The clash of two cultures: "I can" and "I can not"
An intelligent person adapts to his surroundings; unreasonable trying to adapt the environment for themselves. Consequently, progress is based on unreasonable people.
George Bernard Shaw.
Recently it has become fashionable to scold young technology companies. "What a stupid idea from a startup" or "what a nerd founded this company."
It seems that there is a desire to replace the culture of startups, where hope and curiosity reign, with prim superiority.
Why is it important? Why do we care about inclining the mood in the wrong direction? Why is it more important to see what is good in a company than to find flaws in it?
“Technology” is “an improved way of doing something.” It is easy to say, but very difficult to do. The best way to store information, the best currency, the best way to make friends - for this you need to try to improve on the thousand-year experience of mankind, and this is always not easy.
')
If you think, from the point of view of logic, nothing at all is impossible to improve. If for thousands of years of civilization no one thought of this - why did you decide that you are so smart? From the point of view of psychology, to improve something, you need to constantly dismiss such sorts of doubts. The techno-world world is a world where smart people can imagine the impossible.
As an investor, I am often asked: why do big companies enter innovation with such difficulty, while small ones do it easily? And usually my answer is surprising. There are many great ideas in big companies, but they have to go through a huge hierarchy of people, each of whom must approve the idea. If someone suddenly finds a flaw in the idea, this is usually enough to bury her.
This is how the culture “I can't” is born.
The problem with innovation is that at the time of its emergence these ideas seem bad. That is why they are innovative - until now no one understood that they are good. Creative big companies like Amazon and Google are driven by innovators. Larry Page can unilaterally fund a good idea that looks like a bad one and eliminate all objections about why this is impossible.
This is how the culture “I can” is born.
Some people want to transform the world of tech standards into one gigantic company with a backward "I can't" culture. This article is an attempt to prevent them.
Texts, denounced new technologies, have always existed. Sometimes criticism is justified when the company's invention does not work - but even then it is unable to see the big picture. Here are a couple of examples from history.
In 1837, Charles Babbage decided to build an “ Analytical Machine ” - the world's first general-purpose computer (mechanical), and with Turing completeness. Roughly speaking, in the presence of power, he could calculate everything that a modern computer can calculate.
He failed to build a working computer - after all, in 1837, it was incredibly ambitious to talk about a wooden computer that works on a pair. And in 1842, the English mathematician and astronomer George Biddel Airy issued his expert opinion to the British government foundation: this project is “useless” and must be closed. The government did. Only in 1941, the project received a logical continuation after it was forgotten and rejected for a hundred years.
After 171, it is clearly seen that Babbage foresaw the future and that computers are far from useless. And his most important achievement is not that he was 100 years ahead of his time, but that he had a vision and perseverance to achieve the goal. He remains the inspiration for many to this day. And Mr. Airy was just a short-sighted eccentric.
Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the phone, offered his invention to the leading telegraph company, Western Union, for $ 100,000. The offer was rejected on the basis of a report. Here are some excerpts from there:
“Telephone involves the transfer of votes by telegraph wires. The transmitted voice was weak and indistinguishable, and it weakened even more with increasing distance and wire length. Technically, it is not clear how this device can transmit voice over distances of at least several miles. ”
“Messer Hubbard and Bell want to install their“ telephone devices ”in each city. This idea is idiotic. Moreover, who would need such an awkward and impractical device, when everyone can send a messenger to the telegraph office and send a clear written message to any major US city? ”
“Our engineers have made significant improvements in telegraph business today, and we see no reason why it is necessary to indulge a bunch of extravagant upstart nonprofessionals when they have no idea about the real problems of the industry. The predictions of Mr. J.J. Although Hubbard is bright, they are based only on wild imagination, they lack understanding of the technical and economic realities of modern times. They simply ignore the obvious limitations of their device, which is nothing more than a toy. ”
“In connection with the above, we consider the request of one hundred thousand dollars for the use of a patent to be unreasonable and do not recommend purchasing it”
Nowadays, everyone recognizes the importance of the Internet. And in 1995, astronomer Clifford Stoll wrote an article in Newsweek entitled “Why the Network Will Not Turn into Nirvana”:
“And now about cyber business. We promise instant purchases in the catalog - point and click. We will book tickets through the network, reserve tables in restaurants and negotiate contracts. Ordinary shops will disappear.
So why is the daily sales of my nearest supermarket more than the entire Internet for a month? Even if there was a reliable way to transfer money over the Internet (and there isn’t), the web lacks the most important ingredient of capitalism: sellers. ”
What common mistake have all these clever men made? They focused on what technology could not do at the time when it arose. And they did not think at all about what she could achieve in the future.
Who is most affected by the “I can't” culture? Ironically, those who hate technology. Those who focus on what technology (or company) cannot do will never have the courage to do what other people find stupid. They will not be able to learn from great innovators. They will be short-sighted and will not discover a genius engineer who can change the world faster than they do. Their cynicism will prevent them from inspiring anyone for something great. A story will laugh at them.
