[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Because of locales and force vectors as locales over time in an environment. To steer a market, the direct path is the most expensive. Why don't the best win? That was Ayn Rand's dilemma. Regardless of whether or not one subscribes to her social agenda, some of her conclusions relate well to the current web zeitgeist.
1) There is an inverse relationship among the numbers of subjective views and objective implementations. A Many To One relationship is classically chaotic.
2) At the end of "Atlas Shrugged", Rand makes the point that innovation is done in small teams in isolated locales to offset the averaging effect of large social forces mediated through small groups of appointed or self-appointed but mediocre authorities.
The effect is discomfiting for some: most of the evolutionary direction comes from sources that are almost invisible. (If you like, the illuminati do exist but they don't party together in robes; they barely know each other if at all). The other discomfiting effect is that if, for example, you are in a company that has a 'special circle of top performers selected by the employees', you may want to route around these people if innovation is your goal. If stability is your goal, you promote ideas through them. It is the American Idol effect.
In chaos theory, weak signals presage emergence because strong signals are heavily filtered. If you want a technology to dominate, keep it small until just before you launch it but monitor the environment very precisely. Listening is everything. Timing is everything else.
len
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]
Le lundi 10 juillet 2006 à 08:43 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) a écrit :
> There are no winners and losers.
Good, this is the first time we do agree.
But why this title "The Best Technologies Don't Win" and this trailing sentence "Chalk up another win for objectivism." in your post that started this thread, then?
|
