Development of creative thinking

How to learn to think more creatively? In response to this question, a number of recommendations can be made. Many psychologists advise to write down all the ideas that come to mind, both good and bad. If you try to put forward only good ideas, then this can lead, on the one hand, to the “suffocation” of potentially fruitful thoughts, and on the other hand, to a constant feeling of dissatisfaction.

When you’re doing creative work, don’t practice critical thinking. Give yourself more time to think. Some psychologists advise to play the problem being solved in faces or draw a diagram of it in order to create a more visual representation of it. They recommend talking aloud to yourself and, acting out the problem in person, go through all the stages of its solution. It’s always good to follow in the footsteps of famous creative thinkers and persevere. Psychologists Papaglia and Oulds offer some tips for developing creativity.

• Make a conscious effort to be original and come up with new ideas.

• Don’t worry about what people might think of you.

• Try to think broadly, while not paying attention to prohibitions imposed by cultural traditions (for example, racial or gender prejudice).

• If you make a mistake on your first try, consider other options and try new ways.

• Always be open to discussion and test your assumptions.

• Look for explanations for strange and incomprehensible phenomena.

• Break through functional fixity and look for unusual uses for ordinary things.

• Let go of your usual ways of doing things and try new approaches.

• Use brainstorming to bring out as many ideas as possible.

• When evaluating ideas, try to be objective. Imagine that they do not belong to you, but to another person.

(Source: Quinn W. Applied Psychology.

St. Petersburg, 2000



test questions

  1. What sciences, besides psychology, study and model the laws of thinking?
  2. How is the term “thinking” defined?
  3. What is characteristic of thinking as a process of solving a problem?
  4. How does the process of thinking occur when a journalist performs an editorial task?
  5. How do you understand the expression of A. Agranovsky: “it is not the one who writes well who writes well, but who thinks well”?
  6. What does the concept of a journalistic work give to a correspondent when collecting material?
  7. What are the principles of creative thinking in a group?
  8. What are the basic mental operations. Describe each of them.
  9. What are forms of thought? Explain the features of the main ones.
  10. How is thinking classified? What are the types of thinking?
  11. What is characteristic of creative thinking?
  12. What are the barriers to creative thinking?
  13. What is the specificity of the creative thinking of a journalist?
  14. What does critical thinking do for the creative process?
  15. Patterns of thinking and their role in the professional activities of a journalist.

Literature

Agranovsky A. A. Let’s think // Journalist. 1967. No. 2.

Agranovsky V.A. The second oldest. M., 2000.

Brushlinsky A.V. Psychology of thinking and cybernetics. M., 1970.

Dunker K. Psychology of productive thinking // Psychology of thinking / Ed. A.V. Matyushkina. M., 1965.

Luk A.N. Psychology of creativity. M., 1978.

Petukhov V.V. Psychology of thinking. M., 1987.

Psychology of thinking: Reader. / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter, V.A. Spiridonov, M.V. Falikman, V.V. Petukhov. M., 2008.

Rubinshtein S.L. About thinking and ways of its research. M. – L., 1958.

Speech, processes of generation and perception of texts

What is speech?

Thinking and speech are united. The word expresses a generalization, S.L. Rubinshtein noted, since it is a form of existence of a concept, a form of existence of a thought. Both thinking and speech have a common element – a word that expresses a generalization, is a form of existence of a concept, thought. Speech arose along with thinking in the process of the socio-historical development of mankind. Public life and the collective work of people make it necessary to constantly communicate. This communication is done through speech. Speech is usually understood as the process of communication between people with the help of language.

Language is a system of verbal signs, relatively independent of the individual, serving for the purposes of communication, the formation and formulation of thoughts, the consolidation and transmission of socio-historical experience. A language is some maximum possible system of signs, of which each user of this system uses for himself, by virtue of his capabilities, a specific share. Language and speech are inextricably linked, they represent a unity, which is expressed in the fact that historically the language of any nation was created and developed in the process of speech communication between people.

