3 ms·

> The thing that’s missing from people’s attention is that usually this change was ripe and if not one person, another would have come along in a short time Th

> The thing that’s missing from people’s attention is that usually this change was ripe and if not one person, another would have come along in a short time This is more or less what i am saying. When conditions are ripe for change, change happens, irrespective of whether there is a "crazy person" around or not. Individuals mostly make a small difference in timing.

colechristensen 4y ago
To the contrary, I think the Roman Empire was a few inspired people short of an Industrial Revolution a thousand years early. Things can be prepared but also waiting for the right spark. There are also lots of circumstances of similarly prepared places where the revolution only happens in one place.
- college_physics 4y ago
  Quantifying the relative importance of "sparks" versus prevailing conditions needs an objective theory of how social and technological evolution happens and we are nowhere close to having that insight. It would probably have a strong dependence on the size of the system (the number of people alive) and the degree of interconnectedness in terms of information and resource flow. The smaller and more disconnected, the more the actual relevance of individual behavior. That is just a guess, though. But perpetuating in the 21st century the myth that "new industries come from crazy people" feels more of an Ayn Randian agenda than a path towards harnessing human creativity.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Why quantify? Do we need to come up with a rigorous method for assigning how much fame a person ought to have based on their accomplishments? Yes, fame can be quite silly and doled out unfairly but the pushback trying to claim individuals who did trigger these paradigm shifts aren’t all that valuable is likewise silly. There is plenty of room between the extremes. Contribution is an exponential distribution, you don’t get by by cutting out the few who contribute a lot or the many who contribute a little.

colechristensen 4y ago

To the contrary, I think the Roman Empire was a few inspired people short of an Industrial Revolution a thousand years early. Things can be prepared but also waiting for the right spark. There are also lots of circumstances of similarly prepared places where the revolution only happens in one place.

college_physics 4y ago
Quantifying the relative importance of "sparks" versus prevailing conditions needs an objective theory of how social and technological evolution happens and we are nowhere close to having that insight. It would probably have a strong dependence on the size of the system (the number of people alive) and the degree of interconnectedness in terms of information and resource flow. The smaller and more disconnected, the more the actual relevance of individual behavior. That is just a guess, though. But perpetuating in the 21st century the myth that "new industries come from crazy people" feels more of an Ayn Randian agenda than a path towards harnessing human creativity.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Why quantify? Do we need to come up with a rigorous method for assigning how much fame a person ought to have based on their accomplishments? Yes, fame can be quite silly and doled out unfairly but the pushback trying to claim individuals who did trigger these paradigm shifts aren’t all that valuable is likewise silly. There is plenty of room between the extremes. Contribution is an exponential distribution, you don’t get by by cutting out the few who contribute a lot or the many who contribute a little.