{"title":"关于创造力的双重性:同而不同?","authors":"Mathias Benedek","doi":"10.1017/S0140525X23003308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The creativity literature is replete with dualistic constructs, suggesting shared mechanisms but also tempting overinterpretation of their interrelations. An explicit list of relevant concept associations indicates substantial commonality, yet also exposes certain inconsistencies. Dual-process accounts (A and B is relevant) hold promise in resolving discrepancies to the extent that we understand the relative contributions and conditions of A and B.</p>","PeriodicalId":8698,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","volume":"47 ","pages":"e95"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the dual nature of creativity: Same same but different?\",\"authors\":\"Mathias Benedek\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0140525X23003308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The creativity literature is replete with dualistic constructs, suggesting shared mechanisms but also tempting overinterpretation of their interrelations. An explicit list of relevant concept associations indicates substantial commonality, yet also exposes certain inconsistencies. Dual-process accounts (A and B is relevant) hold promise in resolving discrepancies to the extent that we understand the relative contributions and conditions of A and B.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral and Brain Sciences\",\"volume\":\"47 \",\"pages\":\"e95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral and Brain Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X23003308\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X23003308","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
创造力文献中充斥着二元对立的概念,它们表明了共同的机制,但也诱使人们过度解读它们之间的相互关系。相关概念关联的明确清单显示了大量的共性,但也暴露了某些不一致之处。只要我们了解 A 和 B 的相对贡献和条件,双重过程(A 和 B 相关)的说法就有希望解决差异。
On the dual nature of creativity: Same same but different?
The creativity literature is replete with dualistic constructs, suggesting shared mechanisms but also tempting overinterpretation of their interrelations. An explicit list of relevant concept associations indicates substantial commonality, yet also exposes certain inconsistencies. Dual-process accounts (A and B is relevant) hold promise in resolving discrepancies to the extent that we understand the relative contributions and conditions of A and B.
期刊介绍:
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is a highly respected journal that employs an innovative approach called Open Peer Commentary. This format allows for the publication of noteworthy and contentious research from various fields including psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, and cognitive science. Each article is accompanied by 20-40 commentaries from experts across these disciplines, as well as a response from the author themselves. This unique setup creates a captivating forum for the exchange of ideas, critical analysis, and the integration of research within the behavioral and brain sciences, spanning topics from molecular neurobiology and artificial intelligence to the philosophy of the mind.