4 ms·

do discoveries need to be ground breaking in order to be interesting?

by chrsig 4y ago

ysavir 4y ago
Are they really a "discovery" if they aren't? Seems more like a plain observation.
- ddingus 4y ago
  Yes they are. (Often, but not always) Depends on context. In fact, just finding a new context that fits existing discoveries is a discovery. And then there is whether we have fully considered a given observation. Say we make a discovery. It will have an obvious scope. Usually. And then a broader scope will be identified. These discoveries are high value and may even eclipse the original! And then over a very long period of time the more complete implications and ramifications of a discovery should be known. Ever learn something significant that ripples through your mind? Like it has high impact, but it takes processing. And that takes triggers too. For an example, tell me all you know about cars. We can't really do that. Now, say I gave you a profound car fact or dynamic, rule... And then we start talking about cars. You will no doubt realize some discoveries, insight as various things about cars comes to mind, and that fact, or insight ripples through... And of course, you will muse about it on your own, insight spreading rapidly that way too. All of this can make seemingly mundane or obvious things seem boring and ordinary to one of us and powerful and new to others among us. We really are limited in some basic ways we so not often think about. And... There are a lot of us people, a lot of discoveries and so damn much to communicate! We are forever behind in many ways, not just the basic latency that lies between us and reality. I could go on, but the hard fact is we really do ourselves a disservice weighting things like this. Very few of us are qualified enough for it to make sense and for tons of us the data adds next to no value. The better thing is to communicate whether it is new to us and whether a conversation might help to make the most sense. All IMHO of course! I think of this the same general way I do answers to the who is smarter question. Actually answering that is time consuming and we find there are many axis. The answer may not mean much! But there is a related observation I find very useful, and that is we are all likely smart enough! The difference boils down to the amount of work needed to proceed. I will stop there. Hope you all get something valuable from this perspective. I did.
ddingus 4y ago
Nope, see comment below.

do discoveries need to be ground breaking in order to be interesting?

by chrsig 4y ago

do discoveries need to be ground breaking in order to be interesting?

ysavir 4y ago

Are they really a "discovery" if they aren't? Seems more like a plain observation.

ddingus 4y ago
Yes they are. (Often, but not always) Depends on context. In fact, just finding a new context that fits existing discoveries is a discovery. And then there is whether we have fully considered a given observation. Say we make a discovery. It will have an obvious scope. Usually. And then a broader scope will be identified. These discoveries are high value and may even eclipse the original! And then over a very long period of time the more complete implications and ramifications of a discovery should be known. Ever learn something significant that ripples through your mind? Like it has high impact, but it takes processing. And that takes triggers too. For an example, tell me all you know about cars. We can't really do that. Now, say I gave you a profound car fact or dynamic, rule... And then we start talking about cars. You will no doubt realize some discoveries, insight as various things about cars comes to mind, and that fact, or insight ripples through... And of course, you will muse about it on your own, insight spreading rapidly that way too. All of this can make seemingly mundane or obvious things seem boring and ordinary to one of us and powerful and new to others among us. We really are limited in some basic ways we so not often think about. And... There are a lot of us people, a lot of discoveries and so damn much to communicate! We are forever behind in many ways, not just the basic latency that lies between us and reality. I could go on, but the hard fact is we really do ourselves a disservice weighting things like this. Very few of us are qualified enough for it to make sense and for tons of us the data adds next to no value. The better thing is to communicate whether it is new to us and whether a conversation might help to make the most sense. All IMHO of course! I think of this the same general way I do answers to the who is smarter question. Actually answering that is time consuming and we find there are many axis. The answer may not mean much! But there is a related observation I find very useful, and that is we are all likely smart enough! The difference boils down to the amount of work needed to proceed. I will stop there. Hope you all get something valuable from this perspective. I did.

ddingus 4y ago

Nope, see comment below.