Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
tw's point is well-made, but I don't think it's accurate. Most of the time we're only maintaining the status quo, but it's through tiny improvements that each of us make daily that the larger "improvements for mankind" happen. We are constantly looking for easier, faster, more comfortable ways of getting through our daily lives; eventually, someone comes up with a new, striking way that attains broader use. Enough people got tired of the jarring they got from riding wooden wheels on dirt roads that one of em finally came up with tires and asphalt. ....
|
But you make my point. How many millions of crappy wooden wheels were made on how many millions of miles of pot holed roads before one little person in the millions came up with a rubber tire or asphalt? Everyone else was simply doing the same thing repeatedly. To better appreciate the concept, try Clayton Christensen's "Innovators Dilemma".
The soldier crawls on his belly only because the political negotiators could not do their job. He takes a hill. Status quo. Either he is only taking back the hill, or it will change hands when the political negotiations finally go back to the conference table. Why do we kill so many people in war? Because the politicians failed to do their job AND because the political situation now had to be changed by massive death so that negotiations could start anew. Now maybe due to war, some innovations may arise. The soldier has absolutely nothing to do with innovations or changes that occur at much higher levels. He is just doing the status quo.
There is no innovation by a soldier on his belly sacrificing his life for some hill. He is nothing more than a victim of top management (the politicians) who failed to do their job.
Yes, some people do add a little something to the mix. Maybe out of 100 people on the assembly line, someone finally comes up with an easier way to attach a widget. One thing that was always a problem for me (due to my upbringing, my peers, and my background) is that most people are adverse to change. It is not as bad as it was in the 1970s when literally most all innovation was stifled. But too many Americans don't even want to understand what compound interest is ... as their credit card debits skyrocket. This being a recent example that I tried to teach three separate people - and all did not want to know.
This discussion group is devoid of such people which is why The Cellar is a rather interesting place. Out there on the street, on a bus, in a coffee shop, etc - and mostly with 'born and breed' Americans, this adversity to change (as well as to math and science) is quite wide spread ... and getting worse. Most of us don't really innovate. When we crawl on our belly to take a hill or *use* a new technology, we *feel* we are being innovative? Nonsense. That is what top management tells us when they need something accomplished - because reality is sometimes so difficult to comprehend.
The Steel Industry is another classic example. Those MBAs swore how they were innovating because they were spending big bucks buying and using computers. Nonsense. Where were the new steels? Where were the electric arc furnaces? They bought computers to do the same old thing and called that innovation? Yes, many of us fail to understand how anti-innovative we really are. Again, "Innovator's Dilemma" only touches on one aspect of this mindset. Very few among us really innovate. Most of us just maintain the status quo every day - our productivity only increasing when the very few innovators provide new tools for our hands. We didn't innovate. They did.