There are so many new venues for media out there that didn’t exist a decade ago. You have You Tube, Deviant Art, YTMND, and several good music sites. All of these are great forms of expression for artists. But lately, I’ve gone back to reading books again.
I’ve been getting the feeling lately that our attention spans keep going down. There are some fantastic flash animations, images and video shorts out there – but it has taken up the attention space of telling stories with substance.
Maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places – but despite all the new forms of expression, it seems like we haven’t really seem much meaningful work. The field is dominated by a girth of fleetingly amusing or interesting snippets. Some things gratify my attention for a few minutes, only to be forgotten a few days later. Others allude to an enticing tip of an iceberg - only to find that the creator created nothing that exists beyond it. Just empty shells of promising ideas.
It isn’t that I don’t like many of the things out there: I just wish I saw some inkling of things with substance now and again.
But maybe that’s not the web’s strength. Maybe I’m just hoping to find depth in the wrong places.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Who Wants a Cool Roof?
Does anyone else out there get annoyed in the summertime when they see a huge flat retail building with a black-top tar roof, and think, “That’s hot.”
I start wondering – how much are the owners paying for air conditioning? A lot of these buildings are quickly constructed with cheap steel and little insulation. The black tar roof is quick and cheap and simple. It’s also really hot in the summer time. Black tar can get up to about 175 – 200 degrees Fahrenheit on a hot summer day.
I understand that when a business starts up, they don’t have very much capital, and that they need a facility quickly and cheaply.
But it turns out there are a lot of low cost additions or alternatives to black top roofs that have a positive return on investment within a couple of years in energy costs. Couple this with the fact that a more efficient roof can allows a building to reach the same level of cooling with a less powerful (cheaper initial cost) air conditioning unit, and you’ve got yourself the makings of a good idea.
Energy Star has already started working on this one. They have certified several types of Cool Roof technologies. They have painted metal roofs, white ceramic, and many other options. They’ve also designed thin paneling that can be installed overtop an existing roof with no structural changes required.
A white roof can be 75 to 100 degrees cooler than the same roof in black.
This also helps out with the Urban Heat Island effect, which contributes to greater energy needs in urban areas due to higher temperatures caused by more dark materials and less vegetation than rural areas have.
There’s also a market for personal homes. However, sloped roofs don’t see as much of a benefit from improved materials as flat roofs. This is mostly because the amount of sunlight hitting a sloped roof is less than that of a flat roof. Further, sloped roofs usually have better insulation and ventilation that make the benefit of a cool attic less crucial. In most houses there’s a crawl space of some kind on the top floor, whereas in a flat roofed building, the top floor is usually within inches of the roof.
Still, if your home is in a warmer sunny climate, there’s still a sizable cost savings to choosing a lighter colored tile than a darker one. But if you’re like me, and live in a cooler cloudy climate, then you’re better off insulating the space between your living space and your attic, or planting deciduous trees on the Southwest and Southeast corners of your building. (That’d be Northwest and Northeast for people in the Southern Hemisphere.)
All that said, next time I’m in the market for a new roof - a.k.a. no time soon – I’ll be looking into the energy efficient options.
Friday, August 18, 2006
A Practical Example of Measuring Your Effect
In my last article, I brushed the surface on my theory of lifetime productivity.
After reading the past article, it seems as though the conclusion is that to do the best, one should evenly excel in all three categories. However, I would contend that the better strategy is to make sure one is always trying to improve all three categories.
So, here’s an example of how growing can beat out a long-term even approach:
Jimmy Plunko is a software developer. He’s bright, but pretty new at the profession, so we’ll call him a 5 in skill. He works at a big company building up a vanilla, but successful business application. He likes his job, but he’s not passionate about it. Work ethic 5, and direction 5.
He gets a call one day from a friend. His friend has an opening at a new company working on a software application for 3-d rendering new Frisbees designs. Plunko is a former UlimateFrisbee champion, and knows he’d be passionate about working on frisbees. But the frisbee industry is tough, and most companies fail. If he went there, he’d be working with some other talented and passionate people, because the risk involved in trying to break into the frisbee industry up is going to attract only the people that really love frisbees too. We’ll call the new opportunity work ethic 8, direction 2. 2 is a stretch. I mean, come on - its frisbees.
