4 ms·

I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" is the cliche you're looking for. - Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first

I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" is the cliche you're looking for. - Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'.

graeme 13y ago
The parent is referring to a different phenomenon. "The weight of history" might be a way of describing it. In many domains you can't just start over fresh. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" refers to the idea that we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...
- stonemetal 13y ago
  Does that make the "The weight of history" equivalent to "The weight of giants"? That is to say we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before even if that knowledge is wrong.
  - prawks 13y ago
    It's an ideological framework (I guess you could call it that). If a giant's invention of X made Y and Z wildly popular, then we often assume that when designing A, if we want to replicate Y and Z's success, we should start with X. That is, however, not the case. You need to work from the needs of A, and find solutions to those problems regardless of how the giants did things. The giants likely weren't wrong. It's just that your problem is different than theirs, and so their solutions, no matter how great they are, may not be appropriate.
  - graeme 13y ago
    Not quite. The shoulders of giants metaphor is positive. We stand on what they have built and can see farther. The giant is a good thing. The weight of history (I just made it up) is used more negatively, though much that ties us down is indeed valuable. But when trying to do something new you will be constrained by the structures history has left us. This is both good and bad. Given the English connotation of giants from the existing quote, I'd avoid using it in the sense you meant.
pkinsky 13y ago
>- Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'. I think the point is that you should view cars as a physical object composed of engineered subsystems instead of as a cultural phenomenon.
- prawks 13y ago
  This is precisely what it is. The problem is that people view historical success as a starting point (a "shoulder" of a giant) and work from there, rather than what need or problem the giant was solving, and it's requirements. See: the example given of "Foursquare for hikers". Break down the needs of hikers from a social perspective, and start from there. Similarly, break down the power needs of a car. Perhaps a battery isn't even the best way to proceed. Really, you just need power. Thinking a battery is the way to go is already making an assumption that other devices' success with battery power translates to "all problems requiring mobile power work best with batteries". That may not be the case.

graeme 13y ago

The parent is referring to a different phenomenon. "The weight of history" might be a way of describing it. In many domains you can't just start over fresh. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" refers to the idea that we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...

stonemetal 13y ago
Does that make the "The weight of history" equivalent to "The weight of giants"? That is to say we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before even if that knowledge is wrong.
- prawks 13y ago
  It's an ideological framework (I guess you could call it that). If a giant's invention of X made Y and Z wildly popular, then we often assume that when designing A, if we want to replicate Y and Z's success, we should start with X. That is, however, not the case. You need to work from the needs of A, and find solutions to those problems regardless of how the giants did things. The giants likely weren't wrong. It's just that your problem is different than theirs, and so their solutions, no matter how great they are, may not be appropriate.
- graeme 13y ago
  Not quite. The shoulders of giants metaphor is positive. We stand on what they have built and can see farther. The giant is a good thing. The weight of history (I just made it up) is used more negatively, though much that ties us down is indeed valuable. But when trying to do something new you will be constrained by the structures history has left us. This is both good and bad. Given the English connotation of giants from the existing quote, I'd avoid using it in the sense you meant.

pkinsky 13y ago

>- Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'. I think the point is that you should view cars as a physical object composed of engineered subsystems instead of as a cultural phenomenon.

prawks 13y ago
This is precisely what it is. The problem is that people view historical success as a starting point (a "shoulder" of a giant) and work from there, rather than what need or problem the giant was solving, and it's requirements. See: the example given of "Foursquare for hikers". Break down the needs of hikers from a social perspective, and start from there. Similarly, break down the power needs of a car. Perhaps a battery isn't even the best way to proceed. Really, you just need power. Thinking a battery is the way to go is already making an assumption that other devices' success with battery power translates to "all problems requiring mobile power work best with batteries". That may not be the case.