, application of knowledge in practice, if this does not require significant transformation, etc. The capabilities of reproductive thinking are primarily determined by the person’s initial minimum knowledge; it, as research has shown, is easier to develop than productive thinking, and at the same time plays a significant role in solving new problems for the subject. In this case, it appears at the initial stage, when a person tries to solve a problem that is new to him using methods known to him and becomes convinced that familiar methods do not provide him with success. Awareness of this leads to the emergence of a problematic situation, that is, it activates productive thinking, which ensures the discovery of new knowledge, the formation of new systems of connections, which will later provide it with the solution of similar problems. As already noted, the process of productive thinking is spasmodic, part of it is carried out subconsciously, without adequate reflection in words. First, the word expresses its result (Aha! Found it! Guessed it!), and then the path to it itself.

Productive or creative thinking is called thinking that is not based on past experience. The significance of studying this particular type of thinking for understanding the general mechanisms of problem solving in the absence of past experience was shown in the works of psychologists who considered themselves to be part of the school of Gestalt psychology. One of the important principles of Gestalt psychology is the principle here and now which involves describing psychological patterns without referring to the description of the role of past experience. It is these principles that were used by the founder of the school of Gestalt psychology, M. Wertheimer, as well as the German psychologist K. Duncker, already mentioned in the previous paragraph, to develop the theory of productive thinking.

According to K. Duncker (1945), thinking is a process that, through insight problem situation leads to adequate response actions. By insight Duncker, like other Gestalt psychologists, understood the process understanding situation, penetration into it, when various and disparate elements of the situation are combined into a single whole.

The solution to the problem lies within itself, argued K. Duncker. Therefore, there is no need for the subject to turn to past experience, which not only does not help the thinking process, but, on the contrary, can hinder the effective course of thinking due to functional fixation. The problem situation must first of all be comprehended by the subject, i.e. be perceived as a whole containing a certain conflict.

Conflict– this is what prevents the decision. Understanding the conflict presupposes penetration into the situation of solving the problem. Let's take, for example, the famous experiments of another founder of the school of Gestalt psychology, W. Köhler, which he conducted during the First World War with great apes - chimpanzees - in the Canary Islands. In these experiments, the monkey tried to reach a bait that was located too far or high from it. Conflict This task obviously consists in the fact that the monkey cannot reach the bait with its forelimbs. Penetration the situation should indicate to the monkey that its limbs are too short. Another example of conflict and penetration involves a problem where it is required to prove that a metal ball bounces off a metal surface due to deformation, which nevertheless recovers very quickly. Conflict of this task is that the subject cannot check it due to the speed of the deformation. Penetration in the situation is expressed in the understanding that the two substances restore their shape too quickly for the effect of deformation to be maintained.

K. Duncker argues that the result of insight, or penetration into the situation of a task, is the finding functional solution tasks. It arises from a given problem situation and is based on internal and obvious connections with the conditions of the problem situation. To understand any solution to a problem as a solution means to understand it as the embodiment of its functional solution. At the same time, Duncker especially insists that if a subject is faced with two different problems that have a common functional solution, successfully obtaining an answer to the first problem does not help him at all when analyzing the next problem, even if he solves these two problems in a row.

In the examples we have considered, the functional solutions would be, respectively, to "lengthen" the monkey's limbs, which turn out to be too short, and to slow down or maintain the effect of the deformation. You can “lengthen” the limbs by using a tool – a stick, with which the monkey is able to reach the bait. You can preserve the deformation of the ball by covering it with a soft shell, such as paint.

Note that the same functional solution may have different implementation methods. For example, a monkey will take a box rather than a stick, place it under the bait and climb onto it. And instead of paint, which preserves the deformation of the ball, you can use a more technologically advanced version of video recording.

Thus, in the theory of K. Duncker and other Gestalt psychologists, productive thinking is described as a two-stage process.

At the first stage, the problem is studied. It provides insight into the conflict conditions of a problem situation. At the second stage, the process of implementing (or executing) the previously found functional solution is carried out, choosing what is really needed to solve the problem if the functional solution does not contain its implementation.

Despite the fact that the theory of productive thinking was developed by K. Duncker back in the 30s. last century, it still remains one of the most authoritative psychological theories of thinking. However, its critics very often point out that intelligence tasks, “Dunker” tasks, are just a small, if not insignificant, part of the tasks that we encounter in thinking processes.

This is why later theories of thinking rely heavily on thinking processes reproductive character.

Did you like the article? Share it

Print this article