So, Plunko, thinks about the potential scores here:
Where he's at now: 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 (skill * work * direction)
At the Frisbees: 5 * 8 * 2 = 80
According to this, Plunko should stay where he’s at.
But, if Plunko works at the Frisbee company for a while, he’s going to learn some new tricks that he’d never learn at his big company, because there are just some problems you only have to solve when you’re building frisbee software. But knowing how to solve them will make him a little more skilled at solving all other problems. So, after a year because of the new problems he’ll have to solve, his skill will turn into a 7.
7 * 8 * 2 = 112
Plunko’s skill level isn’t going to rise as fast building up the business application. After a year, his skill will rise to 6, but his work ethic will drop to 4, because he finds the work boring and wishes he was working on frisbees instead.
6 * 4 * 5 = 120
If the frisbee company succeeds, the usefulness of his work goes from very low, to something good. If they become the #1 force in frisbee research, suddenly the direction of the company becomes 5. (Hey, we’re still talking frisbees here, not exactly life changing stuff).
Now his score becomes:
7 * 8 * 5 = 280
That’s way better than the 120 he’d be at working at the job he has now on the business application.
But of course, most Frisbee companies don’t make it. So we’ll say the company’s got a 20% chance of making it.
Even still, if the company goes belly up, he’ll be working now at a skill level of 7. And because he has a skill level of 7 now, maybe he works at another vanilla company in a position where he’s making more engaging decisions, and his work ethic is a 6.
So, two years later, if the Frisbee company fails, and he goes back to working on some other business application, he’s still much stronger than before at this score:
7*6*5 = 210
Just to sprinkle a little bit of expected value on this:
The 280 score is probably only 20% likely.
The 210 score is probably 80% likely.
So, the theoretical expected score is 280 * .2 + 210 * .8 or:
224.
So, the options are this:
Where he's at:
Score 125 for the next year, and 120 for the next 2 years:
With the frisbees:
Score 80 for 1 year, 112 for a year, and 224 the 3rd year.
That’s:
365 for staying put over the next 3 years.
416 for going after the Frisbee opportunity.
More importantly, no matter what, he’ll be in a better position to get more points down the line if he switches companies now, because his Skill level and Work ethic will be better after 3 years. And he won't second guess himself for never following his passion.
What this example illustrates is that putting yourself in a position to improve yourself can be a much better decision in the long run. I think the point was:
Concentrate more on building your long term prospects rather than creating something average now.
And:
If your potential is high, your output will naturally be high too.
Or maybe just:
Its good to work on what you're passionate about.
After reading the past article, it seems as though the conclusion is that to do the best, one should evenly excel in all three categories. However, I would contend that the better strategy is to make sure one is always trying to improve all three categories.
So, here’s an example of how growing can beat out a long-term even approach:
Jimmy Plunko is a software developer. He’s bright, but pretty new at the profession, so we’ll call him a 5 in skill. He works at a big company building up a vanilla, but successful business application. He likes his job, but he’s not passionate about it. Work ethic 5, and direction 5.
He gets a call one day from a friend. His friend has an opening at a new company working on a software application for 3-d rendering new Frisbees designs. Plunko is a former UlimateFrisbee champion, and knows he’d be passionate about working on frisbees. But the frisbee industry is tough, and most companies fail. If he went there, he’d be working with some other talented and passionate people, because the risk involved in trying to break into the frisbee industry up is going to attract only the people that really love frisbees too. We’ll call the new opportunity work ethic 8, direction 2. 2 is a stretch. I mean, come on - its frisbees.
So, Plunko, thinks about the potential scores here:
Where he's at now: 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 (skill * work * direction)
At the Frisbees: 5 * 8 * 2 = 80
According to this, Plunko should stay where he’s at.
But, if Plunko works at the Frisbee company for a while, he’s going to learn some new tricks that he’d never learn at his big company, because there are just some problems you only have to solve when you’re building frisbee software. But knowing how to solve them will make him a little more skilled at solving all other problems. So, after a year because of the new problems he’ll have to solve, his skill will turn into a 7.
7 * 8 * 2 = 112
Plunko’s skill level isn’t going to rise as fast building up the business application. After a year, his skill will rise to 6, but his work ethic will drop to 4, because he finds the work boring and wishes he was working on frisbees instead.
