By Alex Qi, Fall 2019.
According to The Oxford Companion to the English Language, a metaphor is a figure of speech that makes a comparison between two objects or ideas, usually suggesting a likeness between them [1]. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is defined by the same source as an explanation or model of natural phenomena [1]. “Fluid intelligence,” the “broad retrieval ability,” and “divergent thinking” act in both metaphor creation and the creation of theories in science. This article will hypothesize on similarities in metaphor and theory creation and will describe the process behind both.
Education for Innovation: A Source Book for Creative Thinking points out that “seemingly disparate ideas” that “have been logically incompatible” are associated “to form a new totality” in the creation of what is new [2]. An experiment carried out in 2013 by psychology researchers Paul Silvia and Roger Beaty clarifies the roles played by “fluid intelligence” and “the broad retrieval ability,” both of which contribute to the association of ideas that seem separate. Fluid intelligence was defined as the ability to apply recently learned knowledge to solve problems, while broad retrieval ability referred to one’s ability to recall factors from their long-term memory [3]. Silvia and Beaty interpreted the metaphor forming process as “making an abstract link between a topic and a vehicle by relating similar characteristics” [4]. They tested the fluid intelligence and broad retrieval ability of subjects before providing them with the topics and vehicles from which the subjects were instructed to create metaphors. In assessing the creativity of the metaphors made by their test subjects, Silvia and Beaty distinguished between conventional metaphors — metaphors that have been created and are used frequently in daily life — and creative metaphors — metaphors no one had seen before [4]. Silvia and Beaty also measured remoteness, or how abstractly the vehicle related to the assigned topic, in the metaphors created [4]. A strong positive correlation was found between the subjects’ fluid intelligence level and the remoteness of their metaphors as well as between their broad retrieval ability and the remoteness of their metaphor, suggesting that both fluid intelligence and the broad retrieval ability play roles in the formation of metaphors [4].
Besides forming associations, a metaphor also shifts words from their original meanings [5]. Though fluid intelligence and the broad retrieval ability are needed in discovering similar traits inherent in two subjects, divergent thinking, or the ability to explore a number of solutions to come up with ideas, must also be involved [6]. One’s divergent thinking ability will be at work whenever one explores meanings of a word beyond the conventional ones or the traits that are different from an object’s properties. For example, a metaphor comparing memory to bullets gives memory a sense of speed and sudden intensity that the original term is not often associated with. Psychology researcher Charles Porter conducted an experiment seeking associations between creativity and figures of speech in 1969. He tested subjects on their ability to produce metaphors and compared this ability to the subjects’ scores on parts of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. He found that while a weak correlation existed between divergent thinking skills and metaphor creation in essays, a strong correlation was present between divergent thinking skills and the ability to create figurative speech in fiction—as fiction allows one to take words farther from their original meanings [6]. A similar experiment testing for whether creativity or intelligence played a larger role in metaphor creation also demonstrated a high correlation between subjects’ ability to exhibit divergent thinking and the novelty of their metaphors [7].
From the experiments, we can attempt to characterize the metaphor creating process. After perceiving a new object, the metaphor creator first attempts to find essential characteristics of the object via fluid intelligence. They then try to see if known objects exercise the same traits or have the same relations between their parts — a process in which the broad retrieval ability comes into play [3]. In this process, we must prevent the literal meanings of the topic and vehicle from interfering with making a figurative connection; this is made possible via divergent thinking [6].
After clarifying the abilities needed for metaphor creation, we may see whether scientific theories rely on similar mechanics. For example, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion can demonstrate how theories resemble metaphor both in their structure and in their similar reliance on fluid intelligence, broad retrieval ability, and divergent thinking. The laws themselves are, like metaphors, comparisons of things based on their likeness: Through the perceived likeness between motion in an ellipse and the observed behavior of planets, Kepler was able to suggest that planets of the solar system travelled in ellipses around the sun [8]. He also drew connection between movements on different segments on the ellipse via the statement that a line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time. In the third law, Kepler drew a connection between the period of a planet and its axis of orbit. The theory is hence similar to a metaphor in structure.
In the process of construction, the theory also resembles a metaphor. The irregular behavior of Mars was what prompted Kepler to forgo the traditional view that planets travelled in circles and consider that they travel in ellipses [9]. This process relied on his broad retrieval ability (to recall properties of elliptical motion), fluid intelligence (to test if the data on Mars’ travel fits that predicted by elliptical motion), and divergent thinking ability (to think of shapes other than circles to characterize planetary motion by, and to finally decide on the ellipse). While his description of elliptical motion explaining irregularities in the orbits of planets demonstrates coherence and abstract connection, the idea that ellipses — rather than circles — are the paths of motion brings the uncanniness that makes the theory creative [8].
We can thus conclude that metaphors and scientific theories both rely on the creator’s fluid intelligence, broad retrieval ability, and divergent thinking. While the first two help the creator discover similarities inherent in seemingly unrelated concepts, the latter helps the creator use unexpected meanings of words in their metaphors, or concepts that seem unrelated to the phenomena in their theories. Perhaps there is an uncanny and orderly beauty produced from both theory and metaphor creation, and science and art are alike for their mutual need for creativity.
- McArthur, T., (1992), The Oxford Companion to the English Language
- Arnold, J.E. (1962), Education for Innovation, A Source Book for Creative Thinking, edited by S. J. Parnes and H. F. Harding, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, p.127-138.
- Sternberg, Robert J., (1982), Handbook of Human Intelligence. CUP, p. 75.
- Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2013), Metaphorically speaking: cognitive abilities and the production of figurative language, Memory & Cognition, Volume 41, Issue 2, p.255–267
- Brown, S. J. (1966), World of Imagery, New York, Russell and Russell.
- Porter, C.M. (1969), Figures of Speech, Divergent Thinking, and Activation Theory
- Pereira de Barros, D.; Primi, R.; Koich M.F.; Almeida, L. S.; Oliveira, E. P. (2010), Metaphor Creation: A Measure of Creativity or Intelligence?, European Journal of Education and Psychology, vol. 3, p. 103-115
- Chandrasekhar, S. (1990), Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, University of Chicago Press
- Kepler, J. (1609), Astronomia Nova