Probing the Mind Behind the (Literal and Figurative) Lightbulb
Liane Gabora

TL;DR
This paper critiques the biological and theoretical foundations of BVSR in creativity research, arguing it lacks a scientific framework and clarifies misconceptions about creative processes and usefulness.
Contribution
It offers a critical analysis of BVSR's limitations and clarifies misconceptions about creativity, emphasizing the importance of a scientific framework and context-dependent usefulness.
Findings
BVSR lacks a scientific framework for hypothesis generation.
Creativity involves internal conception, not just external output.
Usefulness of ideas is context-dependent and not zero-sum.
Abstract
After doing away with the evolutionary scaffold for BVSR, what remains is a notion of "blindness" that does not distinguish BVSR from other theories of creativity, and an assumption that creativity can be understood by treating ideas as discrete, countable entities, as opposed to different external manifestations of a singular gradually solidifying internal conception. Uprooted from Darwinian theory, BVSR lacks a scientific framework that can be called upon to generate hypotheses and test them. In lieu of such a framework, hypotheses appear to be generated on the basis of previous data--they are not theory-driven. The paper does not explain how the hypothesis that creativity is enhanced by engagement in a "network of enterprises" is derived from BVSR; this hypothesis is more compatible with competing conceptions of creativity. The notion that creativity involves backtracking conflates…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
