Building upon the insights presented in the earlier post from February 2nd, titled "10 Practical Pieces of Advice for Reversing the Decline in Scientific Disruption" (linked above), an in-depth exploration of a paper published in the journal Thinking Skills and Creativity offers valuable insights. This paper provides a comprehensive examination of the pivotal role of divergent thinking in fostering creativity, particularly among early-career scientists. Its findings emphasize the importance of bolstering through exercises that promote cognitive flexibility and deliberate engagement with specific cognitive processes. The study also suggests that customizing creativity training to match individual creativity attitudes could lead to more positive creative outcomes for all students. This underscores the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach and underscores the potential advantages of personalized interventions tailored to individual characteristics and attitudes toward creativity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187123002183#sec0021
However, in my view, a significant oversight is evident. The term "polymath" is notably absent from the entirety of the paper, despite some authors acknowledging the link between polymathy and creativity. Furthermore, a notable paper from last year by Ulrich A.K.Betz underscored that "a new golden age for the polymath is dawning". https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2023/05/game-changers-in-science-and-technology.html
PS - Fortunately, GPT-4 will be able to generate personalized educational materials "tailored to individual learning styles, preferences, and cognitive abilities" as discussed in the April 7 post titled "The new study by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) will empower edtech companies to target universities worldwide"
