Epic quote

[Mark Carolus]

Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google: "Innovation never comes from the established institutions. It's always a graduate student, or a crazy person, or somebody with a great vision."

 

 

Google itself was once an innovation, developed by people without the intent to profit.

Since the success of Google, it has been unable to make new innovations and instead they bought things like Youtube.

 

Youtube, was a project someone did for a hobby, which became larger than expected by the creator of it.

 

The Apple 1, was created by a hobbyist ( Steve "the Woz" Wozniak), without the intention to make a profit, it was Steve Jobs who saw the profit potential and went with it, once again, we can clearly state, that the innovation itself, was NOT intended for profit and/or created with a profit motive.

 

Myspace, was created by someone, without the profit motive in mind, once the concept seemed to be successful, someone who DID have a profit incentive ran with it and made Facebook.

Facebook was made with the profit motive in mind, but the innovation itself was not.

 

The Wright brothers, wanted to make a flying machine, because they had a passion for flying, they never had a profit motive .

 

I could go on and on and on if i wanted to, but i think the point has been made.

NO, money most definitely DOES NOT cause innovation and therefore libertarian and capitalist "incentive philosophy" is incorrect.

 

Also, please take a look at Dan Pink's TED talk, that will further back these claims up.

 

 

I feel like we all (me included) have blinders on, that prevents us from seeing things that are not in our usual pattern of thinking and i also think, that exactly for this reason, we can/will never "create/ live in" a world in which we all agree.

[Wesley]

The Wright brothers, wanted to make a flying machine, because they had a passion for flying, they never had a profit motive .

I don't want to hijack totally, but I have a problem with this. The Wright brothers were hardly the first or the only to make any kind of flying machine. They were IP bullies who were first in line at the patent office when the created it and proceeded to hold the US massively behind in flight innovation for many years with one of the many examples in US history of patent trolling (suing anyone who did anything with flight and didn't pay them a bunch of money).

 

So yea, didn't want to take away too much from what you were saying, but I am not a fan of the Wright brothers.

[Mark Carolus]

I don't want to hijack totally, but I have a problem with this. The Wright brothers were hardly the first or the only to make any kind of flying machine. They were IP bullies who were first in line at the patent office when the created it and proceeded to hold the US massively behind in flight innovation for many years with one of the many examples in US history of patent trolling (suing anyone who did anything with flight and didn't pay them a bunch of money).

 

So yea, didn't want to take away too much from what you were saying, but I am not a fan of the Wright brothers.

Hmmm, I did not know that, good to know.

Doesn't disprove the point though, but you acknowledged that already

[greekredemption]

Capitalism may not cause innovation per se, but it seems as if it does ensure efficient distribution of innovations.

[Jorell]

NO, money most definitely DOES NOT cause innovation and therefore libertarian and capitalist "incentive philosophy" is incorrect.

 

I find the idea intriguing (and inspiring), but it's very difficult to take any premise seriously with this kind of grandstanding generalization.

(follow-up to that)... as a matter of principle myself, I actually believe in forms of motivation that take higher priority than monetary compensation. Most of my personal breakthroughs have been (and Dan Pinks TED video is great BTW - it's a great concept to explore and deserves individual consideration) at the behest of my own inspiration. So, in a very personal sphere I do believe in this principle works for me... in many instances.

 

Where I disagree is that I this concept lacks universality, it's so dependent on individual variables, personality, circumstance and perception. Motivation as a study has been around for for a very long time, and has thousands of contributors - from Carl Jung to Tony Robbins. Who is to say that this applies to everyone?

 

Also, what makes you think that this concept dis-validates the 'incentive philosophy'? Are you suggesting that the incentive philosophy simply does not work, or is less effective? In the context your projecting, does personal gain not factor into the 'incentive philosophy'? Does pride, recognition, better quality of life count as personal gain? 

 

Are you suggesting that the incentive philosophy can never be responsible for innovation in society, or are you talking more in personal intimate motivational terms - like, "you'll never achieve creativity / innovation that is genuinely meaningful to you, using an incentive."

 

There are a lot of considerations that I think are being ignored; unseen considerations. Firstly, how many ideas have you come up with because you were in a situation, that you never would have been in had there not been an incentive in place initially? I've had some projects in my career that have earned me a lot of recognition but no additional pay. However, had I not already been in a position in which the incentive to be employed was already established... that opportunity to even be presented with a challenge to innovate - it never would have existed. That "Eureka!" moment at the 11th hour can happen because of circumstances that are already in motion, that were initiated on the basis of an incentive... so while the innovative idea wasn't immediately linked to the motivation for compensation - I feel it's a difficult factor to ignore.

