Auditorium G-100, Fakultas Psikologi UGM, 30 Agustus 2017
Kreativitas dan intelegensi merupakan dua modalitas dalam diri manusia yang selalu menarik untuk didiskusikan. Penelitian terkait kreativitas dan intelegensi telah dilakukan dalam berbagai cara, mulai dengan menggunakan metode pengukuran yang sifatnya self-report/inventory (Rawat, Qazi, & Hamid, 2012; Torrance, 1972; Urban, 2005), metode pengukuran proyektif (Niederland, 1976; Urban, 2005), hingga metode pengukuran mekanisme neural (Untuk review, baca Goldberg, 2002).
Psikologi sebagai suatu disiplin keilmuan yang meneliti perilaku manusia selama ini lebih menitikberatkan pada pendekatan self-report dan teknik proyektif, namun kurang memberi porsi perhatian yang cukup pada pengukuran mekanisme neural dan macam-macam pendekatan objektif lainnya. Hal ini terutama terjadi pada perkembangan ilmu Psikologi di Indonesia.
Menilik trend perkembangan global keilmuan psikologi yang makin mengarah pada metode pengukuran yang lebih objektif (Simonton, 2004), maka penting kiranya psikologi di Indonesia mulai mempelajari pula pendekatan lain yang lebih objektif, misalnya pendekatan yang digunakan oleh disiplin biologi dan kedokteran. Bahkan, beberapa literatur (misalnya Gazzaniga & Heatherton, 2002) sebenarnya juga telah menyebutkan bahwa level biologis merupakan tingkatan level analisis keilmuan psikologi yang paling dasar. Dengan demikian, perspektif biologi dan kedokteran dibutuhkan dalam mengkaji fenomena psikologis.
Oleh karenanya, Laboratorium Eksperimen Fakultas Psikologi UGM menyelanggarakan Sesi Diskusi Ilmiah dan Temuan Riset Terbaru bertemakan “Creativity & Multi-Modals Information Processing” dengan menghadirkan dua orang pembicara yang menggeluti riset terkait tema ini: Elkhonon Goldberg, Ph.D. (School of Medicine, New York University) dan Galang Lufityanto, Ph.D. (Fakultas Psikologi UGM). Kedua pembicara akan mempresentasikan temuan penelitian yang mereka lakukan sendiri.
RINGKASAN MATERI
“Neural Mechanism of Creativity and Novelty”
Elkhonon Goldberg, Ph., ABPP (Luria Neuroscience Institute and New York University). Download CV
Creativity is not a monolithic trait. Many forms of creativity exist which rely on complex overlapping but not identical networks of brain structures and processes. They all share four fundamental, more tractable prerequisites: (1) attraction to and the ability to deal with novelty, which is closely linked to the functions of the right cerebral hemisphere; (2) sound ability to judge what is important and salient, which is linked to the functions of the prefrontal cortex; (3) keen grasp of one’s chosen field of endeavor as it existed before, which is closely linked to the left cerebral hemisphere; and (4) capacity for a wide range of arousal states, which is linked to the functions of the ventral brainstem. Here we examine one of these prerequisites: the mechanisms of novelty processing in the brain.
The classic narrative of linking the left hemisphere to language and the right hemisphere to visuo-spatial processes is incomplete. It fails to capture a fundamental aspect of hemispheric specialization which exhibits strong continuity or convergence across mammalian, avian, and possibly even invertebrate species. The left hemisphere excels at dealing with well-established cognitive routines; and the right hemisphere excels at dealing with novel situations to which none of such routines is readily applicable. The novelty-routinization principle of hemispheric specialization has been demonstrated in cross-sectional and quasi-longitudinal studies using a wide range of methodologies, including fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and EEG (electroencephalography), which will be reviewed here.
Structural differences between the two hemispheres underlying these functional differences have been examined in studies of focal brain lesion effects in neurological patients, as well as in morphometric MRI studies in healthy subjects. These differences include (a) space allocation to modality-specific vs heteromodal association cortices, the former favoring the let hemisphere and the latter favoring the right hemisphere; and (b) expression of local vs “small-world” connectivity, the former favoring the left hemisphere and the latter favoring the right hemisphere.
“Behavioral and Physiological Evidence for Dual Information Processing”
Galang Lufityanto, Ph.D. (Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada and Pearson Cognitive Neuroscience Lab).
Conceptual frameworks, such as Cognitive-Experiential Self Theory (CEST: Epstein, 1998) and Dual-Theory of Information Processing (Evans, 2008) have proposed two cognitive systems, namely rational and experiential, however the empirical study which had been dedicated to collect its physiological evidence was almost non-existent. Using a novel paradigm, our study has demonstrated distinct behavioral and physiological evidence for a dissociation of the two systems. Subjects were required to combine sensory information with emotional information to perform a decision task in a lab setting. Only the “experiential thinkers” were able to combine those two types of information (i.e. multi-modals), while the “rational thinker” tended to go through a distinct strategy to execute the task. More interestingly, there was a group of subjects (we named it as the “flexible thinker) who can switch their information processing mode depending on the given challenges. Our finding elucidates human capacity such as cognitive flexibility which happens to be the determinant of creativity.
PROSEDUR PENDAFTARAN ACARA
- Mengisi FORMULIR PENDAFTARAN ONLINE (http://bit.ly/diskusineuro)
- Melakukan pembayaran ke rekening yang tertera di halaman konfirmasi PENDAFTARAN ONLINE.
- Mengirimkan bukti pembayaran (bisa berupa screenshoot atau foto) melalui WhatsApp ke nomor 085640284009 (Wulan).
- Anda akan menerima pemberitahuan jika pembayaran telah diterima.
- Kuitansi pembayaran asli akan diserahkan pada saat acara berlangsung
Referensi:
- Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experiential self-theory Advanced personality (pp. 211-238): Springer.
- Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 255-278.
- Gazzaniga, M. S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002). Psychological science: Mind, brain, and behavior: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.
- Goldberg, E. (2002). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind: Oxford University Press, USA.
- Niederland, W. G. (1976). Psychoanalytic approaches to artistic creativity. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly.
- Rawat, K. J., Qazi, W., & Hamid, S. (2012). Creativity and education. Academic Research International, 2(2), 264.
- Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General psychology, 8(1), 59.
- Torrance, E. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236-262.
- Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing Creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272-280.