6 * 4 * 5 = 120
If the frisbee company succeeds, the usefulness of his work goes from very low, to something good. If they become the #1 force in frisbee research, suddenly the direction of the company becomes 5. (Hey, we’re still talking frisbees here, not exactly life changing stuff).
Now his score becomes:
7 * 8 * 5 = 280
That’s way better than the 120 he’d be at working at the job he has now on the business application.
But of course, most Frisbee companies don’t make it. So we’ll say the company’s got a 20% chance of making it.
Even still, if the company goes belly up, he’ll be working now at a skill level of 7. And because he has a skill level of 7 now, maybe he works at another vanilla company in a position where he’s making more engaging decisions, and his work ethic is a 6.
So, two years later, if the Frisbee company fails, and he goes back to working on some other business application, he’s still much stronger than before at this score:
7*6*5 = 210
Just to sprinkle a little bit of expected value on this:
The 280 score is probably only 20% likely.
The 210 score is probably 80% likely.
So, the theoretical expected score is 280 * .2 + 210 * .8 or:
224.
So, the options are this:
Where he's at:
Score 125 for the next year, and 120 for the next 2 years:
With the frisbees:
Score 80 for 1 year, 112 for a year, and 224 the 3rd year.
That’s:
365 for staying put over the next 3 years.
416 for going after the Frisbee opportunity.
More importantly, no matter what, he’ll be in a better position to get more points down the line if he switches companies now, because his Skill level and Work ethic will be better after 3 years. And he won't second guess himself for never following his passion.
What this example illustrates is that putting yourself in a position to improve yourself can be a much better decision in the long run. I think the point was:
Concentrate more on building your long term prospects rather than creating something average now.
And:
If your potential is high, your output will naturally be high too.
Or maybe just:
Its good to work on what you're passionate about.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
A Way To Measure Your Effect On Society
Hypothesis: The most effective way for a person or group to effect positive change is to maximize skill, effort, and direction.
Skill : a combination of knowledge and natural ability. It can be increased through learning.
Effort : time spent working. It is bounded by the time of the day and the length of a lifetime.
Direction: how efficient your actions are in attaining your goal. In a large sense, direction is based on WHAT you decide to work on. In a small sense, direction is HOW you decide to work on it.
The best way to get something accomplished is to maximize Skill and Effort.
To make sure that what you are accomplishing is exacting positive change, you need direction.
Getting the most out of Skill * Work * Direction is a quick and effective means of measuring your effect. (I'm hypothesizing)
Here's a couple of examples:
A mediocre MRI technician, working part time at hospital.
5 skill * 5 work * 8 direction = 200 overall effect
A highly skilled programmer, working 70 hours a week on a start-up company that fails before it ever ships a product.
10 skill * 10 work * 0 direction = 0 overall effect.
A mastermind crime boss who steals from and kills the innocent:
10 skill * 10 work * (-10) direction = -1000 overall effect.
Of course, if the guy at the start-up succeeded and it became the next Google (direction 8, perhaps?), he'd have a score of 800, and would be blowing away the MRI guy in net effect.
What's your score?
Skill : a combination of knowledge and natural ability. It can be increased through learning.
Effort : time spent working. It is bounded by the time of the day and the length of a lifetime.
Direction: how efficient your actions are in attaining your goal. In a large sense, direction is based on WHAT you decide to work on. In a small sense, direction is HOW you decide to work on it.
The best way to get something accomplished is to maximize Skill and Effort.
To make sure that what you are accomplishing is exacting positive change, you need direction.
Getting the most out of Skill * Work * Direction is a quick and effective means of measuring your effect. (I'm hypothesizing)
Here's a couple of examples:
A mediocre MRI technician, working part time at hospital.
5 skill * 5 work * 8 direction = 200 overall effect
A highly skilled programmer, working 70 hours a week on a start-up company that fails before it ever ships a product.
10 skill * 10 work * 0 direction = 0 overall effect.
A mastermind crime boss who steals from and kills the innocent:
10 skill * 10 work * (-10) direction = -1000 overall effect.
Of course, if the guy at the start-up succeeded and it became the next Google (direction 8, perhaps?), he'd have a score of 800, and would be blowing away the MRI guy in net effect.
What's your score?
