Going a step further, I doubt it is just experts that have a hard time distinguishing misfits from cranks.
I am not even sure the misfits themselves know whether they are a crank or not until they put in the work, try their idea, and either succeed or fail.
Scott Fryesays:
Ah! But the real question is what is the ratio between cranks and misfits. How many start-ups fail for each Google or Amazon that succeeds amazingly. How many fail for everyone that even turns a profit? As always, the more risk you are willing to take the greater the benefits or failures you are likely to reap!
If you can, take the risk, dare to make the world a better place and if you fail, don’t be discouraged, just try again!
It is true that people who succeed in the current system have little incentive to dismantle it. Why should librarians, bookstores, newspapers, or journalists try to make themselves obsolete? So it should come as no surprise that the innovators of these technologies had nothing to lose from the innovation.
But I think attributing all “radical innovation” to “misfits” is a mistake. Let’s look at a few other radical innovations. When Louis Pasteur invented vaccination, he was a biomedical researcher. The breakthroughs at Bell Labs and Xerox PARC came from experts, specialists, researchers. Thomas Edison was a researcher. Nikola Tesla was a researcher. Ben Franklin was a researcher.
For the most part, inventing new technology is the job of researchers and innovators, not librarians or scribes. Unsurprisingly, the most radical innovations often come from people who specialize in innovation. No secret.
I agree with Scott Frye completely. I want to take it one step further. Even though we may not be the innovators. We can use and share what we learn. In this way we can all participate in innovation. Using and sharing are so critical to new technology and new innovations.
Great post!
Going a step further, I doubt it is just experts that have a hard time distinguishing misfits from cranks.
I am not even sure the misfits themselves know whether they are a crank or not until they put in the work, try their idea, and either succeed or fail.
Ah! But the real question is what is the ratio between cranks and misfits. How many start-ups fail for each Google or Amazon that succeeds amazingly. How many fail for everyone that even turns a profit? As always, the more risk you are willing to take the greater the benefits or failures you are likely to reap!
If you can, take the risk, dare to make the world a better place and if you fail, don’t be discouraged, just try again!
@b1ff No doubt, it helps to be at Stanford near all the smart people, attracted there by the smart professors.
The first Google came from graduate students, who might have gotten some ideas from their cranky “University professor”…
It is true that people who succeed in the current system have little incentive to dismantle it. Why should librarians, bookstores, newspapers, or journalists try to make themselves obsolete? So it should come as no surprise that the innovators of these technologies had nothing to lose from the innovation.
But I think attributing all “radical innovation” to “misfits” is a mistake. Let’s look at a few other radical innovations. When Louis Pasteur invented vaccination, he was a biomedical researcher. The breakthroughs at Bell Labs and Xerox PARC came from experts, specialists, researchers. Thomas Edison was a researcher. Nikola Tesla was a researcher. Ben Franklin was a researcher.
For the most part, inventing new technology is the job of researchers and innovators, not librarians or scribes. Unsurprisingly, the most radical innovations often come from people who specialize in innovation. No secret.
I agree with Scott Frye completely. I want to take it one step further. Even though we may not be the innovators. We can use and share what we learn. In this way we can all participate in innovation. Using and sharing are so critical to new technology and new innovations.