Insight

.
Insight is the understanding of a specific cause and effect in a specific context. The term insight
can have several related meanings:

a piece of information
the act or result of understanding the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively (called
noesis in Greek)

an introspection

the power of acute observation and deduction, penetration, discernment, perception called
intellection or noesis

an understanding of cause and effect based on identification of relationships and

behaviors within a model, context, or scenario (see artificial intelligence)

An insight that manifests itself suddenly, such as understanding how to solve a difficult problem,
is sometimes called by the German word Aha-Erlebnis. The term was coined by the German
psychologist and theoretical linguist Karl Bhler. It is also known as an epiphany.

Psychology

Representation of the Duncker Candle Problem.[1]

In psychology, insight occurs when a solution to a problem presents itself quickly and without
warning.[2] It is the sudden discovery of the correct solution following incorrect attempts based
on trial and error.[3]
Insight was first studied by Gestalt Psychology, in the early part of the 20th century, during the
search for an alternative to associationism and the associationistic view of learning.[4] Some
proposed potential mechanisms for insight include: suddenly seeing the problem in a new way,
connecting the problem to another relevant problem/solution pair, releasing past experiences that
are blocking the solution, or seeing problem in a larger, coherent context.[4]

Methods

Solution to the Nine Dot problem.[5]

Generally, methodological approaches to the study of insight in the laboratory involve presenting
participants with problems and puzzles that cannot be solved in a conventional or logical manner.
[4]
Problems of insight commonly fall into three types.[4]
Breaking functional fixedness

Example of an RAT problem.

The first type of problem forces participants to use objects in a way they are not accustomed to
(thus, breaking their functional fixedness), like the "Duncker candle problem".[4] In the "Duncker
candle problem", individuals are given matches and a box of tacks and asked to find a way to
attach a candle to the wall to light the room.[1] The solution requires the participants to empty the
box of tacks, set the candle inside the box, tack the box to the wall, and light the candle with the
matches.
Spatial ability
The second type of insight problem requires spatial ability to solve, like the "Nine-dot Problem".
[4]
The famous "Nine-dot problem" requires participants to draw four lines, through nine dots,
without picking their pencil up.[5]
Using verbal ability
The third and final type of problem requires verbal ability to solve, like the Remote Associates
Test (RAT).[4] In the RAT, individuals must think of a word that connects three, seemingly
unrelated, words.[6] RAT are often used in experiments, because they can be solved both with and
without insight.[7]

Specific results

Insight versus non-insight problems

Two clusters of problems, those solvable by insight and those not requiring insight to solve, have
been observed.[8] An individuals cognitive flexibility, fluency, and vocabulary ability are
predictive of performance on insight problems, but not on non-insight problems.[8] In contrast,
fluid intelligence is mildly predictive of performance on non-insight problems, but not on insight
problems.[8]
Emotion
People in a better mood are more likely to solve problems by insight.[9] Research demonstrated
that self-reported positive affect of participants uniquely increased insight before and during the
solving of a problem, as indicated by differing brain activity patterns.[9] People experiencing
anxiety showed the opposite effect, and solved less problems by insight.[9]
Incubation
Using a geometric and spatial insight problem, it was found that providing participants with
breaks improved their performance as compared to participants who did not receive a break.[10]
However, the length of incubation between problems did not matter. Thus, participants'
performance on insight problems improved just as much with a short break (4 minutes) as it did
with a long break (12 minutes).[10]
Sleep
Research has shown sleep to help produce insight.[11] Individuals were initially trained on insight
problems. Following training, one group was tested on the insight problems after sleeping for
eight hours at night, one group was tested after staying awake all night, and one group was tested
after staying awake all day. Those that slept performed twice as well on the insight problems than
those who stayed awake.[11]
In the brain
Differences in brain activation in the left and right hemisphere seem to be indicative of insight
versus non-insight solutions.[12] Using RATs that were either presented to the left or right visual
field, it was shown that participants having solved the problem with insight were more likely to
have been shown the RAT on the left visual field, indicating right hemisphere processing. This
provides evidence that the right hemisphere plays a unique role in insight.[12]
fMRI and EEG scans of participants completing RAT's demonstrated unique brain activity
corresponding to problems solved by insight.[7] For one, there is high EEG activity in the alphaand gamma-band about 300 milliseconds before participants indicated a solution to insight
problems, but not to non-insight problems.[7] Additionally, problems solved by insight
corresponded to increased activity in the temporal lobes and mid-frontal cortex, while more
activity in the posterior cortex corresponded to non-insight problems.[7] The data suggests there is

