3 ms·
he seems to argue that incremental evolution is broken I think he argues that this sort of absolutism is broken. The author isn't proposing that we discard in
by samstokes 12y ago
he seems to argue that incremental evolution is broken
I think he argues that this sort of absolutism is broken.
The author isn't proposing that we discard incremental change, just the uncritical assumption that incremental is the only reasonable change.
See his analogy with portfolio theory: he's not even challenging incrementalism as the default, any more than he'd suggest putting 90% of your money into emerging markets.
- sanderjd 12y agoIt seems more like a historical observation than an uncritical assumption, that incremental change has shown itself to be more successful. The author's claim seems to be that incremental change has been more successful historically because it has more mindshare. I think that causality is backward.