Monday, June 12, 2006
Peru - First Impressions
A thick fog enveloped us on May 20th as our plane touched down in Lima, only a few hundred yards from the Pacific Ocean. For a Peruvian living in Lima, it was a foggy morning like any other, but for a couple of foreigners the warm desert fog seemed glaringly out of place. But Lima was just out of reach as we longingly gazed out towards the muted skyline from the airport, both of us wishing to be anywhere else in Peru but at the airport at six in the morning.Three hours, an uncomfortable nap, and one insanely sweet, Bubble-Yum flavored Inka Cola Light later, our plane soared into the air to our final destination: Arequipa. The White City.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Fixing Pittsburgh
So I've been catching up on Pittsblog, and I decided to throw in my own two cents on a perennial subject of hand-wringing, fist-clenching tribulation (at least for the locals): how do we fix Pittsburgh?
First of all, any discussion of the ills of our fair city inherently implies that there's something wrong with it. At least, something wrong enough to outweigh all the good it has. Maybe it's our "smoky steel town" history, our inability to retain young people, the weather, the crazy-ass road system, etc., etc. Let me throw in another suggestion: maybe it's our collective inability to focus on the positives! So what can we do to accentuate the things we do have?
When I think about Downtown, what comes to mind? The stadiums. Point State Park. The total lack of activity after 5pm (Cultural Dist. excepted). The views from Mt. Washington. Three rivers.
My wife and I visited Portland, OR last Memorial Day weekend. I thought it was absolutely beautiful. I think there are a lot of parallels to Pittsburgh there - mid-size city, riverside parks. But one thing that sticks out for me is - we spent practically two full days within the "downtown" city limits, and never ran out of things to do.
Going back to my list of Pittsburgh activities - what is there for a family to do that's a regular downtown draw? Notice I said regular - so the Regatta and the Arts Festival are out. (Portland, btw, has the Rose Festival... stop here if you want to end it at "Steel City" vs "City of Roses" :)
Point State, IMHO, is terribly underused. Yes it's an island of tranquility in the midst of the city, and there's the history of Fort Pitt to boot. But honestly, the whole time I worked downtown I can't say I ever really stopped down to the Point specifically for the peacefulness. It's much more about the green space, to me, and there are a number of neat little spots downtown for a nice lunch in a natural setting. (Trust me - take the Enjoy book and try to hit every downtown restaurant in it. We must have found a dozen little parklets here and there.)
What I would like to see is an area along the river for amusements - something to get everyone out of the house and down to the city on warm spring evenings. Something like the Navy Pier in Chicago or the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore. I'd like a combination of restaurants and outdoor entertainment (maybe under a tent or other open shelter, for when it is the weather holding people back). Bessemer Court is, in typical Pgh fashion, a worthy but insufficient effort in the (general) right direction. Whee - water choreographed to Rick Springsteen!
Ok, so people come and eat, see a live band or ride a ferris wheel - then what? How about shopping? Portland has the Saturday Market, which isn't actually strictly limited to Saturdays. It's similar to the Arts Festival, but it runs practically year round. They don't isolate the food booths from the crafts, either - so there's actually a half decent chance that the Fried Oreo people will *gasp* buy something. This is what I would like to see down at the Point - but please, let's be more mindful of the plastic chairs and the lawn-trampling masses so it's not an eyesore.
Then I would take it one step further. Run a Molly's Trolley, an amphibious WWII relic, or just a plain old PAT bus down Penn/Liberty Ave smack into the Strip, gratis for anyone with a booth voucher. Have them point out all the cool places along the way - the O'Reilly, SPACE, the Wood Street Galleries, the CLP. Mention all those awesome restaurants, hawk that Enjoy book. *cough* local business *cough* While you're at it, talk up the architecture and the walking tours.
How about bike, wagon, and rollerblade rentals? How about a farmer's market - and not up at the City-County Building? How about making the City a weekend destination? Once we've got that, we can start talking about big name retailers. We can think about redesigning downtown living space. We can start making transit connections to Oakland, the North Shore, the East Hills - because the people will be wanting to come here not go there. And they will come not just to see the rivers and the views, but to enjoy themselves while they're here.
The only way any of this would succeed would have to come from the marketing. Not marketing the region, or its identity, or whatever. We have a regional identity crisis, ok? And guess what - the neurosis is coming from us. We've convinced ourselves of our own second-rate, also-ran status. It's us, the people from the suburbs and the surrounding areas, who need to be convinced that downtown is somewhere worth being. Once we've got that, everyone else will follow.
