3 ms·
But that hubris is where progress originates from. You can't separate one from the other, unfortunately. You have to be that stubborn about things you believe y
by garmaine 8y ago
But that hubris is where progress originates from. You can't separate one from the other, unfortunately. You have to be that stubborn about things you believe you are right about, in order to prove the world wrong. (Even if it is him that is wrong in this instance.)
- patcon 8y agoRespectfully disagree. Yes, naiveté (which disruptive thinking is operationalizing in a sometimes-good way) is a positive characteristic to cultivate in society (ie. systems), to enter domains with a little bit of incredulity. But if it exists perpetually in one person on one topic in one set of observations and conditions, then they are simply a stubborn asshole.
- garmaine 8y agoI'm not talking about naiveté. I'm talking about the scientific and philosophical arrogance of following your own models regardless of societal or cultural conventions. This is quite difference from naiveté which is a sort of ignorance from inexperience. People who consistently make revolutionary progress, rather than just get lucky once, are the sorts that "know better" but don't care.
- anentropic 8y agoof course you can separate them it's not a natural law that creative, driven people also have to be petty assholes
- koolba 8y ago> You have to be that stubborn about things you believe you are right about, in order to prove the world wrong. You really don’t. It’s more than possible to believe in big things in one topic whilst not being a complete asshole in another.