something different occurring in the brain when solving insight versus non-insight problems that
happens right before the solving of the problem.
See also: Eureka effect Evidence for the Aha! effect in EEG studies
Group insight
It was found that groups typically perform better on insight problems (in the form of rebus
puzzles with either helpful or unhelpful clues) than individuals.[13]

Example of a rebus puzzle. Answer: man overboard.

Additionally, while incubation improves insight performance for individuals, it improves insight
performance for groups even more.[13] Thus, after a 15-minute break, individual performance
improved for the rebus puzzles with unhelpful clues, and group performance improved for rebus
puzzles with both unhelpful and helpful clues.[13]
Individual differences
Personality and gender, as they relate to performance on insight problems, was studied using a
variety of insight problems.[14] It was found that participants who ranked lower on emotionality
and higher on openness to experience performed better on insight problems.[14] Men
outperformed women on insight problems, and women outperformed men on non-insight
problems.[14]
Higher intelligence (higher IQ) has also been found to be associated with better performance on
insight problems.[4] However, those of lower intelligence benefit more than those of higher
intelligence from being provided with cues and hints for insight problems.[4]
Metacognition
Individuals are poorer at predicting their own metacognition for insight problems, than for noninsight problems.[15] Individuals were asked to indicate how "hot" or "cold" to a solution they
felt. Generally, they were able to predict this fairly well for non-insight problems, but not for
insight problems.[15] This provides evidence for the suddenness involved during insight.
Naturalistic settings
Recently, insight was studied in a non-laboratory setting.[16] Accounts of insight that have been
reported in the media, such as in interviews, etc., were examined and coded. It was found that

insights that occur in the field are typically reported to be associated with a sudden "change in
understanding" and with "seeing connections and contradictions" in the problem.[16] It was also
found that insight in nature differed from insight in the laboratory. For example, insight in nature
was often rather gradual, not sudden, and incubation was not as important.[16]
Animals
Studies on primate cognition have provided evidence of what may be interpreted as insight in
animals. In 1917, Wolfgang Khler published his book The Mentality of Apes, having studied
primates on the island of Tenerife for six years. In one of his experiments, apes were presented
with an insight problem that required the use of objects in new and original ways, in order to win
a prize (usually, some kind of food). He observed that the animals would continuously fail to get
the food, and this process occurred for quite some time; however, rather suddenly, they would
purposefully use the object in the way needed to get the food, as if the realization had occurred
out of nowhere. He interpreted this behavior as something resembling insight in apes.[17]

Theories
There are a number of theories representing insight; at present, no one theory dominates
interpretation.[4]
Dual process theory
According to the dual process theory, there are two systems used to solve problems.[14] The first
involves logical and analytical thought processes based on reason, while the second involves
intuitive and automatic processes based on experience.[14] Research has demonstrated that insight
probably involves both processes; however, the second process is more influential.[14]
Three-process theory
According to the three-process theory, intelligence plays a large role in insight.[18] Specifically,
insight involves three different processes (selective encoding, combination, and comparison),
which require intelligence to apply to problems.[18] Selective encoding is the process of focusing
attention on ideas relevant to a solution, while ignoring features that are irrelevant.[18] Selective
combination is the process of combining the information previously deemed relevant.[18] Finally,
selective comparison is the use of past experience with problems and solutions that are
applicable to the current problem and solution.[18]
Four-stage model
According to the four-stage model of insight, there are four stages to problem solving.[19] First,
the individual prepares to solve a problem.[19] Second, the individual incubates on the problem,
which encompasses trial-and-error, etc.[19] Third, the insight occurs, and the solution is
illuminated.[19] Finally, the verification of the solution to the problem is experienced.[19] Since this
model was proposed, other similar models have been explored that contain two or three similar
stages.[4]