 

I find it a lot more likely to be creative when I know my physical, financial and emotional needs are already ensured... but maybe that's just me.

[dsayers]

I feel like we all (me included) have blinders on

 

I have to agree. Specifically, I think your understanding of terms such as profit and capitalism is lacking.

 

You used your body, your time, your computer, your internet access, and your access to this forum (your capital) to make this thread. You made this thread out of a perception that it was the best use of your time in that moment (profit).

 

Profit means advantage. benefit, or gain. It doesn't have to be monetary. Neither does capitalism. You are born with a body so you are a capitalist and everything you do is a form of capitalism as a result. Even just sitting there and thinking.

 

"incentive philosophy" is incorrect.

 

"People respond to incentives." This is correct. There is a reason why you posted this thread here instead of taking out a newspaper ad or buying some air time, both of which would potentially reach more people. You did it first of all because it was free by comparison. Monetarily speaking; you did have to invest your capital (time) as stated above. The second is because you believe people here are interested both in this topic and with honesty, so you thought it would be helpful. Like profit and capitalism, you cannot escape incentive, even if you make a poor decision as (self-contradictory) proof that you are not motivated by it.

 

Steve Jobs was able to sell a lot more iPads than Apple 1s. Facebook is more popular than myspace. These things would be true if one was developed for personal pleasure and the other was designed to make lots of money or the other way around. People are more interested in and/or willing to pay (more) for that which better addresses their desires. In other words, it wouldn't matter if you did something for the purpose of making money if what you did doesn't appeal to other people. The motivation is incidental.

[cab21]

innovation never comes from the established institutions.

 

what proof is there for this claim?

 

http://www.ideo.com/work/#work_categories

one example of innovation from a established institution

[Mark Carolus]

Ok, let's step it up a notch.

 

I see innovation as i see revolution and improvement as i see evolution.

In other words, an innovation is a revolutionary idea and an improvement is the evolution of an idea.

 

The smart-phone was not an innovation, but rather an improvement upon the mobile phone (the mobile phone is an innovation).

Here's an even more painful truth for you.

 

Stefan's claim that central planning will never ever ever work....

While i do agree, that it has never been proven to work (in the long run), without severe "side-effects", i have to say that this statement is false.

 

Why do i say this?

 

The fact that most innovations and improvements upon those innovations, were made by nazi Germany and the fact that most if not everything we take for granted today, comes from those nazi German developments or is made possible because of nazi German technology.

Nazi Germany, held and filed an absolutely insane amount of groundbreaking patents.

While it is true that the nazi's also stole quite a lot of patents, taking those into account we still see a record number of patents filed.

 

I don't think you can get much more centrally planed than nazi Germany.

 

One other thing.

Before you go pointing out how many patents the USA files per year these days (which is the same amount of patents the Japanese file per capita btw).

Let us have a look at what kind of patents are being filed these days......

BULLSHIT patents mostly, Apple being the most notorious bullshit patent filer.

A patent on a specific color scheme, is a bullshit patent.

A patent on a swipy bullshit unlock method, is a bullshit patent.

A patent on a square shape with rounded corners, is a bulshit patent.

 

I hope you get the idea.

[dsayers]

Ok, let's step it up a notch.

 

Without at all addressing any of the feedback offered thus far? What incentive would anybody have to continue to speak with you if they have no reason to anticipate that their input would be acknowledged? You make it clear that you are not interested in a discussion, but just putting forth claims regardless of how (in)accurately they describe the real world.

 

I continue only for the benefit of other people that might actually be led astray.

 

Stefan's claim that central planning will never ever ever work....

While i do agree, that it has never been proven to work (in the long run), without severe "side-effects", i have to say that this statement is false.

 

Because you're trying to obfuscate the truth with words like innovation, evolution, revolution, etc. Simply put, central planning is internally inconsistent. It makes the claim that X is how EVERYBODY should do something. In order for this claim to be true, everybody would have to be identical with regards to the claim. However, if this were the case, then no central plan would be required as it would occur just the same.

 

I realize I've only made the case thus far for a central plan to be superfluous or expletive.

