4 ms·
I agree with your assessment of the main points of this article. However, when I read the post, it felt very disconnected. He presents his model of upside deca
by mijoharas 5y ago
I agree with your assessment of the main points of this article.
However, when I read the post, it felt very disconnected. He presents his model of upside decay... and then, a GDP graph? Ok... let's see how this is relevant... Ummm... it's not really.
The problem is, I'm sympathetic to some of the drive underlying his points I think, they're just too diffuse and unconnected for me to appreciate in this article.
From top to bottom:
1. what evidence is there GDP growth is predicated upon a few large bursts of progress rather than steady iteration (I think this is likely, but it's asserted without evidence).
2. We've established that we're talking about upside decay, so why are we switching to comparing 0.5 ^ 5 vs. 0.3 ^ 5? (you can argue that he's integrating the side of the normal distribution above 0 for the non-upside-decay and upside-decay case, but why? it doesn't fit with the argument being made, why are we arguing that this model fits what we're trying to look at?).
3. So now we introduce "weak ties" and how they regulate upside-decay. Why? It's presented with no evidence or argument.
e.t.c.
I feel like my comment has come off negative, though I don't particularly want it to. I think there's some interesting stuff here, I just don't think it's particularly well grounded.
- slowmovintarget 5y agoIt appears he was taking notes on a talk he attended and published them.
- mijoharas 5y agoOh... that explains things. Apologies if I was negative! Would love to see additional arguments from this talk. Does anyone know the primary source?
- GoTao 5y agoNot sure how much more info to give, but the talk was given in the University of Hong Kong a week prior this posting!
- skmurphy 5y agoThe article was from October of 2020 so it's more likely the article influenced a talk given last week than vice versa.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- skmurphy 5y agoThe article was from October 2020 so this looks more like someone being facetious.
- skmurphy 5y agomy take: 1. It's an assertion. I think a punctuated equilibrium model is a reasonable argument looking at the last 250 years or so of technology progress but I agree he does not present data. 2. I understood this to mean that a breakthrough is a "combination lock" event that requires multiple positive events to align. If counter parties are more suspicious of you then the odds of a favorable interaction go from 50% to 30% so the odds crater. 3. Your reputation is bounded within a group context. Your weak ties are more likely to lead novel insights and (see for example Granovetter's "Strength of Weak Ties" https://sociology.stanford.edu/publications/strength-weak-ties https://sociology.stanford.edu/publications/strength-weak-ti...) by enabling unique combinations of multiple ideas. I think your critique is accurate but from my perspective Lui's article represents some very innovative thinking that offer the core of several valuable insights.