Psychiatry
See also: Egosyntonic and egodystonic, Introspection and Self-awareness
In psychology and psychiatry, insight can mean the ability to recognize one's own mental illness.
[20][21]
This form of insight has multiple dimensions, such as recognizing the need for treatment,
and recognizing consequences of one's behavior as stemming from an illness.[22] A person with
very poor recognition or acknowledgment is referred to as having "poor insight" or "lack of
insight". The most extreme form is anosognosia, the total absence of insight into one's own
mental illness. Many mental illnesses are associated with varying levels of insight. For example,
people with obsessive compulsive disorder and various phobias tend to have relatively good
insight that they have a problem and that their thoughts and/or actions are unreasonable, yet are
compelled to carry out the thoughts and actions regardless.[23] Patients with Alzheimer's disease,
schizophrenia, and various psychotic conditions tend to have very poor awareness that anything
is wrong with them.[24]
"Insight" can also refer to other matters in psychology; problem solving behavior requiring
insight is the subject of insight phenomenology.
An insight is the derivation of a rule which links cause with effect. The mind is a model of the
universe built up from insights.
Thoughts of the mind fall into two categories:
1. Analysis of past experience with the purpose of gaining insight for use within this model
at a later date
2. Simulations of future scenarios using existing insights in the mind model in order to
predict outcomes
A mature mind has assimilated many insights and represents a sophisticated model of the
universe. The mind-model might be inaccurate. When insight is not subordinate to a validation
discipline like the 'scientific method', 'fallacious' thinking can result in a confused mind.
Intuition, which is often described in the popular literature as an alternative thought process, is
merely another manifestation of insight.[25] In this process, multiple bits of seemingly unrelated
data are linked together and a hypothesis or plan of action is generated. Usually this process is
generated in a novel situation. Such a circumstance links data which had previously seemed
unrelated.[26] The categories and analytical process, however, are not distinct from any other form
of insight. The only difference is the degree of novelty of the stimulus.[citation needed]

Religion
The Pali word for "insight" is vipassana, which has been adopted as the name of a kind of
Buddhist mindfulness meditation. Recent research indicates that mindfulness meditation does
facilitate solving of insight problems with dosage of 20 minutes.[27]

Marketing
Pat Conroy,[citation needed] points out that an insight is a statement based on a deep understanding of
your target consumers' attitudes and beliefs, which connect at an emotional level with your
consumer, provoking a clear response (This brand understands me! That is exactly how I feel!
even if they've never thought about it quite like that) which, when leveraged, has the power to
change consumer behavior. Insights must effect a change in consumer behavior that benefits
your brand, leading to the achievement of the marketing objective.[citation needed]
Insights can be based on:
1. Real or perceived weakness to be exploited in competitive product performance or value
2. Attitudinal or perceived barrier in the minds of consumers, regarding your brand
3. Untapped or compelling belief or practice
Insights are most effective when they are/do one of the following:
1. Unexpected
2. Create a disequilibrium
3. Change momentum
4. Exploited via a benefit or point of difference that your brand can deliver
In order to be actionable, as the expression of a consumer truth, an insight as to be stated as an
articulated sentence, containing:[28]
1. An observation or a wish, e.g. "I would like to ...."
2. A motivation explaining the wish, e.g. " because ..."
3. A barrier preventing the consumer from being satisfied with the fulfillment of his/her
motivation, e.g. " but..."
The gap between the second and the third term offers a tension, which constitutes a potential for
a brand. Like there are concept writers for copies, there are insight writers.