 

The point where it becomes internally inconsistent is that it is literally impossible for everybody to be identical with regards to a claim. Simply because how we value various things changes even within the same person given a myriad of related factors. Such as how you value a good meal after you've just eaten compared to when you haven't eaten for 12 hours. So in order for everybody to be identical in any regard that isn't fundamental, we'd have to all be identical in every other regard as well. Occupying the same space, with identical experiences, chemical makeup, etc.

[Mark Carolus]

Because you're trying to obfuscate the truth with words like innovation, evolution, revolution, etc. Simply put, central planning is internally inconsistent. It makes the claim that X is how EVERYBODY should do something. In order for this claim to be true, everybody would have to be identical with regards to the claim. However, if this were the case, then no central plan would be required as it would occur just the same.

 

How come you are trying to mix up central planning of an economy, with central planning of how one should behave?

I don't believe i ever said anything about central planning of our collective behavior.

Am i missing something here, or are you unable or unwilling to detach economic "control" from behavioral "control".

[cab21]

The fact that most innovations and improvements upon those innovations, were made by nazi Germany and the fact that most if not everything we take for granted today, comes from those nazi German developments or is made possible because of nazi German technology.

instead of saying "the fact", can you give the evidence for this?

[Mark Carolus]

instead of saying "the fact", can you give the evidence for this?

 

I don't mean to offend you, but if you need me to supply you with evidence of this, something is very wrong and you need to study your history.

 

Here's a few examples.

 

jet engine.

nuclear fission.

the flying wing body air plane.

artificial oil.

artificial rubber (this used to be made from rubber tress).

color film.

rockets.

Fanta.

computer, invented by Konrad Zuse (even though there are still enough dicks, who claim ir was first made by the British).

first to link smoking with cancer.

stealth technology.

audio technology using magnetic tape.

Wankel rotary engine.

freeways.

radar guidance.

night vision goggles.

modern sewage treatment.

the Englishman, Farnsworth, gets credit for the invention of a very rudimentary television, it was the Third Reich that perfected television and conducted the first broadcasting.

seismic wave detection.

the rail gun (which led to the invention of maglev-trains).

synthetic fuels.

genetics.

[cab21]

what are your sources?

 

you think genetics were invented by nazi germany?

 

1933 to 1945 was the time period

 

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kahales/301genetics/timeline.html

 

so how did nazi germany invent genetics?

 

konrad zuse invented the computer, that's a bit different than saying the nazi government invented the computer.

 

 

i don't think the funding of the science, or the institution gets the credit for develuping the science, the mind who invented it gets credit. a political regime cannot invent anything, it can only fund it. to give some retard nazi germany sterilized with their eugenics program credit for  the inventions of konrad zuse seems a bit of a stretch.

 

konrad zuse, not nazi germany, gets credit.

[Mark Carolus]

what are your sources?

 

you think genetics were invented by nazi germany?

 

1933 to 1945 was the time period

 

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kahales/301genetics/timeline.html

 

so how did nazi germany invent genetics?

 

konrad zuse invented the computer, that's a bit different than saying the nazi government invented the computer.

 

 

i don't think the funding of the science, or the institution gets the credit for develuping the science, the mind who invented it gets credit. a political regime cannot invent anything, it can only fund it. to give some retard nazi germany sterilized with their eugenics program credit for  the inventions of konrad zuse seems a bit of a stretch.

 

konrad zuse, not nazi germany, gets credit.

 

I never stated that it was the political regime that did the invention, i merely pointed out, that even under this political regime, innovation still occurs and in fact, it was even higher than it is now (if we factor in the fact that most current innovations, are merely updates of older innovations and or the mixing of older innovations into a single new innovation).

 

whether Nazi Germany came up with the first workable form of genetic manipulation, is not that big a deal, even is this information is not correct, it is only one out of many, disproving one does not disprove them all.

[cab21]

I never stated that it was the political regime that did the invention, i merely pointed out, that even under this political regime, innovation still occurs and in fact, it was even higher than it is now (if we factor in the fact that most current innovations, are merely updates of older innovations and or the mixing of older innovations into a single new innovation).

 

that innovation was higher then than it is now has to be looked at .

that many patents are evolutions or mixing older innovations is not a factor in what new innovations are coming out in any given time period.

if the invention is a update, one would have to look at the human need for a update, or something new. does the wheel need a update or a revolution for instance.

 

say that period in Germany was the most innovative, what factors made it so?