Perhaps it is more that the first 70% of a new idea is low hanging fruit and relatively simple techniques work, but refining it and squeezing out that last 30% often requires much more work and much more sophisticated techniques?
Yes, your narrative might be true too. Possibly, both might be true simultaneously.
Natesays:
Thing is, we are largely only concious of the sociopaths that succeed because they make waves and the news reports on them.
Early adopters may always be sociopaths, but the other 90% of the sociopaths are involved in get rich quick schemes that never work out.
Thus, while sociopaths are critical for radical innovation, we should definitely not all be sociopaths. Reminds of the dual decision problem of learning, but at a group conciousness level.
Not to be harsh, but I’m going to posit that the major failure of a lot of your arguments about education are derived from your priveleged position in a society where Foucauldian ideas about social control aren’t regularly interrupted by people with guns.
Not to be harsh, but I’m going to posit that the major failure of a lot of your arguments about education are derived from your priveleged position in a society where Foucauldian ideas about social control aren’t regularly interrupted by people with guns.
Thanks for the reference to Foucault.
Do we need to face guns to have worthwhile ideas?
Parandsays:
Lovely post, I really enjoyed this one. My friend was telling me about a hacker startup here in San Diego building autonomous flight vehicles, made up mostly of Mexican kids from both sides of the border. Not a prestigious degree among them, but apparently doing some of the most innovative work in the field.
As an idea matures, more people of all types participate, leading to a regress towards the mean. This can lead to either a higher or lower concentration of “prestigious degrees.” For instance, the internet first took off in academia, and the web was invented in a research lab filled with “prestigious degrees.” I would wager that the fraction of web users with PhDs has gone down significantly since.
Moreover, since prestigious degrees are somewhat rare, it should be no surprise that they are also somewhat rare among early adopters of anything. I’d like to see the evidence that their representation is below average.
Perhaps it is more that the first 70% of a new idea is low hanging fruit and relatively simple techniques work, but refining it and squeezing out that last 30% often requires much more work and much more sophisticated techniques?
This is closely related to diffusion of innovations. See http://www.openabm.org/book/export/html/2099 (Ryan & Gross) for the basic theory.
@Greg
Yes, your narrative might be true too. Possibly, both might be true simultaneously.
Thing is, we are largely only concious of the sociopaths that succeed because they make waves and the news reports on them.
Early adopters may always be sociopaths, but the other 90% of the sociopaths are involved in get rich quick schemes that never work out.
Thus, while sociopaths are critical for radical innovation, we should definitely not all be sociopaths. Reminds of the dual decision problem of learning, but at a group conciousness level.
Not to be harsh, but I’m going to posit that the major failure of a lot of your arguments about education are derived from your priveleged position in a society where Foucauldian ideas about social control aren’t regularly interrupted by people with guns.
@Nate
Not to be harsh, but I’m going to posit that the major failure of a lot of your arguments about education are derived from your priveleged position in a society where Foucauldian ideas about social control aren’t regularly interrupted by people with guns.
Thanks for the reference to Foucault.
Do we need to face guns to have worthwhile ideas?
Lovely post, I really enjoyed this one. My friend was telling me about a hacker startup here in San Diego building autonomous flight vehicles, made up mostly of Mexican kids from both sides of the border. Not a prestigious degree among them, but apparently doing some of the most innovative work in the field.
As an idea matures, more people of all types participate, leading to a regress towards the mean. This can lead to either a higher or lower concentration of “prestigious degrees.” For instance, the internet first took off in academia, and the web was invented in a research lab filled with “prestigious degrees.” I would wager that the fraction of web users with PhDs has gone down significantly since.
Moreover, since prestigious degrees are somewhat rare, it should be no surprise that they are also somewhat rare among early adopters of anything. I’d like to see the evidence that their representation is below average.
@Lowd
Great counter-analysis.