in this sense, it could be related to far analogies, but perhaps more closely to conceptual combination
Design: single factor, 4 between-subjects condition (nothing aka control vs. vs. surface similar before problem (clocks) vs. surface dissimilar (water meter, heart rate monitor, cassette tape recorded) before problem vs. surface dissimilar during problem (after filler task). All stimuli text only.
Similar to Dunbar's claim that [[CLM - far analogies are systematically overrated in their importance for creative breakthroughs due to memory bias - @dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]: here we consider the possibility that the historical record is misleading
this really reminds me of dunbar's claim about [[CLM - far analogies are systematically overrated in their importance for creative breakthroughs due to memory bias - @dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]
this makes me think that it's related to far analogies because there is a lot of clear groundedness in an existing literature
measure: analogy within-domain vs. not (far analogies): domain is defined as psychology, bc couldn't reason through systematic way of distinguishing between domains?
Dunbar also claims that [[CLM - far analogies are systematically overrated in their importance for creative breakthroughs due to memory bias - @dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]
for now, we know this connects well to far analogies because ~96% of the novel combinations are cross-disciplinary. which... makes sense based on how they define it.
the relevance for our question here is that inventors who explore a new field (to the extent that it is different from their own) and then later go on to invent new things that are better are at least possibly (we don't know for sure) doing a form of far analogies or conceptual combination: tough to distinguish.
also interesting is the idea of distant recombination, which feels like a mix of far conceptual combination and far analogies and outsider innovation, depending on the examples. don't find this to be particularly well theorized. but this connects very well to the way @uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013 and @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017 think about things
Authors claim that these results (particularly the [contrast in use of far analogies]([[EVD - Far analogies were rare and never used in psychology lab group meetings for reasoning (vs. mere mentions); far analogies were rare in colloquia as well, but were frequently used for reasoning - @sanerAnalogiesOutBlue1999]]) between lab group meetings and colloqiua) support the claim that [[CLM - far analogies are systematically overrated in their importance for creative breakthroughs due to memory bias - @dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]