[ addition from translator ]. As Henry Ford said, “If you say that you cannot do something, you are right. If you say that you can do something, you are right too. ”
George Bernard Shaw.
Recently it has become fashionable to scold young technology companies. "What a stupid idea from a startup" or "what a nerd founded this company."
It seems that there is a desire to replace the culture of startups, where hope and curiosity reign, with prim superiority.
Why is it important? Why do we care about inclining the mood in the wrong direction? Why is it more important to see what is good in a company than to find flaws in it?
“Technology” is “an improved way of doing something.” It is easy to say, but very difficult to do. The best way to store information, the best currency, the best way to make friends - for this you need to try to improve on the thousand-year experience of mankind, and this is always not easy.
')
If you think, from the point of view of logic, nothing at all is impossible to improve. If for thousands of years of civilization no one thought of this - why did you decide that you are so smart? From the point of view of psychology, to improve something, you need to constantly dismiss such sorts of doubts. The techno-world world is a world where smart people can imagine the impossible.
As an investor, I am often asked: why do big companies enter innovation with such difficulty, while small ones do it easily? And usually my answer is surprising. There are many great ideas in big companies, but they have to go through a huge hierarchy of people, each of whom must approve the idea. If someone suddenly finds a flaw in the idea, this is usually enough to bury her.
This is how the culture “I can't” is born.
The problem with innovation is that at the time of its emergence these ideas seem bad. That is why they are innovative - until now no one understood that they are good. Creative big companies like Amazon and Google are driven by innovators. Larry Page can unilaterally fund a good idea that looks like a bad one and eliminate all objections about why this is impossible.
This is how the culture “I can” is born.
Some people want to transform the world of tech standards into one gigantic company with a backward "I can't" culture. This article is an attempt to prevent them.
Texts, denounced new technologies, have always existed. Sometimes criticism is justified when the company's invention does not work - but even then it is unable to see the big picture. Here are a couple of examples from history.
In 1837, Charles Babbage decided to build an “ Analytical Machine ” - the world's first general-purpose computer (mechanical), and with Turing completeness. Roughly speaking, in the presence of power, he could calculate everything that a modern computer can calculate.
He failed to build a working computer - after all, in 1837, it was incredibly ambitious to talk about a wooden computer that works on a pair. And in 1842, the English mathematician and astronomer George Biddel Airy issued his expert opinion to the British government foundation: this project is “useless” and must be closed. The government did. Only in 1941, the project received a logical continuation after it was forgotten and rejected for a hundred years.
After 171, it is clearly seen that Babbage foresaw the future and that computers are far from useless. And his most important achievement is not that he was 100 years ahead of his time, but that he had a vision and perseverance to achieve the goal. He remains the inspiration for many to this day. And Mr. Airy was just a short-sighted eccentric.
Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the phone, offered his invention to the leading telegraph company, Western Union, for $ 100,000. The offer was rejected on the basis of a report. Here are some excerpts from there:
“Telephone involves the transfer of votes by telegraph wires. The transmitted voice was weak and indistinguishable, and it weakened even more with increasing distance and wire length. Technically, it is not clear how this device can transmit voice over distances of at least several miles. ”
“Messer Hubbard and Bell want to install their“ telephone devices ”in each city. This idea is idiotic. Moreover, who would need such an awkward and impractical device, when everyone can send a messenger to the telegraph office and send a clear written message to any major US city? ”
“Our engineers have made significant improvements in telegraph business today, and we see no reason why it is necessary to indulge a bunch of extravagant upstart nonprofessionals when they have no idea about the real problems of the industry. The predictions of Mr. J.J. Although Hubbard is bright, they are based only on wild imagination, they lack understanding of the technical and economic realities of modern times. They simply ignore the obvious limitations of their device, which is nothing more than a toy. ”
“In connection with the above, we consider the request of one hundred thousand dollars for the use of a patent to be unreasonable and do not recommend purchasing it”
Nowadays, everyone recognizes the importance of the Internet. And in 1995, astronomer Clifford Stoll wrote an article in Newsweek entitled “Why the Network Will Not Turn into Nirvana”:
“And now about cyber business. We promise instant purchases in the catalog - point and click. We will book tickets through the network, reserve tables in restaurants and negotiate contracts. Ordinary shops will disappear.
So why is the daily sales of my nearest supermarket more than the entire Internet for a month? Even if there was a reliable way to transfer money over the Internet (and there isn’t), the web lacks the most important ingredient of capitalism: sellers. ”
What common mistake have all these clever men made? They focused on what technology could not do at the time when it arose. And they did not think at all about what she could achieve in the future.
Who is most affected by the “I can't” culture? Ironically, those who hate technology. Those who focus on what technology (or company) cannot do will never have the courage to do what other people find stupid. They will not be able to learn from great innovators. They will be short-sighted and will not discover a genius engineer who can change the world faster than they do. Their cynicism will prevent them from inspiring anyone for something great. A story will laugh at them.
[ addition from translator ]. As Henry Ford said, “If you say that you cannot do something, you are right. If you say that you can do something, you are right too. ”
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/208032/
All Articles