[deleted]
We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
161–170 of 236 posts
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#162[deleted]
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#163> A few months ago, a startup developer friend said to me "I don't understand why poor kids, ghetto kids, don't do startups to get out of poverty." I've got just about zero tolerance left for people who don't acknowledge their privilege.
> "I don't understand why poor kids, ghetto kids, don't do startups to get out of poverty."
This is mostly a cliché
The short answer is: because they have more important troubles about to think. Poverty, lack of opportunities, drugs, drunks or the ocassional abuse of members of your family or even from the police.
But the "maybe not so obvious" answer is that in fact young inmigrants are one of the people more focused, and more pressed by family and environment, into the creation of small business in your new country. And a lot are sucessful doing this. America is, probably, one of the countries with more cases of "the small grandpa's store". Now we all live in the supermarketzoic age, so things are very different currently.
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#164I'm not sure how long the OP has been an arm-chair social scientist, but I've been one for twenty-five years, and I feel like I might be able to share some insights. Firstly, his thesis could be boiled down to a very simple question: "Why do people do what they do (instead of what I want them to do)?" You suggest that they are insufficiently self-reflective, not very world-wise, and perhaps just a bit self-centred. T…
As someone who seriously considered becoming an academic economist, I think you're spot on in your analysis about human motivation except for one thing: altruism.
Altruism does exist, and not just because people want the "good feeling" of having done "good deeds."
I've seen Levitt of the University of Chicago speak several times about an altruism experiment that economists conducted showing the lack of altruism in people. In response, one of the audience members once sent him $20 in an envelope and said, "Explain this."
While that's a facetious example, there's plenty of examples of more self-less altruism towards strangers. I think plenty of research shows the altruistic motive towards families, which is partly motivated by evolution.
But altruism towards strangers?
I think an interesting experiment to conduct would be a double blind experiment regarding altruism. Put someone in a situation where they can help, hurt, or ignore someone in need, and there is no cost to the subject of picking any of the three options. But they get no reward for doing the good deed, and no one is watching.
(Of course this experiment is sort of impossible by design, cuz the experimenter has to be watching)
How many people choose to do the good deed without social affirmation of their good deed?
Maybe I'll reconsider pursuing that PhD in Economics.
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#165We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators... That's a fine line. The most significant innovations are often iterations. (Google comes to mind.) Why do we do this? Because we want to get rich, of course. I disagree with "Because we want to get rich". And I definitely disagree with "of course". Real hackers do this because we just have to . It just so happens that currently it's also a grea…
> I disagree with "Because we want to get rich". And I definitely disagree with "of course". Real hackers do this because we just have to. Ignoring the awful "real hackers" commentary, one has nothing to do with what the article was referencing at the time: starting a company. At the core, if you start a company, you want to make money. Unless you are going the non-profit route, you are in it to make money, and that…
> Unless you are going the non-profit route, you are in it to make money, and that means getting rich.
What a depressing outlook. Is there no room for people who want to make enough money to get by while doing what they love?
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#166> So why didn’t I? Why didn’t you? Why didn’t we?
Because I don't care about such problems. I care about doing stuff I a) understand or might get more understanding from b) believe I can do c) find fun in solving d) get paid too.
Your argument is that people don't because of a lack of information - it's not fully so. I know some problems I could work on, which would help other people. I chose not to, because it's an endless tunnel, and it's no fun.
How exactly do you propose to force me - or anyone else - to work on the problems you believe are the most important? Were are your guns ?
To put that in simpler words, if I don't believe your problems fit by abcd criteria, I will not work on them. You may find "public shaming" a useful tool for your deeds, but you will find that it only works a limited amount of times.
Now please excuse me if I don't engage in your guilt trip and instead spend time do stuff I want, which may be in your list of important things, or might not.
[The only real argument there is in the conclusion: we could be concerned if we, as the human race, were collectively not doing stuff we wanted to do because of a lack of ambition, or to follow the 'large base' pyramid example, didn't sell stuff to poor people.
I must say I'm sometimes worried about people lacking ambition, and like in this post engaging in empty rhetorics instead of actually doing stuff - whatever "stuff" might me, even an hello world...]
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#167We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators... That's a fine line. The most significant innovations are often iterations. (Google comes to mind.) Why do we do this? Because we want to get rich, of course. I disagree with "Because we want to get rich". And I definitely disagree with "of course". Real hackers do this because we just have to . It just so happens that currently it's also a grea…
Note that its not about getting rich, but about not being broke . A very distinctive difference. Not being broke allows for a good life style. And that's what most of all want.
Fully agree. As Kanye said: "Having money aint everything...not having it is."
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#168We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators... That's a fine line. The most significant innovations are often iterations. (Google comes to mind.) Why do we do this? Because we want to get rich, of course. I disagree with "Because we want to get rich". And I definitely disagree with "of course". Real hackers do this because we just have to . It just so happens that currently it's also a grea…
I remember reading a paper once (no source; it was years ago) that explained innovation versus invention, and that most people confused the two, not realising that innovation is defined as iterating on an existing technology, while invention is creating a new technology. Innovation is NOT creating a new technology.
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. The difference between being broke/not broke is the same as being poor/rich. There is no middle class anymore. Which sucks.
So much wrong with this statement I almost threw my monitor out the window. Broke is temporary. Poor is a state of mind and often may be permanent. More importantly, the implication is that without money, your life is meaningless - which is a terrible lie to believe. There is no middle class anymore : a line created by average folks who earn an average wage and spend too much and make minimum monthly payments on ever…
Look, I save almost 1/4 of my income and I still feel poor in many ways. It's not about spending habits it's being able to survive bad shit financially. A friend of mine had a single seizure while looking for work and could not drive for 6 months plus significant medical bills. IMO, if you can't survive a minor medical issue financially then your not middle class and it's really hard to get there before 35 or if you have kids young.
Re: We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators
#170> But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems, but whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty, ending disease I see this sentiment a lot these days, and I can't help but wonder if this is a case of looking into the past through rose-tinted glasses. Just like how people always talk about the "good ole' days" while selectively forgetting about everything that was wro…
Of course it's just selection bias. People remember the big, exciting things, like going to the moon, or eradicating polio, or multiplying crop yields several times over. They don't remember the boring, everyday stuff. It would be surprising if this didn't cause selection bias. And so, inevitably, we get articles which bemoan how we've fallen, compared to a past that never existed.