3 ms·

You're missing the definition of a good institution. A "good institution" is one that does not interfere, but also stops others from taking over and interferin

You're missing the definition of a good institution. A "good institution" is one that does not interfere, but also stops others from taking over and interfering. Innovation is as natural as breathing, but so is conquest. After innovation, the winners often use their power to conquer and close the door behind them. This is history too. It is the innovators who tend to shut down the environment that was open enough to enable them to innovate. Winners close the door behind them because they underestimate how much luck went into their success. As everyone knows, the first $20 million is the hardest.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I can't disagree with you. I mean that: I can't. It is logically impossible for me to disagree. My thesis is that there is no repeatable definition of a good institution. Your definition is just as good as any. Personally I like it. I would simply point out that a lot of folks have written a lot of books and essays about what makes a good institution. We've yet to see something reproducible. We've seen a lot of things that sound and feel good, and I completely believe that your points are valid, but that and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I can line up a dozen other folks that will tell you that a good institution fosters creativity, or puts the individual above the group, or is one with a spiritual center, or is one in which open communication is everywhere, or any one of a thousand other things that also sound pretty good. If the answer to this question involved pleasing the most people with your reasoning, there's no doubt in my mind that you would do very well. But it doesn't.
- forensic 16y ago
  While it is hard to somehow "prove" what is the best strategy for an institution, I would say there is indeed hard science that has been done that gives us a fuzzy picture. It's not a perfect science, but then again even quantum physics is incomplete and suffers from anomalies. The entire purpose of social science is to move these questions away from just personal judgement and get SOME level, no matter how small, of objective fact. Organizational psychologists have studied this issue and I think there are some good guidelines. My definition is, admittedly, biased by my own personal judgement. But still, there is real genuine scientific evidence that indicates institutions which empower individuals and allow for a lot of freedom are objectively better than ones that are more authoritarian and brutal. You can operationally define "better" as "the group of choice of a 4/5th majority of randomly selected humans" if you want.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Whoa horsey. Slow down a bit. I'm not saying nothing is provable. I'm not even saying that nothing is useful. What I'm saying is that if I had a zillion dollars, a magic wand, a dumptruck of pixie dust, and a flying unicorn? I still wouldn't be able to create an institution that I would feel comfortable with as being a steady generator of innovation. In addition, I can observe that, as you point out, these things are sociological in nature, not mathematical. I can further observe that lots of people make lots of money selling books and giving speeches and such claiming to be able to make the perfect institution. Since these people continue to generate new ideas and continue to write books and charge for speeches and seminars and such, I believe it is reasonable to assume they have no fully satisfactory answers. I can further observe that many institutions have spent tremendous amounts of money and effort into creating environments that spawn invention and innovation -- to very mixed results. All of these observations lead me to a great deal of skepticism in regards to your statement. That doesn't mean that what you say has no value. I'm sure we could all agree on general attributes that most of the time provide more return than others. But that's a long way from the certainty I was hearing. People talk about fostering innovation and entrepreneurship like it was turning on a light, and that kind of certainty is ludicrous. It's nothing at all like that. All I was trying to do was provide context. I'm done here. No desire to get into an infinite argument stream. Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing them.
    - yters 16y ago
      I think it is an insight just in your statement that there is no such thing as an institution for innovation. That means I should foster innovation where I find it, no matter how unlikely, instead of looking to build utopia.
    - yters 16y ago
      Also, instead of using institutions to foster innovation, I believe innovators should use institutions for their innovation.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I can't disagree with you. I mean that: I can't. It is logically impossible for me to disagree. My thesis is that there is no repeatable definition of a good institution. Your definition is just as good as any. Personally I like it. I would simply point out that a lot of folks have written a lot of books and essays about what makes a good institution. We've yet to see something reproducible. We've seen a lot of things that sound and feel good, and I completely believe that your points are valid, but that and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I can line up a dozen other folks that will tell you that a good institution fosters creativity, or puts the individual above the group, or is one with a spiritual center, or is one in which open communication is everywhere, or any one of a thousand other things that also sound pretty good. If the answer to this question involved pleasing the most people with your reasoning, there's no doubt in my mind that you would do very well. But it doesn't.

forensic 16y ago
While it is hard to somehow "prove" what is the best strategy for an institution, I would say there is indeed hard science that has been done that gives us a fuzzy picture. It's not a perfect science, but then again even quantum physics is incomplete and suffers from anomalies. The entire purpose of social science is to move these questions away from just personal judgement and get SOME level, no matter how small, of objective fact. Organizational psychologists have studied this issue and I think there are some good guidelines. My definition is, admittedly, biased by my own personal judgement. But still, there is real genuine scientific evidence that indicates institutions which empower individuals and allow for a lot of freedom are objectively better than ones that are more authoritarian and brutal. You can operationally define "better" as "the group of choice of a 4/5th majority of randomly selected humans" if you want.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Whoa horsey. Slow down a bit. I'm not saying nothing is provable. I'm not even saying that nothing is useful. What I'm saying is that if I had a zillion dollars, a magic wand, a dumptruck of pixie dust, and a flying unicorn? I still wouldn't be able to create an institution that I would feel comfortable with as being a steady generator of innovation. In addition, I can observe that, as you point out, these things are sociological in nature, not mathematical. I can further observe that lots of people make lots of money selling books and giving speeches and such claiming to be able to make the perfect institution. Since these people continue to generate new ideas and continue to write books and charge for speeches and seminars and such, I believe it is reasonable to assume they have no fully satisfactory answers. I can further observe that many institutions have spent tremendous amounts of money and effort into creating environments that spawn invention and innovation -- to very mixed results. All of these observations lead me to a great deal of skepticism in regards to your statement. That doesn't mean that what you say has no value. I'm sure we could all agree on general attributes that most of the time provide more return than others. But that's a long way from the certainty I was hearing. People talk about fostering innovation and entrepreneurship like it was turning on a light, and that kind of certainty is ludicrous. It's nothing at all like that. All I was trying to do was provide context. I'm done here. No desire to get into an infinite argument stream. Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing them.
  - yters 16y ago
    I think it is an insight just in your statement that there is no such thing as an institution for innovation. That means I should foster innovation where I find it, no matter how unlikely, instead of looking to build utopia.
  - yters 16y ago
    Also, instead of using institutions to foster innovation, I believe innovators should use institutions for their innovation.