| 1. |
- Brinck, Ingar, et al.
(författare)
-
Investigating the development of creativity : The Sahlin hypothesis
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Against boredom : 17 essays : on ignorance, values, creativity, metaphysics, decision-making, truth, preference, art, processes, Ramsey, ethics, rationality, validity, human ills, science and eternal life : to Nils-Eric Sahlin on the occasion of his 60th birthday - 17 essays : on ignorance, values, creativity, metaphysics, decision-making, truth, preference, art, processes, Ramsey, ethics, rationality, validity, human ills, science and eternal life : to Nils-Eric Sahlin on the occasion of his 60th birthday. - 9789187935374 ; , s. 7-23
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- How should the development of creativity be approached? Many accounts of children’s creativity focus on the relation between creativity and pretend play, placing make-believe and the mental exploration of possible scenarios about the world at the fore. Often divergent thinking and story-telling are used to measure creativity with fluency, originality, and flexibility as indicators. I will argue that the strong focus on conceptual processes and higher-order thought leaves procedural forms of creativity in the dark and hinders a proper investigation of the development of creativity. Creativity involves both strategic and procedural elements and the mental and physical manipulation of ideas are equally important. Sahlin’s notion of rule-based creativity might serve as the starting-point for an approach to the development of creativity that is neutral as to the underlying nature of creativity and that permits investigating creativity independently of language. On this approach, creativity is characterized by the violation and subsequent replacement of a rule or norm that underlies a given activity with a novel strategy or procedure. When, where, and how children will manifest creativity is conditional on the kind of rule or norm that is violated.
|
|
| 2. |
- Broström, Linus, et al.
(författare)
-
Known unknowns and proto-second-personal address in photographic art
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Against Boredom : 17 essays : on ignorance, values, creativity, metaphysics, decision-making, truth, preference, art, processes, Ramsey, ethics, rationality, validity, human ills, science and eternal life : to Nils-Eric Sahlin on the occasion of his 60th birthday - 17 essays : on ignorance, values, creativity, metaphysics, decision-making, truth, preference, art, processes, Ramsey, ethics, rationality, validity, human ills, science and eternal life : to Nils-Eric Sahlin on the occasion of his 60th birthday. - 9789187935374
-
Bokkapitel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
The (misconceived) distinction between internal and external validity
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Against boredom: 17 essays on ignorance, values, creativity, metaphysics, decision-making, truth, preference, art, processes, Ramsey, ethics, rationality, validity, human ills, science, and eternal life to Nils-Eric Sahlin on the occasion of his 60th birthday. - 9789187935374 ; , s. 187-195
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Researchers often aim to make correct inferences both about that which is actually studied (internal validity) and about what the results generalize to (external validity). The language of internal and external validity is not used by everyone, but many of us would agree that intuitively the distinction makes a lot of sense. Two claims are commonly made with respect to internal and external validity. The first is that internal validity is prior to external validity since there is nothing to generalize if the findings obtained in, for instance, the experimental setting do not hold. The first claim is explicit in many writings. See for instance Francisco Guala’s influential book The methodology of experimental economics (2005). And it is often implicitly relied on. The second claim is that researchers have to make a trade-off between internal and external validity. When one is increased, the other will decrease. The second claim was made already from the start by D.T Campbell in his classic Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings (e.g., Campbell 1957, 297). There is a certain tension between the first and the second claim. It has been argued before that it might be difficult to combine them. We intend to make the stronger point that both claims are misconstrued. Our hypothesis is that the relationship between internal and external validity has to be re-conceptualized, and we will briefly indicate how.
|
|
