| > They are iconoclasts who break with tradition and replace old rules with new ones of their own making — mold-breaking innovators such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Elizabeth Holmes, who succeed precisely because they refuse to follow convention. Elizabeth Holes was successful? At what? I think they were successful because they build companies that were successful. > They’re a way of reminding everyone of who he is — that his capacity to transgress is the measure of his capacity to innovate profitably. > Why has the idea that the best innovators are disruptive gained such traction over the past decade or so I don't understand this, innovators were always disruptive. Usually its just not well document because it might be within a company and to the outside looks like incremental change. > the end of the Cold War broke those connections. Long before the Cold War ended, Ford/GM, IBM were long past their innovative glory days. Ford/GM were being crushed by Japan. And in other news, things like Vietnam had already broken much of that as well, if it ever existed. > In the United States, about three-fourths of postsecondary faculty members are white. This article seems to put a lot in racial terms. But it seems to me that the people who are most anti-science are bunch of white right wing people. They should be happy all those white professors are there and believe them. Seems to me race really fails as an explanation here. Having more diverse professors will hardly get the alt-right and science back together. And for that matter far left wing considers the whole concept of race as a capitlaist distraction from class war. The reality is that for the most part people never really believed these expert in a deep way, there was just very little way people could make that clear. Today every group/organization is pushing its own narrative of the world. In the past you needed a real ground movement to do that, the communists could do it (partly with state support) but other groups couldn't really do it. Bottom-up Religious movements also clearly indicate this to me. These movement believe the most random absurd nonsense that is clearly not even anti-science but anti-basic reality and basic logic and still the often find huge amounts of support. And given my study of history, such movement are common all threw history. > Innovation needs to come out of such communities, rather than imposed on them. That is such a narrow demand. Innovations come from a place or company. There are 100000s of communities that could profit from GMO and in no future will every community ever figure out its own science and technology. Other nations always had a difficult time to adopt technology and there was often debate, but most of the time technology won. As Stephan Kotkin says, modernisation is not a cultural but a geo-political process. Technology is adopted by other government and forced on their communities if they want them or not, because if they don't, their country will fall behind. |