[Paper Review] Why Blind-Variation Selective-Retention is an Inappropriate Explanatory Framework for Creativity

Liane Gabora|arXiv (Cornell University)|Sep 8, 2014

Creativity in Education and Neuroscience8 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper argues that the blind-variation selective-retention (BVSR) framework is fundamentally inadequate for explaining human creativity because it misapplies a biological mechanism—where acquired traits are not inherited—to cognitive processes where ideas are cumulatively shared and modified across individuals. The key contribution is demonstrating that unlike in biological evolution, creative ideas are not discarded at the end of each generation, undermining the core premise of BVSR.

ABSTRACT

Simonton is attempting to salvage the Blind Variation Selective Retention theory of creativity (often referred to as the Darwinian theory of creativity) by dissociating it from Darwinism. This is a necessary move for complex reasons outlined in detail elsewhere. However, whether or not one calls BVSR a Darwinian theory, it is still a variation-and-selection theory. Variation-and-selection was put forward to solve a certain kind of paradox, that of how biological change accumulates (that is, over generations, species become more adapted to their environment) despite being discarded at the end of each generation (that is, parents don't transmit to offspring knowledge or bodily changes acquired during their lifetimes, e.g., you don't inherit your mother's ear piercings). This paradox does not exist with respect to creative thought. There is no discarding of acquired change when ideas are transmitted amongst individuals; we share with others modified versions of the ideas we were exposed to on a regular basis.

Motivation & Objective

• To critique the application of blind-variation selective-retention (BVSR) as a framework for understanding human creativity.
• To highlight the fundamental mismatch between BVSR’s assumptions and the actual dynamics of idea transmission in creative thought.
• To argue that the theory’s reliance on generational discarding of acquired traits does not apply to cultural or cognitive evolution.
• To demonstrate that cumulative cultural evolution operates through sharing and modification, not through random variation and selection across generations.

Proposed method

• Analytical critique of the BVSR framework using logical and conceptual reasoning.
• Comparison of biological evolution—where acquired traits are not inherited—with cultural creativity, where modified ideas are shared and accumulated.
• Examination of the paradox BVSR was designed to resolve: how adaptation accumulates despite discarding of acquired changes in each generation.
• Use of the ear-piercing example to illustrate the non-applicability of BVSR to idea transmission.
• Rejection of the notion that BVSR can be salvaged by dissociating it from Darwinism, as the core mechanism remains flawed.
• Reference to Simonton’s attempt to decouple BVSR from Darwinism as insufficient to resolve its conceptual flaws.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Why is the blind-variation selective-retention model inappropriate for explaining human creativity?
• RQ2 How does the transmission of ideas in human culture differ from the inheritance of biological traits?
• RQ3 What is the role of cumulative modification in creative thought, and how does it contradict BVSR’s assumptions?
• RQ4 Can BVSR be meaningfully separated from Darwinism without resolving its core conceptual flaws?
• RQ5 Why does the paradox of discarding acquired changes not apply to creative idea evolution?

Key findings

• The BVSR framework assumes that acquired changes are discarded at the end of each generation, a condition that does not hold in human creative thought.
• In contrast to biological evolution, individuals in creative domains share and build upon modified versions of ideas, leading to cumulative cultural change.
• The mechanism of idea transmission in creativity involves retention and modification across individuals, not generational selection.
• The theory’s foundational paradox—how adaptation accumulates despite discarding of acquired traits—does not exist in the context of creative cognition.
• Therefore, BVSR fails as a general explanatory framework for creativity due to its misapplication of a biological mechanism to a fundamentally different cognitive process.
• The paper concludes that BVSR cannot be salvaged by rebranding it as non-Darwinian, as its core logic remains inapplicable to idea evolution.