To a large extent, thanks to speech, the individual consciousness of each person, not limited to personal experience, one’s own observations, through speech is fed and enriched by the results of social experience; observation, the knowledge of all people become or can become the property of everyone through speech. At the same time, speech in a peculiar way opens the consciousness of another person for me, making it accessible to diverse and subtle nuanced influences. “Involving in the process of real practical relations, the general activity of people, speech through a message (expression, impact) includes in it the whole consciousness of a person,” emphasized S.L. Rubinstein. “Thanks to speech, the consciousness of one person becomes a direct reality for another.” In his opinion, the main function of consciousness is the awareness of being, its reflection. This function is speech, language performs in a specific way: speech reflects being, denoting it. Speech, like language, if we take them first in their unity, is a signifying reflection of being. But speech and language are both the same and different. They denote two different aspects of a single whole. Speech, unlike language, is the activity of communication—expression, influence, communication—through language—speech is language in action. Speech, both one with language and different from it, is thus the unity of a certain activity – communication – and a certain content, which designates and, designating, reflects being. More precisely, speech is a form of existence of consciousness (thoughts, feelings, experiences) for another, serving as a means of communication with him and a form of generalized reflection of reality or a form of existence of thinking.

Speech functions

According to the role of speech in the social and individual mental life of a person, two main functions of speech are distinguished, which are closely related to each other. The first is the implementation of the process of communication between people ( communicative function ). In the second function, speech acts as a means of expressing thoughts, their formation and development ( intellectual function ).

In the communicative function, in turn, it is customary to distinguish (although these differences are not very precise) the function of the message (expression) and the function of motivation (impact) . The function of the message, being included in human speech, is rebuilt, entering into its semantic content. In this form, emotionality plays a significant role in human speech. The function of influence in human speech is one of its primary, most ancient functions. A person speaks in order to influence, if not directly on behavior, then on thoughts or feelings, on the consciousness of others. The power of influence primarily depends on the content, expressiveness, expressiveness of speech. The expressiveness of speech depends on the structure of the construction of sentences and the selection of words (liveness, figurativeness of the language, accessibility for understanding are important), on speech intonation and expressive movements accompanying speech (changes in posture, facial expressions, gestures). Speech has a social purpose, it is a means of communication, and it performs this function in the first place, since it serves as a means of influence.

When communicating, a person can point to an object ( indicative, or indicative, function ) and express his judgments on any issue ( predicative function , or utterance function ). In addition to reporting on any events, phenomena, speech is very often aimed at evoking certain actions in the interlocutor, as well as thoughts, feelings, desires ( the function of stimulating action, or impact ). Speech encourages to think about something, to definitely relate to this or that event, to experience feelings of regret, indignation, joy, etc. Speech becomes a means of expressing thoughts due to the fact that it denotes certain objects, phenomena, actions, qualities, etc. In this regard, they speak of the semantic (or significative) function of speech.

However, the role of speech in the process of thinking is not limited to this. By assimilating language as a socially fixed sign system, a person masters the logical forms and operations of thinking that are inextricably linked with it. Speech becomes a means of analysis and synthesis, comparison and generalization of objects and phenomena of reality.

Types of speech

There are different types of speech: gesture speech and sound speech, written and oral speech, external speech and internal speech.

Gesture speech and sound speech. Modern speech is predominantly sound speech, but in the predominantly sound speech of modern man, gesture plays a certain role. He often, in the form of, for example, a pointing gesture, supplements with a reference to the situation what is not said or unambiguously defined in the context of sound speech; in the idea of an expressive gesture, he can give a special expression to the word or even introduce a new shade into the semantic content of sound speech. Thus, in sound speech there is some interrelation and complementarity of sound and gesture, the semantic context of sound speech and the more or less visual and expressive situation in which we are introduced by gesture; the word and the situation in it sometimes complement each other, forming, as it were, a single whole. But at present, facial expressions and pantomime are only, as it were, an accompaniment to the main text of sound speech: a gesture in our speech has only an auxiliary, secondary significance. In the early stages of development, with the extreme ambiguity of the original words, gesture undoubtedly played a much greater role.

External and internal speech. Significantly different from each other, and, moreover, also in their relation to thinking, external, loud oral speech and internal speech, which we mainly use when, thinking to ourselves, we cast our thoughts into speech formulations. Inner speech differs from outer speech not only in that external sign that it is not accompanied by loud sounds, that it is “speech minus sound”; inner speech is different from outer speech in its function. While performing a different function than external speech, it differs from it in some respects also in its structure; flowing in other conditions, it as a whole undergoes some transformation. Not intended for another, inner speech allows “short circuits”; it is often elliptical, omitting what the user takes for granted.

