Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your ideas are only valuable when other people believe them, then if everyone else died of some plague that you happened to be immune to, it would suddenly be impossible to have good ideas. That doesn't seem right.
If this happened to Newton or Einstein it wouldn't matter how good their ideas were. They'd starve because their ideas would be worthless. It takes a community to make use of good ideas, not just validate them. In the former you get the latter. Sure, sometimes a community has to be shaken free of their assumptions. But I'm not sure it's ever apparent by virtue of the strength of a lonely idea. It takes some powerful…
The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
51–60 of 60 posts
Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#52Don't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story. Well that's the way 'theregister' likes to tell it.
The ideas behind the "6 degrees of separation" are measurable and form a new type of science, not surprisingly called Network theory. The ideas behind them instead of being debunked are strengthening. In '99, "Duncan Watts" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Watts and "Steven Strogatz" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Strogatz wrote a paper submitted to Nature working on the "Small World theory" problem called "Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks" . Their results tend to support the idea that there is a measurable, finite, minimum number of links in a network between nodes and that clustering of node links does occur. The idea applied to various other natural networks (Actors in Hollywood, neural networks in the brain, Transmission lines across the US) also support the conclusions.
"... a scale-free network is a network
whose degree distribution follows a
power law ..."
Then consider "Albert-László Barabási" ~ http://www.nd.edu/~sciwww/Faculty/barabasi.html who who picked up the Watts-Strogatz work ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_and_Strogatz_model and came up with the idea of "Scale free networks" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_networks which gives probably the most important insight into how networks cluster, Hubs.I don't just believe the ideas of Watts, Strogatz and Barabási because of who they are but what their experiments reveal.
Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Figuring out how to test an idea is a "tame" problem, in that the problem has a definitive formulation and stopping rule. Coming up with an entirely new paradigm is, if not exactly a "wicked" problem, some other type of complex problem so difficult and uncommon that we don't even have a vocabulary to describe it. So when I say that coming up with ideas is more difficult than testing them, what I mean is that coming u…
See, to me, an idea is a mere belief without some test to see it through. Like this argument, for instance...there's no logical conclusion one way or another. We're just stating beliefs back and forth.
Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#54Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I swear I don't say this for brownie points, but honestly, I wouldn't put pg in the same category as the other names you mentioned (though I admit I don't know them all, but most). I value pg's essays much more - he is not going for the daily quip, rather, his essays always treat something new in perfect fashion. Gladwell and Godin could be writing daily columns for womens/mens magazines, saying the same things we al…
I think you're arguing a slightly different point. I think the original poster's point was that the ideas of those people are editorial essays, with a largely motivational function. I think that's true. But they're different kinds of motivational material. I think the primary difference is that Paul's writing usually builds to some point or collection of points of advice rather than the abstractions being the point.…
Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#56Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#57Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#58Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#59I hate rants with misspellings. One I found was "breaktaking". I'm sure he meant "breathtaking". Get an editor, you twat.
I see I'm being modded down by programmers who also can't spell.
Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. Newton only became Newton when it was shown the ideas worked, and better than Leibniz, for instance. Same deal with Einstein. Their contemporaries knew they were onto something, but a healthy dose of skepticism was reserved until the ideas gained empirical weight. Still not all of their "good" ideas were validated. Testing ideas, to me, is the best way to change how we think, especially when we're proven…
If your ideas are only valuable when other people believe them, then if everyone else died of some plague that you happened to be immune to, it would suddenly be impossible to have good ideas. That doesn't seem right.