Possible and Impossible: how skepticism stifles innovation
Many brilliant ideas that can change the world, die because of skepticism. To move forward, you need to learn to see any idea of benefit, not to make fun of its shortcomings.
Today it has become fashionable to write articles, comments and tweets about how wrong the young company. People love to read and write about what someone’s idiotic company, whose ideas are stupid, skeptical Prim lips and laugh over precipices. And it kills brilliant ideas and good projects, and mostly works against the cynics.
Reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable try to shape the world for themselves. Therefore progress depends on unreasonable people.
George Bernard Shaw
Why does this matter? Why you should think about what attitude to new ideas is leaning in the wrong direction? Why is it important to find, correct, interesting, need some company, than the fact that it is wrong and ridiculous?
The concept of «technology» can be perceived as the best way to do something. The best way to store information, the best currency, the best way to make friends is to find something from this, means to improve the millennial experience of mankind, and it is not so simple.
On some level it seems that it is simply impossible to do something better. There are such thoughts: is from ancient times and until 2014, no one thought about this? Am I the only one smart?
From a psychological point of view it is very important to create something, one must eliminate such thoughts indefinitely.
The start-up of new technologies is a time when talented people can imagine.
Culture «Possible» and «Impossible»
People often wonder why large companies have problems with innovation, while small companies easily carry out various innovations. The fact that large companies have more ideas but they cannot implement them because too many people have to approve the idea before you implement it.
If some wise guy will find the idea of a negative quality, and is often done just to show their power, it’ll just kill her and put an end to the project. And it fosters a «Culture of No».
The big problem of innovation is that great ideas often look like bad. All because they are so new that it is difficult to imagine how they will earn.
Large companies focused on creative, as Amazon or Google, care about their innovators. Larry page definitely will Finance a good idea of what that looks like bad, and eliminate the reason for which it can be implemented.
This attitude can be called «Culture».
Some people would like to turn the world of technology in one large company with a degenerative Culture is Impossible,» and in contempt for brilliant ideas and technologies is nothing new.
New ideas may not be entirely successful, but it does not mean that nothing of them could not be found. Though it will have to change their attitude to innovation and to lose a fair share of skepticism. Here are a few examples from history that demonstrate this.
In 1837 Charles Babbage wanted to build something he called the «Analytical machine» — the world’s first General-purpose computer. If Babbage’s machine to give enough resources it could calculate anything that can a modern computer.
The computation would be slower, and the computer would be just a huge (very slowly indeed giant), but he would have still done all the calculations that are available to modern computers.
Babbidge and failed to bring your project to life, because in 1837 to build a machine out of wood and run it through steam was too ambitious idea.
In the end, the mathematician and astronomer George airy Bagel said British Finance Ministry that the analytical machine, «empty», and Babbage’s project should be stopped. Shortly thereafter, the government froze the project. The world has forgotten about this idea until 1941, she was killed by scepticism and forgotten completely.
After 177 years, it is easy to notice that his vision was correct, and computers is not in vain. As for Babbage, the most important thing in his life that he suggested the idea early on 100 years than the world was ready to accept her and the fact that it was a great idea and the determination to promote it.
An example of this scientist still inspires many inventors, while George airy will be remembered as short-sighted, do not see beyond their noses.
Alexander Graham bell, the inventor of the telephone, offered to sell his invention and patents it, the company Western Union, a leading manufacturer of Telegraph for $100,000. Western Union refused the report of its internal Committee. Here are some excerpts from that report:
The purpose of the phone is a voice over Telegraph wires. We found that the voice sounds quite weak and indistinct, and becomes weaker with increasing length of the wires between the transmitter and the receiver. In technical terms, we do not anticipate that this device will ever be able to send a clear and recognizable speech over a distance of several miles.
Sir Hubbard and bell want to install one of their «telephone devices in every city. The idea is idiotic. Why does everyone suddenly want to use impractical devices, instead of sending clear messages by Telegraph, and to obtain legible and clear words in any US city?
Electricians of our company have developed significant improvements in Telegraph technology, and we see no reason why a group of renegades with their extravagant and impractical ideas, should be entertained at our expense, while they don’t have a clue about the real problems of our region.
Bizarre predictions of Mr. Hubbard sound attractive, but they are based on pure imagination and complete lack of understanding of the technical and economic factors. He simply ignores the obvious limitations of his device, which differs little from the toy.
For this reason, we believe that the proposal Hubbard on selling the device for $100,000 unfounded, as the phone is completely useless for us. We do not recommend buying it.
Today, almost everyone recognizes that the Internet is important, but such beliefs have emerged relatively recently. Back in 1995, astronomer Clifford Stoll wrote an article for Newsweek called «Why the Internet will not be Nirvana».
In this article cited this:
This cyberbases. We promise the online catalogs of the stores, select and click to get the best deals. We will order the tickets online, book tables in the restaurant, even to conclude contracts of purchase and sale. Stores will become obsolete.
So why my small shopping center brings in more revenue in the second half of the day, than the entire turnover of e-Commerce in the past month? Even if there were reliable ways to send money across the Internet (which does not exist), in the network there is one very important component of capitalism — sellers.
Now it sounds funny, but at the time was quite serious and credible.
So what kind of mistake was made by these, no doubt, intelligent people? They focused on what can’t make new technology, instead of what she can do and what you will do in mybottomV.
Who has primarily «Culture»? Just for the haters and the skeptics. People who focus on the negative side of the idea will never decide to change because they are too afraid of looking stupid.
They will be too jealous to learn from the great innovators. They are too stubborn to notice, a brilliant young engineer who can change the world. They are very cynical to inspire someone to create something great. And they are those who makes fun of history.
Don’t hate, create