“The statement that inner speech is speech with oneself is not entirely accurate,” noted S.L. Rubinshtein. – And inner speech is mostly addressed to the interlocutor. Sometimes it is a specific, individual interlocutor. But even in cases where inner speech does not take on the character of an imaginary conversation with a certain individual interlocutor, when it is devoted to reflection, reasoning, argumentation, and then it is addressed to some kind of audience. The thought expressed in the word of each person has its own audience, in the atmosphere of which his reasoning proceeds; his internal argumentation is usually designed for the audience and adapted to it; inner speech is usually internally directed to other people, if not to the real, then to the possible listener.

Speech and thinking

Associated with consciousness as a whole, human speech is included in certain relationships with all mental processes; but the main and determining factor for speech is its relation to thinking. Since speech is a form of existence of thought, there is unity between speech and thinking. But this is unity, not identity. Equally unjustified is the establishment of the identity between speech and thinking, and the notion of speech as merely an external form of thought.

The reduction of thought to speech signifies the abolition of not only thought, but speech as well, because by retaining only reactions in speech, it abolishes their significance. In reality, speech is speech insofar as it has a conscious meaning. Words, as visual images, sound or visual, in themselves do not yet constitute speech. Moreover, speeches do not constitute reactions in themselves, which, through trial and error, would lead to their production. Sound-producing movements are not an independent process that produces speech as a by-product. The selection of the movements themselves, producing sounds or signs of written speech, the entire process of speech is determined and regulated by the semantic relationships between the meanings of words. We sometimes look for and do not find either an expression for an already existing and verbally unformed thought; we often feel that what we say does not express what we think; we discard the word that comes to us as inadequate to our thought: the ideological content of our thought regulates its verbal expression. Therefore, speech is not a set of reactions that occur according to the method of trial and error or conditioned reflexes; it is an intelligent operation. It is impossible to reduce thinking to speech and establish identity between them, because speech exists as speech only due to its relation to thinking.

But it is also impossible to separate thought and speech from each other. Speech is not just the outer garment of thought that it sheds or puts on without thereby changing its being. Speech, the word, serves not only to express, to carry out, to convey to another thought already prepared without speech. In speech, we formulate a thought, but in formulating it, we often form it. Speech here is something more than an external instrument of thought; it is included in the very process of thinking as a form associated with its content. Forming its speech form, thinking itself is formed. Thought and speech, without being identified, are included in the unity of one process. Thinking in speech is not only expressed, but for the most part it is done in speech.

In cases where thinking takes place mainly not in the form of speech in the specific sense of the word, but in the form of images, these images essentially perform the function of speech in thinking, since their sensory content functions in thinking as the bearer of its semantic content. Insofar as it can be said that thinking is generally impossible without speech: its semantic content always has a sensory carrier, more or less processed and transformed by its semantic content. This does not mean, however, that a thought always immediately appears in a ready-made speech form, accessible to others. Thought is usually born in the form of tendencies, at first; having only a few emerging reference points, not yet fully formed. From this thought, which is even more of a trend and a process than a completed, formed formation, the transition to a thought formed in the word is accomplished as a result of often very complex and sometimes difficult work. In the course of this work on the speech form of thought, the work on the speech form and on the thought that takes shape in it mutually pass into each other.

In the very thought at the moment of its inception in the mind of an individual, the experience of its meaning for a given individual often prevails over the formalized knowledge of its objective meaning. To formulate one’s thought, i.e. to express it through the generalized impersonal meanings of language, essentially means, as it were, to translate it into a new plane of objective knowledge and, by correlating one’s individual personal thought with the forms of social thought fixed in the language, come to the realization of its objectified meaning…

The identification of thinking and inner speech that occurs in our literature is untenable. It obviously proceeds from the fact that speech, in contrast to thinking, refers only to the sound, phonetic material of speech. Therefore, where, as is the case in inner speech, the sound component of speech disappears, nothing is seen in it other than the mental content. This is wrong, because the specificity of speech does not at all boil down to the presence of sound material in it. It lies primarily in its grammatical – syntactic and stylistic – structure, in its specific speech technique. Such a structure and technique, moreover, a peculiar, reflecting the structure of external, loud speech and at the same time different from it, inner speech also has. Therefore, inner speech is not reduced to thinking, and thinking is not reduced to it. The unity of speech and thinking is concretely realized in various forms for different types of speech.

So: 1) between speech and thinking there is not identity and not a gap, but unity; it is a dialectical unity, including differences that sharpen into opposites; 2) in the unity of thinking and speech, thinking is the leader ..; 3) speech and thinking arise in a person in unity on the basis of social and labor practices.

(S.L. Rubinshtein “Fundamentals of General Psychology”. St. Petersburg, 2007)

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.