4 ms·

This may be the most overwrought piece of writing I've ever read. Can someone summarize it? I couldn't make it past the first page. It didn't seem like it was g

This may be the most overwrought piece of writing I've ever read. Can someone summarize it? I couldn't make it past the first page. It didn't seem like it was going anywhere insightful though.

leepowers 12y ago
In brief, the article contends that the idea of disruptive innovation as outlined by the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" lacks any substantive historical analysis and rests solely on cherry-picking very specific businesses and industries. The main "meat" of the criticism begins at the bottom of the second page and spills over to the third: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/23/140623fa_fact_lepore/?currentPage=2 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/23/140623fa_fact_...
- exstudent 12y ago
  Thank you.
- dnautics 12y ago
  That's true, because favorable-normative analysis of "disruptive innovation" suffers from survivorship bias. However, as a posit-ive description of a phenomenon, "innovation" simply put, exists, and I'm not sure what "can be done about it" - after all, "biological natural selection" is basically "disruption", as is "the scientific method". So what? Might as well be disruptive, on the off chance you do society a favor. If you're disruptive and profitable, odds are you're likely doing society a favor (marginal though it might be).
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    That makes very little sense, it's a theory that can apply to anything at all. For any X at all: Sure, there's not actually a lot of evidence that X is correlated with success and/or social benefit, but might as well do X anyway on the off chance that you'll be doing society a favor! What? That's kind of religious thinking, I guess. (Also, what about the 'off chance' you'll be making society worse?) But I'm not sure "be disruptive" actually means much at all anyway. I'm not sure you do either. The scientific method is 'basically disruption', for what definition of 'disruption' exactly? Apparently everything is 'basically disruption'. Or only the things we like?

This may be the most overwrought piece of writing I've ever read. Can someone summarize it? I couldn't make it past the first page. It didn't seem like it was going anywhere insightful though.

leepowers 12y ago

In brief, the article contends that the idea of disruptive innovation as outlined by the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" lacks any substantive historical analysis and rests solely on cherry-picking very specific businesses and industries. The main "meat" of the criticism begins at the bottom of the second page and spills over to the third: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/23/140623fa_fact_lepore/?currentPage=2 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/23/140623fa_fact_...

exstudent 12y ago
Thank you.
dnautics 12y ago
That's true, because favorable-normative analysis of "disruptive innovation" suffers from survivorship bias. However, as a posit-ive description of a phenomenon, "innovation" simply put, exists, and I'm not sure what "can be done about it" - after all, "biological natural selection" is basically "disruption", as is "the scientific method". So what? Might as well be disruptive, on the off chance you do society a favor. If you're disruptive and profitable, odds are you're likely doing society a favor (marginal though it might be).
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  That makes very little sense, it's a theory that can apply to anything at all. For any X at all: Sure, there's not actually a lot of evidence that X is correlated with success and/or social benefit, but might as well do X anyway on the off chance that you'll be doing society a favor! What? That's kind of religious thinking, I guess. (Also, what about the 'off chance' you'll be making society worse?) But I'm not sure "be disruptive" actually means much at all anyway. I'm not sure you do either. The scientific method is 'basically disruption', for what definition of 'disruption' exactly? Apparently everything is 'basically disruption'. Or only the things we like?