Being First, Being Original, Being Innovative
2682
Self Improvement > Creativity
Mar 1, 2007
Sam Vaknin
Being First, Being Original, Being Innovative
There is an often missed distinction between Being the First, Being Original, and Being Innovative.
To determine that someone (or something) has been the first, we need to apply a temporal test. It should answer at least three questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.
To determine whether someone (or something) is original - a test of substance has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.
To determine if someone (or something) is innovative - a practical test has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, in which way was it done and was exactly this ever done before in exactly the same way.
Reviewing the tests above leads us to two conclusions:
1.. Being first and being original are more closely linked than being first and being innovative or than being original and being innovative. The tests applied to determine "firstness" and originality are the same.
2.. Though the tests are the same, the emphasis is not. To determine whether someone or something is a first, we primarily ask "when" - while to determine originality we primarily ask "what".
Innovation helps in the conservation of resources and, therefore, in the delicate act of human survival. Being first demonstrates feasibility ("it is possible"). By being original, what is needed or can be done is expounded upon. And by being innovative, the practical aspect is revealed: how should it be done.
Society rewards these pathfinders with status and lavishes other tangible and intangible benefits upon them - mainly upon the Originators and the Innovators. The Firsts are often ignored because they do not directly open a new path - they merely demonstrate that such a path is there. The Originators and the Innovators are the ones who discover, expose, invent, put together, or verbalize something in a way which enables others to repeat the feat (really to reconstruct the process) with a lesser investment of effort and resources.
It is possible to be First and not be Original. This is because Being First is context dependent. For instance: had I traveled to a tribe in the Amazon forests and quoted a speech of Kennedy to them - I would hardly have been original but I would definitely have been the first to have done so in that context (of that particular tribe at that particular time). Popularizers of modern science and religious missionaries are all first at doing their thing - but they are not original. It is their audience which determines their First-ness - and history which proves their (lack of) originality.
Many of us reinvent the wheel. It is humanly impossible to be aware of all that was written and done by others before us. Unaware of the fact that we are not the first, neither original or innovative - we file patent applications, make "discoveries" in science, exploit (not so) "new" themes in the arts.
Society may judge us differently than we perceive ourselves to be - less original and innovative. Hence, perhaps, is the syndrome of the "misunderstood genius". Admittedly, things are easier for those of us who use words as their raw material: there are so many permutations, that the likelihood of not being first or innovative with words is minuscule. Hence the copyright laws.
Yet, since originality is measured by the substance of the created (idea) content, the chances of being original as well as first are slim. At most, we end up restating or re-phrasing old ideas. The situation is worse (and the tests more rigorous) when it comes to non-verbal fields of human endeavor, as any applicant for a patent can attest.
But then surely this is too severe! Don't we all stand on the shoulders of giants? Can one be original, first, even innovative without assimilating the experience of past generations? Can innovation occur in vacuum, discontinuously and disruptively? Isn't intellectual continuity a prerequisite?
True, a scientist innovates, explores, and discovers on the basis of (a limited and somewhat random) selection of previous explorations and research. He even uses equipment - to measure and perform other functions - that was invented by his predecessors. But progress and advance are conceivable without access to the treasure troves of the past. True again, the very concept of progress entails comparison with the past. But language, in this case, defies reality. Some innovation comes "out of the blue" with no "predecessors".
Scientific revolutions are not smooth evolutionary processes (even biological evolution is no longer considered a smooth affair). They are phase transitions, paradigmatic changes, jumps, fits and starts rather than orderly unfolding syllogisms (Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").
There is very little continuity in quantum mechanics (or even in the Relativity Theories). There is even less in modern genetics and immunology. The notion of laboriously using building blocks to construct an ebony tower of science is not supported by the history of human knowledge. And what about the first human being who had a thought or invented a device - on what did he base himself and whose work did he continue?
Innovation is the father of new context. Original thoughts shape the human community and the firsts among us dictate the rules of the game. There is very little continuity in the discontinuous processes called invention and revolution. But our reactions to new things and adaptation to the new world in their wake essentially remain the same. It is there that continuity is to be found. Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. Visit Sam's Web site at samvak.tripod.com
To determine that someone (or something) has been the first, we need to apply a temporal test. It should answer at least three questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.
To determine whether someone (or something) is original - a test of substance has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.
To determine if someone (or something) is innovative - a practical test has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, in which way was it done and was exactly this ever done before in exactly the same way.
Reviewing the tests above leads us to two conclusions:
1.. Being first and being original are more closely linked than being first and being innovative or than being original and being innovative. The tests applied to determine "firstness" and originality are the same.
2.. Though the tests are the same, the emphasis is not. To determine whether someone or something is a first, we primarily ask "when" - while to determine originality we primarily ask "what".
Innovation helps in the conservation of resources and, therefore, in the delicate act of human survival. Being first demonstrates feasibility ("it is possible"). By being original, what is needed or can be done is expounded upon. And by being innovative, the practical aspect is revealed: how should it be done.
