Tag Archives: ideas

Ideas in science

In science the primary duty of ideas is to be useful and interesting even more than to be true…

Wilfred Trotter

Stealing ideas

Theft from a single author is plagiarism.Theft from two is comparative study.Theft from three or more is research.


Leading towards goals

An anonymous, reported by Ilead365 (http://www.ilead365.com/) spends some words on co-operation and different dynamics within a team. Among this is said that “[…] When everyone is in agreement, no one has really thought it through”.

Of course, co-operating within a team is one of the key to success. But be aware: is one of the success factors.

Working with a goal (more or less shared) gives you a boost in productivity that is an enabler for success.

But this sort of close correlation between team and individuals, has the embedded risk that people tend to allign thereself to leading ideas, no longer examining ideas critically.

Under this name (better known as “groupthinking”) fall many engraving of the same “evil” (joking…lol) stone that cover
a) focusing over a shared enemy (we as a team against all others): this concept doesn’t work fully, because people tend to accept same idea without discussing it, just because is the group one
b) accepting the “alfa” idea: this doesn’t work because also leaders can make errors and some discussion can be healthy also for better and winning ideas
c) unrealism: this is obviously not working, but supported from he group, the idea can be perceived by the group as real.

As a general behaviour, I see that frequently is easier for people to follow a thought and find ways to support it than thinking a brand new idea.
But effort is quite the same.
Is one of our society problems: little makers and lot of followers that refuse any discussion.

But unleashing this potential is not so difficult: try to stimulate the discussion by gradually forcing everyone to express idea.
I do it generally having people writing down separately their contribution and summarizing it on a flip board trying to categorize them if possible.
Then discussion starts little by little.

Internet for peace Nobel prize 2010 for and against

Lewis Wallace at Wired (http://www.wired.com/underwire/author/lewis_wallace/) writes an article reporting Wired decision to start a campaign for candidating Internet (means each one of us being behind a PC) for Peace Nobel prize 2010 (full article at http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/internet-for-peace-nobel/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29, candidate site at http://www.internetforpeace.it/manifesto.cfm).

I have contrasting feelings on this action.

Why I’m for.

  • Because Internet is THE revolution of the last two centuries, having shortened distances, freed people and developed a common conscience
  • Because Internet is a media of peace and of peace keeping, permitting people to share thoughts, frustrations, dreams, ideas, hopes
  • Because the Nobel Prize for Peace can, finally, promote internet to a sort of new status of overnational media

Why I’m against.

  • Internet is immaterial and, for itself, doesn’t deserve any merit, because are people underlying that make it a “good” or “bad” media
  • Internet is not only peace.  It has inside bad feelings and habits, like everyone of us.
  • Because there are a lot of people more real than internet that deserve an help both as a prize and as money and associated visibility

At the very end, I decided to support the campaign because I hope, like Obama’s prize was this year, that this candidation will be a signal of hope for our world.

This post as a comment also at http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/internet-for-peace-nobel/comment-page-1/#comment-41599


All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.


Beware of startups. Long live the startups

Eliot Van Buskirk (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/author/eliotvb/) at Wired writes an article telling us that “[…] The financial giants of New York City may have crashed spectacularly after betting the world’s economy on worthless home mortgages, but the city is now bursting with technology startups, who just a short year ago wouldn’t have been considered worth risk or attention from the money men.” (full article at http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/startups-rise-from-the-wreckage-of-new-yorks-financial-system/).

I think that all those startups are of course a sign of some kind of economy new deal, but we all should be aware in order not to come again back i 2000, where with only an idea and no basis you could become a millionaire.

IMHO consistent and stable growth passes through a selection of which startup deserve to continue and those who don’t.

Not everybody is an entepreneur or is able to be so. Even if you’re one of the best and brightest mind.

This post as a comment also at http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/startups-rise-from-the-wreckage-of-new-yorks-financial-system/comment-page-1/#comment-36186

New economy, startups and lessons we should learn

Chris Anderson at Wired writes a great article on what future economy will be shaped after the big meltdown we occurred this year (full article at http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_essay).

In my opinion he’s somewhat right saying that future economy will privilege the small against today bigger than biggest.

Small and medium sized companies are the flexible bone of a healthy company, granting, among the others:

  • flexibility
  • reactivity (and because of scale proactivity)
  • the right blend between “paranoid” control typical of corporations and freedom typical of one man bands

on the other side there are some hidden risks we should take into account:

  • for a giant corporation it’s easier and cheaper to get access to credit and, in general, to money needed to run the business. Costly money will bring to higher prices and, if it won’t be followed by salary raises, at the very end could lead to a new personal credit expansion (and we saw the results of credit crunch…)
  • we should start thinking that, despite success of some startups, time where an idea could make someone multi million wealthy has passed. Companies (small and big), grow and produce money for some factors. And Ideas are one of this factors, that should be mixed with skills, means, and wiseness
  • as a consequence of the above point, not everybody should think about incorporating, because not everybody has the right skills, right ideas and right timing. Especially in future challenging times we are going to experience. Otherwise we would face not the collapse of a couple of multi billion dollar corporations, but the collapse of many small companies with maybe bigger problems of unemployment and money loosing.

This post also at http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_essay

%d bloggers like this: