6 ms·

Why does transferring knowledge across domains have such exponential returns? Is it only because the time it takes other fields to adapt to new methodology is

Why does transferring knowledge across domains have such exponential returns? Is it only because the time it takes other fields to adapt to new methodology is longer - or are there other factors? EDIT: Holy crap, I worded this terribly. Rewritten: Why does going across domains with new ideas have such high returns? Obviously you're a fresh idea but are there other reasons that influence your success?

ChuckMcM 15y ago
Expert knowledge has insights, meta-knowledge if you will. It is the insights, the ability to see the thing and then see the stuff that go into it being that thing, which give the exponential returns.
- mgallivan 15y ago
  There's plenty of expert knowledge within each domain, though. It seems that simply being a fresh pair of eyes has an acute effect on success. Hamming suggested it, "You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and /before/ you use up all the old ones."
wonderyak 15y ago
I think its a matter of perspective. Where I went to college (evergreen.edu) they firmly believed in interdisciplinary study because approaching situations with one point of view necessarily makes you blind to others. There are worlds of esoteric knowledge stuffed away in industries that, if applied to other industries would yield amazing innovation. Look what Apple has done with Technology/Liberal Arts.
- SamReidHughes 15y ago
  What did Apple do, make computers that are slightly better/worse than other computers?
  - Hamled 15y ago
    They also made software that is slightly better/worse than other software.
  - wonderyak 15y ago
    Do you remember what computers were like before the Mac? Do you remember what all of Google's services looked like before they let a designer get a hold of them? Apple took technology, created by developers and scientists ('Nerds' for lack of a better generalism) and not only made it accessible; they made things work the way people wanted to use them. Desktop publishing, graphic design, etc. These were things that normal people would not have been able to easily use without a GUI and the tools in place for the creation of the software. If you think this is a natural progression of computing, you're really not giving credit properly. Look how much UX has improved since Google started their redesign initiative. We can sit around an nitpick about whether its good or bad; regardless, its easier to use! Its easier to understand than it used to be! Improvement! When it comes to applying knowledge across domains, its almost a corallary to the Observer principle (if you'll allow me some metaphorical license). The more accurately you are able to observe a specific detail about a larger system, your observations about other details in that system will be less accurate. If you approach a problem, design or otherwise, with many observational vantages; you're less likely to miss details globally. Did I talk myself into a hole here?
yassim 15y ago
"A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points." (Alan Kay and others) Basicly I think its because they have different points of view on problems we can find similarities in.
- gwern 15y ago
  Ah, but which perspective? One can't sell non-apples, and 'a stroll through the insane asylum demonstrates that faith proves nothing'. Perlis, epigram 39: "Re graphics: A picture is worth 10K words - but only those to describe the picture. Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described with pictures."
  - khafra 15y ago
    Is there any way to discover how much selection effect occurs here? I wonder how many people apply insights from study in one field to another, and utterly fail because they weren't applicable at all.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
msbarnett 15y ago
Bringing knowledge/an approach from outside the "channel" gives you a distinctive viewpoint. That distinctiveness is the building block of personality and brand identity, and those are things that cause you to stand out from the pack.
jasonkolb 15y ago
There is a great book that talks about this at length called "Sparks of Genius". It goes into detail about how a conceptual framework from one discipline can lead to blinding insights in another. Highly recommended.
shoover 15y ago
Your question--and Teller's advice about the arts--dovetails with Bret Victor's excellent talk, Inventing on Principle, recently released from CUSEC [1]. He starts by blowing you away with demos of software he's built, but then he backs up and reviews how he got there and why. His self-discovery process involved trying, making, and experiencing lots of things over a difficult period of ten years. That process eventually gave him the perspective to find commonality in things that make him react strongly. From there he found a principle to live by. For Bret and other examples he cites, it's not about domains and returns. It's about having a distinctive principle or cause that guides your decisions and approach to domains. See also: mbarnett's response. I can't say it better than that. 1 - http://vimeo.com/36579366 http://vimeo.com/36579366
a-priori 15y ago
Because all the connections between ideas within a domain have already been mined for everything worthwhile. By connecting two domains, you're exposing a whole new set of connections between things that are rarely connected. There's a theory / definition of creativity that says that it's simply the ability to connect seemingly unrelated things. This is an example of that.
cscheid 15y ago
I think the answer is simpler: it's because you're likely working twice as hard as people exclusively in either field. If you know both fields only superficially, you can't make much of a dent in either. People successful at crossing boundaries simply have done roughly twice as much legwork. As I was once told: "the problem with being a tenured prof in a multidisciplinary department is you have to do tenure-worth work for both sides"

ChuckMcM 15y ago

Expert knowledge has insights, meta-knowledge if you will. It is the insights, the ability to see the thing and then see the stuff that go into it being that thing, which give the exponential returns.

mgallivan 15y ago
There's plenty of expert knowledge within each domain, though. It seems that simply being a fresh pair of eyes has an acute effect on success. Hamming suggested it, "You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and /before/ you use up all the old ones."

wonderyak 15y ago

I think its a matter of perspective. Where I went to college (evergreen.edu) they firmly believed in interdisciplinary study because approaching situations with one point of view necessarily makes you blind to others. There are worlds of esoteric knowledge stuffed away in industries that, if applied to other industries would yield amazing innovation. Look what Apple has done with Technology/Liberal Arts.

SamReidHughes 15y ago
What did Apple do, make computers that are slightly better/worse than other computers?
- Hamled 15y ago
  They also made software that is slightly better/worse than other software.
- wonderyak 15y ago
  Do you remember what computers were like before the Mac? Do you remember what all of Google's services looked like before they let a designer get a hold of them? Apple took technology, created by developers and scientists ('Nerds' for lack of a better generalism) and not only made it accessible; they made things work the way people wanted to use them. Desktop publishing, graphic design, etc. These were things that normal people would not have been able to easily use without a GUI and the tools in place for the creation of the software. If you think this is a natural progression of computing, you're really not giving credit properly. Look how much UX has improved since Google started their redesign initiative. We can sit around an nitpick about whether its good or bad; regardless, its easier to use! Its easier to understand than it used to be! Improvement! When it comes to applying knowledge across domains, its almost a corallary to the Observer principle (if you'll allow me some metaphorical license). The more accurately you are able to observe a specific detail about a larger system, your observations about other details in that system will be less accurate. If you approach a problem, design or otherwise, with many observational vantages; you're less likely to miss details globally. Did I talk myself into a hole here?

yassim 15y ago

"A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points." (Alan Kay and others) Basicly I think its because they have different points of view on problems we can find similarities in.

gwern 15y ago
Ah, but which perspective? One can't sell non-apples, and 'a stroll through the insane asylum demonstrates that faith proves nothing'. Perlis, epigram 39: "Re graphics: A picture is worth 10K words - but only those to describe the picture. Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described with pictures."
- khafra 15y ago
  Is there any way to discover how much selection effect occurs here? I wonder how many people apply insights from study in one field to another, and utterly fail because they weren't applicable at all.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

msbarnett 15y ago

Bringing knowledge/an approach from outside the "channel" gives you a distinctive viewpoint. That distinctiveness is the building block of personality and brand identity, and those are things that cause you to stand out from the pack.

jasonkolb 15y ago

There is a great book that talks about this at length called "Sparks of Genius". It goes into detail about how a conceptual framework from one discipline can lead to blinding insights in another. Highly recommended.

shoover 15y ago

Your question--and Teller's advice about the arts--dovetails with Bret Victor's excellent talk, Inventing on Principle, recently released from CUSEC [1]. He starts by blowing you away with demos of software he's built, but then he backs up and reviews how he got there and why. His self-discovery process involved trying, making, and experiencing lots of things over a difficult period of ten years. That process eventually gave him the perspective to find commonality in things that make him react strongly. From there he found a principle to live by. For Bret and other examples he cites, it's not about domains and returns. It's about having a distinctive principle or cause that guides your decisions and approach to domains. See also: mbarnett's response. I can't say it better than that. 1 - http://vimeo.com/36579366 http://vimeo.com/36579366

a-priori 15y ago

Because all the connections between ideas within a domain have already been mined for everything worthwhile. By connecting two domains, you're exposing a whole new set of connections between things that are rarely connected. There's a theory / definition of creativity that says that it's simply the ability to connect seemingly unrelated things. This is an example of that.

cscheid 15y ago

I think the answer is simpler: it's because you're likely working twice as hard as people exclusively in either field. If you know both fields only superficially, you can't make much of a dent in either. People successful at crossing boundaries simply have done roughly twice as much legwork. As I was once told: "the problem with being a tenured prof in a multidisciplinary department is you have to do tenure-worth work for both sides"