First of all, any discussion of the ills of our fair city inherently implies that there's something wrong with it. At least, something wrong enough to outweigh all the good it has. Maybe it's our "smoky steel town" history, our inability to retain young people, the weather, the crazy-ass road system, etc., etc. Let me throw in another suggestion: maybe it's our collective inability to focus on the positives! So what can we do to accentuate the things we do have?
When I think about Downtown, what comes to mind? The stadiums. Point State Park. The total lack of activity after 5pm (Cultural Dist. excepted). The views from Mt. Washington. Three rivers.
My wife and I visited Portland, OR last Memorial Day weekend. I thought it was absolutely beautiful. I think there are a lot of parallels to Pittsburgh there - mid-size city, riverside parks. But one thing that sticks out for me is - we spent practically two full days within the "downtown" city limits, and never ran out of things to do.
Going back to my list of Pittsburgh activities - what is there for a family to do that's a regular downtown draw? Notice I said regular - so the Regatta and the Arts Festival are out. (Portland, btw, has the Rose Festival... stop here if you want to end it at "Steel City" vs "City of Roses" :)
Point State, IMHO, is terribly underused. Yes it's an island of tranquility in the midst of the city, and there's the history of Fort Pitt to boot. But honestly, the whole time I worked downtown I can't say I ever really stopped down to the Point specifically for the peacefulness. It's much more about the green space, to me, and there are a number of neat little spots downtown for a nice lunch in a natural setting. (Trust me - take the Enjoy book and try to hit every downtown restaurant in it. We must have found a dozen little parklets here and there.)
What I would like to see is an area along the river for amusements - something to get everyone out of the house and down to the city on warm spring evenings. Something like the Navy Pier in Chicago or the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore. I'd like a combination of restaurants and outdoor entertainment (maybe under a tent or other open shelter, for when it is the weather holding people back). Bessemer Court is, in typical Pgh fashion, a worthy but insufficient effort in the (general) right direction. Whee - water choreographed to Rick Springsteen!
Ok, so people come and eat, see a live band or ride a ferris wheel - then what? How about shopping? Portland has the Saturday Market, which isn't actually strictly limited to Saturdays. It's similar to the Arts Festival, but it runs practically year round. They don't isolate the food booths from the crafts, either - so there's actually a half decent chance that the Fried Oreo people will *gasp* buy something. This is what I would like to see down at the Point - but please, let's be more mindful of the plastic chairs and the lawn-trampling masses so it's not an eyesore.
Then I would take it one step further. Run a Molly's Trolley, an amphibious WWII relic, or just a plain old PAT bus down Penn/Liberty Ave smack into the Strip, gratis for anyone with a booth voucher. Have them point out all the cool places along the way - the O'Reilly, SPACE, the Wood Street Galleries, the CLP. Mention all those awesome restaurants, hawk that Enjoy book. *cough* local business *cough* While you're at it, talk up the architecture and the walking tours.
How about bike, wagon, and rollerblade rentals? How about a farmer's market - and not up at the City-County Building? How about making the City a weekend destination? Once we've got that, we can start talking about big name retailers. We can think about redesigning downtown living space. We can start making transit connections to Oakland, the North Shore, the East Hills - because the people will be wanting to come here not go there. And they will come not just to see the rivers and the views, but to enjoy themselves while they're here.
The only way any of this would succeed would have to come from the marketing. Not marketing the region, or its identity, or whatever. We have a regional identity crisis, ok? And guess what - the neurosis is coming from us. We've convinced ourselves of our own second-rate, also-ran status. It's us, the people from the suburbs and the surrounding areas, who need to be convinced that downtown is somewhere worth being. Once we've got that, everyone else will follow.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Are All New Ideas Evolutionary?
My creativity seems to be generally cyclic. I’ll be highly creative for a time, and then have a lull for a while. Usually during this lull, at some point I start consuming new media, be it TV shows, movies, games, books, conversations with people, whatever. Once I start consuming this new media I get inspired by a whole set of new ideas that spark the next highly creative period.
