[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > of things as opposed to 'building' things and telling them apart is critical.

Innovators of the past would call Brin and Page 'MBAs type' like you do, or better yet they'd call them not imaginative or risk taking enough given that MBAs didn't exist back then. It recursively goes like this the more you go back into the past.

In the end it's all about risk. You think MBAs are risk averse. People like Edison and Rockefeller would think Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are risk averse.

Guys like the Montgolfier brothers and Christopher Coloumbus would laugh at Edison and Rockefeller for being risk averse and they themselves would be subject to the same ridicule from the guy who invented fire and the wheel.

This is coherent with the idea that the rate of innovation is slowing down because of less risks being taken.

The only difference between my stance and yours is that you only analyze the last 10 years and identify a bogeyman in the MBAs, and hail founders as the great pioneers, whereas in reality it's a phenomenon which traces its roots way back into the past.

As kids say: 'fuck around. Find out'

I don't think MBAs were the first figures who refused to 'fuck around' and I don't think Silicon Valley founders are the kings of the 'fuck around' either, that title belongs to our early ancestors

The rate of risk and innovation will never be as great as the time that we invented the wheel and fire. As I said it has been slowing down ever since, mostly because people 'fuck around' less and less. Not just MBAs but everybody.

[unity1001]

> Innovators of the past would call Brin and Page 'MBAs type' like you do

They objectively wouldnt. The science and engineering history of late 19th century is filled with people like Brin and Page getting 'MBAified' out of their inventions. Tesla and Westinghouse is a good example of such stories.

> Christopher Coloumbus

A genocidal profiteer is the last person who you would want to invoke as an example of such people. He didnt invent or innovate anything, he didnt want to change anything, he didnt bring about any new paradigm.

> because of less risks being taken

Equating innovation with taking risks is a faulty concept to start with. You can bet that the 'person' who invented the fire or the weel didnt take any risks. To start with, those were not invented by singular people 'taking risks' but invented by entire species (likely more than one) by adopting them gradually through observation from nature and learning from each other. Likewise agriculture. If anything, risk-taking was not something that early human ancestors or their close relatives would risk themselves.

> The only difference between my stance and yours is that you only analyze the last 10 years and identify a bogeyman in the MBAs

Sorry, but its otherwise. Thinking that fire or wheel were invented by singular people shows the lack of insight into science of history, leaving aside the history of this species.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > Equating innovation with taking risks is a faulty concept to start with. You can bet that the 'person' who invented the fire or the weel didnt take any risks. To start with, those were not invented by singular people 'taking risks' but invented by entire species

Back then people were making human sacrifices and starting wars because 'the Gods told them to do so'.

Innovation happens when risks are taken (eg. Montgolfier brothers, Wright Brothers, the guy who discovered testosterone by self injected blood taken from the testicular veins of horses...) and given that risk and confidence are a state of mind much less a business practice, you cannot conflate it just to science and technology but said risk and confidence will be visible all around society. So wars, genocides, violence and genearlly stuff considered bad.

The rate of innovation has been slowing down due to the diminishing in the standard deviation of human behavior. Or as kids say: 'Less fucking around, means less finding out'

Standard deviation of human behavior goes both ways, people rejoice that we eliminated the negatives but we have also eliminated the positives. No Einsteins without Hitlers, no Archimedes without Alexanders etc.

So even if the guy who personally discovered fire or the wheel didn't take risks personally (I doubt it) he operated in an environment where the standard deviation of human behavior was much larger. For sure there were people jumping off trees with wooden wings, wars, genocides, much more violence. And that is statistically enough to make sure that at least one unit in the sample stumbles into something great like fire or the wheel.

[unity1001]

> Back then people were making human sacrifices and starting wars because 'the Gods told them to do so'.

Not relevant. All of those were established behavior patterns at the time. Not 'risk taking'.

> Innovation happens when risks are taken

For every such example you can pull out from history, there are dozens of innovations resulting from incremental improvement and learning from others and the nature.

> The rate of innovation has been slowing down due to the diminishing in the standard deviation of human behavior.

There has never been more deviants in human history than now. In human history, sticking with the social norms, known behavior patterns and keeping the existing social group and its framework safe were critical to survival. From traditions to laws everything were based on those. With your logic, it should be the most innovative period in history whereas the past should be the least innovative. Yet you are saying the opposite.

Innovation as you see it has been slowing down because science and technology have been privatized through patents towards the end of 19th century by big money entering the field and consolidating it. Exacerbated by the 'state secrets' concept. Before that, virtually everything was Open Source during the scientific revolution.

> So even if the guy who personally discovered fire

There was no such singular guy.

...

In any case, thanks for the discussion.