Opinion Complex problem solving in search for complexity Joachim Funke1 1Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Germany. Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic De- cision Making asked me to share my point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (com- plex) problem solving as a research area, about the con- tribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of exper- tise in CPS. Why should there continue to be problem solving research (in addition to research on memory, decision-making, motivation etc.)? Problem solving research is more than a combination of re- search on memory, decision making, or motivation because it integrates all basic functions of the human brain (and the human body) in the service of proper acting. Therefore, a theory of action is needed that brings together the dif- ferent partial cognitive functions with emotion regulation and with motivational issues. Effective problem solving in complex situations requires the integration of cognition, motivation, and emotion. What are the connections between current CPS research practice and real problems? Where do you see potential for development towards stronger relations? Recent research on problem solving is still working with simple problems (e.g., puzzle problems, see Sanders et al., 2019) – the problems in daily life or with regard to life on the planet earth are quite different to either moving “Tow- ers of Hanoi” or finding puzzle pieces – different in terms of complexity, dynamics, intransparency, and incompatibility (or even contradictoriness) of multiple goals. Even what is subsumed under the heading of CPS in modern research has lost the original complexities of real-life problems (for validity issues, see Dörner & Funke, 2017). That state of affairs needs to be changed. Given the artificiality of the laboratory situation, do participants really adopt the presented problems? What insights can be gained despite this artificiality and which cannot? Laboratory experiments are fine for testing hypotheses – but from my point of view, we are far away from com- prehensive theories that would allow for the derivation of specific hypotheses. We are still in need of good field stud- ies (see Brehmer & Dörner, 1993). What evidence exists for the influence of other kinds of knowledge besides structural knowledge on the results of CPS? Which of these kinds of knowledge should be examined in future research? Structural knowledge is only one of the ingredients for successful problem solving. Additionally, there is knowl- edge necessary for interventions into complex systems and knowledge for the identification of unknown systems. The use of semantically "poor" systems (with variable labels like "A", "B", or "C") tries to keep knowledge outside the prob- lem solving process. If we allow problems to be semanti- cally "rich", a broad universe of knowledge becomes imme- diately important. In future research, domain knowledge should be acknowledged as an significant ingredient of any kind of problem solving. The more we allow domain speci- ficity, the more influential becomes domain knowledge. What evidence is available for the impact of strategies (except VOTAT) on the results of CPS? Which of these strategies should be examined more closely? VOTAT is an excellent strategy for simple systems but we need strategy analyses for more complex and realistic prob- lems. Think, for example, of the “Thirty-Six Stratagems” within the Chinese culture based on Sun Tzu’s Art of War – quite different to the simple strategies discussed in recent research papers (Stadler, Fischer, & Greiff, 2019). The identification of simple systems can be approached by sim- ple strategies but once real-life complexities enter the stage, a strategy like VOTAT is no longer helpful. Corresponding author: Joachim Funke, Department of Psychology, Hei- delberg University, Hauptstr. 47, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. E- mail: joachim.funke@pychologie.uni-heidelberg.de 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69299 JDDM | 2019 | Volume 5 | Article 10 | 1 mailto: https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69299 Funke: Complex Problem Solving Is there intuitive CPS? As Kahneman and Klein (2009) explain, there is good rea- son for the assumption of intuitive skills. If that is true, it should be valid also for the domain of complex problem solving. It might be related to wisdom (see, e.g., Fischer, 2015). What distinguishes experts in CPS from laypersons? Experts in solving complex problems have a good under- standing of systems. Funke, Fischer, and Holt (2018, p. 47) argue for a “systems competency” that consists of the ability to construct mental models of systems, to form and test hypotheses, and to develop strategies for system identi- fication and control. Experts in solving complex problems should be particularly skilled on these dimensions. Declaration of conflicting interests: The author de- clares he has no conflict of interests. Author contributions: The author is completely re- sponsible for the content of this manuscript. The ab- stract was added by the editors and modified by the au- thor. Handling editor: Andreas Fischer and Wolfgang Schoppek Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 In- ternational License. Citation: Funke, J. (2019). Complex problem solving in search for complexity. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 5, 10. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69299 Published: 31 Dec 2019 References Brehmer, B., & Dörner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer- simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Comput- ers in Human Behavior, 9(2–3), 171–184. doi:10.1016/0747- 5632(93)90005-D Dörner, D., & Funke, J. (2017). Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1153), 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153 Fischer, A. (2015). Wisdom -The answer to all the questions really worth asking. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(9), 73–83. doi:10.11588/heidok.00019786 Funke, J., Fischer, A., & Holt, D. V. (2018). Competencies for complexity: Problem solving in the twenty-first century. In E. Care, P. Griffin, & M. Wilson (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Research and applications (pp. 41–53). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_ 3 Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive ex- pertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. doi:10.1037/a0016755 Sanders, K. E. G., Osburn, S., Paller, K. A., & Beeman, M. (2019). Targeted memory reactivation during sleep im- proves next-day problem solving. Psychological Science, 28. doi:10.1177/0956797619873344 Stadler, M., Fischer, F., & Greiff, S. (2019). Taking a closer look: An exploratory analysis of successful and unsuccessful strat- egy use in complex problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00777 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69299 JDDM | 2019 | Volume 5 | Article 10 | 2 https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69299 https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153 https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00019786 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_ 3 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619873344 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00777 https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69299