So I got to thinking the other day that what we’re capable of creating is limited by the influences around us. And further, what we can accomplish in our lives is limited by the sum of human knowledge during our lifetime. Archimedes was a super genius Greek mathematician, but he had no chance of figuring out the General Theory of Relativity (E=mc2) that Einstein came up with, simply because physics was in its infancy at that time. Meanwhile I would conjecture that in the 1900's some other physicist would definitely have derived the General Theory of Relativity within 10 years of Einstein had he say – been more interested in going to the bar every night. I make this claim based on the fact that Einstein’s figured out his famous theory while working as a patent clerk. He was a genius – but for him to come up with the theory, the field of physics must have already been pretty close to that breakthrough when he was born.
As another example - The Beatles weren’t ready to write Norwegian Wood in the early 1960’s, because even though they were one of the most talented bands ever, their knowledge of the music scene just wasn’t there in 1960. They had to do a lot of drugs and go to India first.
A lot of times, I think artists and other people get too paranoid about being heavily influenced by outside ideas that they fear anything they create will just be an evolution of different current ideas. But really, that’s people can do. Ideas that seem revolutionary, like the Einstein example, are more about a really talented person living at a time where humanity’s current knowledge sits on the cusp of a development that, though it may not be a huge conceptual jump, it turns out to have huge implications.
That is, Aristotle didn’t live in ancient Newfoundland, he lived in ancient Greece, a place brimming full of philosophers. He was a product of the people and writings that influenced him more than he was an independently revolutionary thinker. Aristotle just did philosophy better than his contemporaries in subtle new ways that suddenly made sense to everyone, and so we remember him.
Imagine what you would be capable of if you grew up on a deserted island with plenty of food, but no interaction with society for your whole life. If you were lucky, you’d come up with something resembling a language. Maybe. That’s about the best you could hope for.
Based on that, it seems that allowing yourself to be selectively influenced by good and new ideas, and keeping up with current developments is more than an acceptable part of creative development – it is an essential ingredient.
I guess what that all means is that original creativity is an addition to the known sum of human knowledge. And that no ideas exist in a vacuum. Or rather that ideas that do exist in a vacuum are starting from scratch, and are therefore extraordinarily unlikely to create something new and significant.
So I got to thinking the other day that what we’re capable of creating is limited by the influences around us. And further, what we can accomplish in our lives is limited by the sum of human knowledge during our lifetime. Archimedes was a super genius Greek mathematician, but he had no chance of figuring out the General Theory of Relativity (E=mc2) that Einstein came up with, simply because physics was in its infancy at that time. Meanwhile I would conjecture that in the 1900's some other physicist would definitely have derived the General Theory of Relativity within 10 years of Einstein had he say – been more interested in going to the bar every night. I make this claim based on the fact that Einstein’s figured out his famous theory while working as a patent clerk. He was a genius – but for him to come up with the theory, the field of physics must have already been pretty close to that breakthrough when he was born.
As another example - The Beatles weren’t ready to write Norwegian Wood in the early 1960’s, because even though they were one of the most talented bands ever, their knowledge of the music scene just wasn’t there in 1960. They had to do a lot of drugs and go to India first.
A lot of times, I think artists and other people get too paranoid about being heavily influenced by outside ideas that they fear anything they create will just be an evolution of different current ideas. But really, that’s people can do. Ideas that seem revolutionary, like the Einstein example, are more about a really talented person living at a time where humanity’s current knowledge sits on the cusp of a development that, though it may not be a huge conceptual jump, it turns out to have huge implications.
That is, Aristotle didn’t live in ancient Newfoundland, he lived in ancient Greece, a place brimming full of philosophers. He was a product of the people and writings that influenced him more than he was an independently revolutionary thinker. Aristotle just did philosophy better than his contemporaries in subtle new ways that suddenly made sense to everyone, and so we remember him.
Imagine what you would be capable of if you grew up on a deserted island with plenty of food, but no interaction with society for your whole life. If you were lucky, you’d come up with something resembling a language. Maybe. That’s about the best you could hope for.
Based on that, it seems that allowing yourself to be selectively influenced by good and new ideas, and keeping up with current developments is more than an acceptable part of creative development – it is an essential ingredient.
I guess what that all means is that original creativity is an addition to the known sum of human knowledge. And that no ideas exist in a vacuum. Or rather that ideas that do exist in a vacuum are starting from scratch, and are therefore extraordinarily unlikely to create something new and significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)