Abstract
A B S T R A C T The target article claims that creativity research is in crisis, which is associated with the excessive oversimplification employed in quantitative creativity research. We oppose this view by showing that lab measures of creative cognitive po- tential are valid with respect to real-life creativity and hence represent a valuable means of empirical creativity research. Neuroscientific research in particular, which is often viewed as a considerably artificial paradigm for the study of creativi- ty, is a powerful complemental method to unveil basic cogni- tive mechanisms (e.g., attention and memory processes) involved in creative thought and to extend our understanding of the creating brain. Conceptual clarity and methodological rigor necessarily go along with simplification in natural sci- ence, which does not generally forfeit validity but rather facil- itates the cumulative gain of dependable knowledge. This is particularly important for creativity research, a discipline that risks being seen as an immature science when it attempts to explain more than it actually can.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
