Actual study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.12127 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.12127 Method: To explore this p

Actual study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.12127 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.12127 Method: To explore this potential explanation of the association between far analogies and reduced functional distance of search, we examined the concepts immediately preceding far analogy-to-concept pairs (i.e., far concept-generating or function-finding analogies), focusing on the distance of each concept from its immediate predecessor (i.e., its JUST PRIOR value, derived from Study 1). In building this sample of concepts, we screened out concepts that were not in the same subproblem space as the concept following the analogy, and concepts with predecessors in a different subproblem space. The final sample consisted of 57 concepts. So the whole study based based on 57 verbalised concept transitions and the underlying assumption that iterative verbalised transitions within a group discussion context are true proxies for meaningfully tracking significant iterations in inventive thought process in the participants. A counterexample would be our company, actively involved in R&D on a day to day basis across a range of disciplines very similar to those cited within the study, where far analogies are used however they are typically analyzed privately. The fruits of that thinking are presented for group discussion and the potential for those avenues of thought identified within group discussion, but they are almost never actually fleshed out verbally as a group.