A problem with "too basic" is that often experts in a field have a much easier time "just googling" a problem than non-experts. I have for example easily found answers for questions simply by googling "Cognitive Psychology Incubation" and "Threshold Theory Creativity". The problem is no one would actually think to search in this way without a fair background in the relevant concepts.
In addition, novices may fail to critically evaluate "general reference" material. They may dismiss a perfectly accurate Wikipedia article because "anyone can edit that" or accept some random guy's blog without looking for references. Our subject area is one where a real background in the field is needed to evaluate the answers. Due to the format of the site we can assist that evaluation; Google can't.
Even if a question is "basic" as in a beginning Psychology student would know it doesn't mean it's "too basic"; decades or centuries of research, thought and philosophy built up what we now consider "basic" facts.
As long as a good, well supported answer can be provided I don't think there is much of a risk in "general reference" questions that are explicitly on topic. Cognitive Science is a difficult issue to grasp, we should be an open and helpful community to provide answers for these questions.