A Concept-Synthesizing Construction Set for Bisociative Thinking
We designed a puzzle to stimulate bisociative thinking. This puzzle is an educational tool to challenge children’s creativity using Koestler’s theory of bisociation, which means combining two dissimilar concepts that are not related to produce an unfamiliar and unconventional idea. We explored the possibility of mental imagery formation of a particular creature with physical-ontological puzzle components that rather being ambiguous are in the familiar form of head, body, and support. The absurdity of the puzzle components, e.g. head-body-like components, head-tail-like components, and fin-tail-horn-wing-like components, would reportedly encourage users to generate unexpected imaginary figures that activate imaginative storytelling skills: e.g. ‘A finned BIRD crawling in the ocean’, ‘A winged SNAKE swimming in the sky’, and ‘A footed FISH flying on land’. The puzzle combinations were observed qualitatively through storytelling (A: Animal; B: Body; C: Capability; D: Domain). The reports show that ambiguous figure combinations have the potential to create rich storytelling.
KeywordsAbstraction Puzzle design Creativity Bisociation Storytelling
Acknowledgements are due to Research Center for Cultural Product and Environment (PPPBL-LPPM ITB) for the Research Excellence Grant (RU 2015). The Association for Advancement of Small Business (PROSPECT Program-PUPUK) and all of the members involved in this research.
- 1.Koestler, A.: The Act of Creation: A Study of the Conscious and Unconscious in Science and Art. Dell Publishing Company (1967)Google Scholar
- 2.Junaidy, D.W., Nagai, Y.: The characteristic of thought of digital architect. Int. J. Creat. Future Herit. (TENIAT) 5(1) (2017)Google Scholar
- 3.Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: Blending as a central process of grammar. In: Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, vol. 113, p. 130 (1996)Google Scholar
- 4.Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Rech. Commun. 19(19), 57–86 (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Varela, F.J.: The naturalization of phenomenology as the transcendence of nature: searching for generative mutual constraints. Alter: Rev. Phénom. 5, 355–381 (1997)Google Scholar
- 10.Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press (2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Lakoff, G.: Cognitive models and prototype theory. concepts: core readings. In: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, pp. 391–421. Psychology Press (1999)Google Scholar
- 13.Taura, T., Nagai, Y.: Concept Generation for Design Creativity: A Systematized Theory and Methodology. Springer Science & Business Media (2012)Google Scholar