请阅读Passage l，完成小题。
Passage 1
In the field of psychology, there has long been a certain haziness surroundingthe definition of creativity, an I-know-it-when-I-see-it attitude that haseluded a precise formulation. During our conversation, Mark Beeman, acognitive neuroscientist at Northwestern University, told me that he usedto be reluctant to tell people what his area of study was, for fear of beingdismissed or misunderstood. What, for instance, crosses your mind when youthink of creativity? Well, we know that someone is creative if he producesnew things or has new ideas. And yet, as John Kounios, a psychologist atDrexel University who collaborates frequently with Beeman, points out, thatview is wrong, or at least not entirely right. \"Creativity is theprocess, not the product,\" he says.
To illustrate, Beeman offers an example. Imagine someone who has never used orseen a paperclip and is struggling to keep a bunch of papers together.Then the person comes up with a new way of bending a stiff wire to holdthe papers in place. \"That was very creative,\" Beeman says.On the flip side, if someone works in a new field--Beeman gives theexample of nanotechnology--anything that he produces may be consideredinherently \"creative.\" But was the act of producingit actually creative? As Beeman put it,\"Not all artists arecreative. And some accountants are very creative.\"
Insight, however, has proved less difficult to define and to study. Because itarrives at a specific moment in time, you can isolate it, examine it, andanalyze its characteristics. \"Insight is only one part ofcreativity,\" Beeman says.\"But we can measure it. We have a temporalmarker that something just happened in the brain. I′d never say that′s allof creativity, but it′s a central,identifiable component.\" Whenscientists examine insight in the lab, they are looking at what types of attentionand thought processes lead to that moment of synthesis: If you are trying tofacilitate a breakthrough, are there methods you can use that help? If youfeel stuck on a problem, are there tricks to get you through?
In a recent study, Beeman and Kounios followed people′s gazes as they attemptedto solve what′s called the remote-associates test, in which the subject isgiven a series of words, like \"pine,\"\"crab,\" and\"sauce,\" and has to think of a single word that can logically bepaired with all of them.
They wanted to see if the direction of a person′ s eyes and her rate ofblinking could shed light on her approach and on her likelihood ofsuccess. It turned out that if the subject looked directly at a word andfocused on it--that is, blinked less frequently, signaling a higher degree ofclose attention--she was more likely to be thinking in an analytical,convergent fashion, going through possibilities that made sense andsystematically discarding those that didn′ t. If she looked at \"pine,\"say,she might be thinking of words like \"tree,\" \"cone,\" and\"needle,\" then testing each option to see if it fit with theother words. When the subject stopped looking at any specific word, eitherby moving her eyes or by blinking, she was more likely to think ofbroader, more abstract associations.
That is a more insight-oriented approach.\"You need to learn not just tostare but to look outside your focus,\" Beeman says. (The solution tothis remote-associates test: \"apple. \")
As it turns out, by simple following someone′s eyes and measuring her blinksand fixation times, Beeman′s group can predict how someone will likelysolve a problem and when she is nearing that solution. That′s an importantconsideration for would-be creative minds: it helps us understand howdistinct patterns of attention may contribute to certain kinds of insights.
Which of the following is closest in meaning to the underlinedword\"haziness\" in PARAGRAPH ONE?

A.Arbitrariness.

B.Vagueness.

C.Misunderstanding.

D.Controversy.