We propose that the processes underlying insight problem solving in humans depend on two distinctly different forms of curiosity: Curiosity1 (which is associated with a habit-based, goal-centered, reinforcement learning processing system), and Curiosity2 (which depends on the discursive, default mode, medial-temporal-lobe based processing system). The former kind of curiosity is goal directed and increases with approach to the rewarding answer. The latter is exploratory and goal averse: “twiddling.” The possibility of insight, we suggest, depends upon the individual initiating a deliberate system switch upon apprehension of an impasse. Problem solving involves engaging in a habitual mode of responding and motivation by Curiosity1. With insight problems, however, this normal mode fails to lead to a solution, and impasse results. Acknowledgment of the impasse may trigger a strategic switch to a different kind of curiosity and information processing system: the discursive, default mode Curiosity2 system, wherein the solution that was previously unavailable may be found. This view is consistent with traditional stages posited to be involved in insight problem solving. However, several paradigms used to study creativity or investigate 'Aha!' reactions do not fit easily with this view of insight. Using this perspective, we evaluate the evidence for insight in nonhuman animals.

This chapter serves as the general introduction to the volume. It discusses two major impasses plaguing EMU in the 2020s: the first, a clash between politicization of EMU decisions, on the one hand, and an institutional structure designed to reject political conflict, on the other; the second, a scholarly impasse between those analysing EMU accountability comparatively and those doing so through EMU specific standards. The chapter briefly introduces the core concepts used in the volume as a means of overcoming this impasse: the distinction between procedural and substantive accountability as well as the normative goods framework developed in Chapter 1. It finally provides an overview of the structure and content of the volume, concluding with a plea to focus scholarly attention on EMUs substantive accountability deficits.

Chapter 5 looks at deliberations. The traditional view of deliberations is that jurors are capable from the moment they are selected to deliberate in a way that yields a fair and just verdict. In contrast, the transformation view recognizes that jurors must perform a task for which they have not volunteered; they must be aware of their personal biases and try not to be swayed by them; they must deliberate to try to reach a unanimous verdict with a group of strangers; and they must decide the facts and apply the law even though both are new to them. However, the experiences they have gone through as jurors have helped to prepare them to deliberate. In addition, the setting and structure of the deliberations help them to maintain the necessary discipline. The jurors are secluded in the jury room; they are required to vote and to give reasons to the group; if unanimity is required they must come to a group understanding; and they must make a decision that has serious consequences. There are features of deliberations that help jurors to assume their role as jurors, such as having a foreperson, a diverse jury, a group deliberation, and the judge's instructions.

This chapter examines the affective dimension of the unsaid. It proposes an affective approach to understanding, researching, and writing the unsaid by outlining and utilizing two distinct yet resonate methodologies, grounded in the research practices of each author. In doing so, the chapter shows how different methodological approaches to the challenge of writing the unsaid offer an unfolding of potentials for how silence might speak without words. The chapter begins with a brief account of affect studies in the humanities before detailing a methodology of affective witnessing to the silence of political violence, followed by an examination of the relations between silence and the body in the unsaid of sexual abuse and the problem of writing in the face of blockages to speaking. In closing, it considers in more general terms what affective methodologies might bring to qualitative research into the unsaid.