Вступительное слово

Abstract

The special issue is devoted to the memory of professor Yuri Konstantinovich Kornilov. His works and pedagogical talent influenced the formation of several gene - rations of problem solving and creativity researchers. The twenties of the 20th century was the period of the beginning of experimental research into creativity and its comprehension as part of the experimental psychology of thinking. It is difficult to single out any particular date. It could be 1921, when W. Köhler's book Intelligenzprüfungen an Menschenaffen was published in German. It could be 1925 when this book was translated into English (The Mentality of Apes), and the subsequent publication that to a large extent ensured the wide popularity of the work and introduced the term Insight, still central to creativity research today. Or it could be 1926, which is the date G. Wallas published his work The Art of Thought, where he describes the basic stages of the creative process. Anyway, we have a century-long history of Insight Problem Solving research as an experimental paradigm of creativity research. Insight studies got a second wind in the 1980s, when the question of specificity of insightful solution in comparison with the processes of solving well-algorithmizable problems, described in the problem space theory by H. Simon, was raised. The search for specific mechanisms of insightful solutions has become a catalyst for the evolution of an independent and rapidly developing field of interdisciplinary studies, which has also been contributed to by Russian researchers. These are both scientists who worked during the classical period of research of thinking and creativity (S.L. Rubinstein, A.V. Brushlinsky, Ya.A. Ponomarev) and our contemporaries, whose texts are presented in this issue. The range of problems discussed in this issue reflects the main trends in insight research in recent years. This is a construction of theoretical models that allow us to explain the specific mechanisms of insightful solution, and identify factors that determine the specificity. This issue features articles by S.Yu. Korovkin; I.Yu. Vla - di mirov, A.V. Smirnitskaya, E.A. Shushkova (specifics of functioning of working memory subsystems at different stages of insightful solution); N.I. Loginov, V.F. Spi - ridonov (specifics of participation in the thought process of embodied knowledge); and E.A. Valueva, N.M. Lapteva; A.A. Medyntsev; T.V. Shumilov, A.V. Chisto - polskaya, I.Yu. Vladimirov (the role of emotions and metacognitive feelings in the regulation of insightful solution). Research methods of insightful solution, (especially important in the context of complexity), poor comprehension and the difficulties of recording the phenomenon under study, are equally presented here. For example, the paper by F.N. Markin and A.D. Savinova considers the potential and limitations of the task method for the laboratory study of thinking and creativity processes. The article by T.V. Shumilov, A.V. Chistopolskaya, and I.Yu. Vladi mirov raises the question of ways to improve the accuracy of self-reporting techniques for recording insightful solution events. The article by I.Yu. Vladimirov, A.V. Smir - nitskaya, and E.A. Shushkova discusses the possibility of combining behavioral and electrophysiological methods to study insightful solution processes. The articles in this issue not only reflect the current state of affairs in the field of insight research, but also identify the outlines for the further development of research. The authors hope that the material presented will be of interest both to colleagues engaged in the research on thinking, creativity, and cognitive processes and to a wide range of readers specializing in related studies and applied fields.