Society rewards these pathfinders with status and lavishes other tangible and intangible benefits upon them - mainly upon the Originators and the Innovators. The Firsts are often ignored because they do not directly open a new path - they merely demonstrate that such a path is there. The Originators and the Innovators are the ones who discover, expose, invent, put together, or verbalize something in a way which enables others to repeat the feat (really to reconstruct the process) with a lesser investment of effort and resources.
It is possible to be First and not be Original. This is because Being First is context dependent. For instance: had I traveled to a tribe in the Amazon forests and quoted a speech of Kennedy to them - I would hardly have been original but I would definitely have been the first to have done so in that context (of that particular tribe at that particular time). Popularizers of modern science and religious missionaries are all first at doing their thing - but they are not original. It is their audience which determines their First-ness - and history which proves their (lack of) originality.
Many of us reinvent the wheel. It is humanly impossible to be aware of all that was written and done by others before us. Unaware of the fact that we are not the first, neither original or innovative - we file patent applications, make "discoveries" in science, exploit (not so) "new" themes in the arts.
Society may judge us differently than we perceive ourselves to be - less original and innovative. Hence, perhaps, is the syndrome of the "misunderstood genius". Admittedly, things are easier for those of us who use words as their raw material: there are so many permutations, that the likelihood of not being first or innovative with words is minuscule. Hence the copyright laws.
Yet, since originality is measured by the substance of the created (idea) content, the chances of being original as well as first are slim. At most, we end up restating or re-phrasing old ideas. The situation is worse (and the tests more rigorous) when it comes to non-verbal fields of human endeavor, as any applicant for a patent can attest.
But then surely this is too severe! Don't we all stand on the shoulders of giants? Can one be original, first, even innovative without assimilating the experience of past generations? Can innovation occur in vacuum, discontinuously and disruptively? Isn't intellectual continuity a prerequisite?
True, a scientist innovates, explores, and discovers on the basis of (a limited and somewhat random) selection of previous explorations and research. He even uses equipment - to measure and perform other functions - that was invented by his predecessors. But progress and advance are conceivable without access to the treasure troves of the past. True again, the very concept of progress entails comparison with the past. But language, in this case, defies reality. Some innovation comes "out of the blue" with no "predecessors".
Scientific revolutions are not smooth evolutionary processes (even biological evolution is no longer considered a smooth affair). They are phase transitions, paradigmatic changes, jumps, fits and starts rather than orderly unfolding syllogisms (Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").
There is very little continuity in quantum mechanics (or even in the Relativity Theories). There is even less in modern genetics and immunology. The notion of laboriously using building blocks to construct an ebony tower of science is not supported by the history of human knowledge. And what about the first human being who had a thought or invented a device - on what did he base himself and whose work did he continue?
Innovation is the father of new context. Original thoughts shape the human community and the firsts among us dictate the rules of the game. There is very little continuity in the discontinuous processes called invention and revolution. But our reactions to new things and adaptation to the new world in their wake essentially remain the same. It is there that continuity is to be found. Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. Visit Sam's Web site at samvak.tripod.com
Write a Review
Add to My Favorite
Refer it to Friend
Report Article
Other links owned by this user
Both now-discarded Lamarckism (the supposed inheritance o acquired characteristics) and Evolution Theory postulate that unction determines orm. Natural selection rewards those orms best suited to carry out the unction o survival ("survival o the
Category:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition, text revision [American Psychiatric Association. DSM-IV-TR, Washington, 2000] - or the DSM-IV-TR for short - describes Axis II personality disorders as "deeply ingrained, maladaptive, lifelong
Category:
Most politicians bend the laws of the land and steal money or solicit bribes because they need the funds to support networks of patronage. Others do it in order to reward their nearest and dearest or to maintain a lavish lifestyle when their political
Category:
I use words as others use algebraic signs: with meticulousness, with caution, with the precision of the artis. I sculpt in words. I stop. I tilt my head. I listen to the echoes. The tables of emotional resonce. The fine tuned reverberations of pain
Category:
Are all personality disorders the outcomes of frustrated narcissism? During our formative years (6 months to 6 years old), we are all "narcissists". Primary Narcissism is a useful and critically important defense mechanism. As the infant
Category:
There is an often missed distinction between Being the First, Being Original, and Being Innovative. To determine that someone (or something) has been the first, we need to apply a temporal test. It should answer at least three questions:
Category:
The history of the Cathoic Church reads ike the annas of a goba crime concern. It gave the word the inquisition, incestuous and murderous popes, reigious warfare, pedophiiac sex scandas, idoatry, and the gnawing guit that comes from embracing
Category:
Their arrival portends rising local prices and a culture shock. Many of them live in plush apartments, or five star hotels, drive SUV's, sport $3000 laptops and PDA's. They earn a two figure multiple of the local average wage. They are busybodies,
Category:
Psychology is more an art form than a science. There is no "Theory of Everything" from which one can derive all mental health phenomena and make falsifiable predictions. Still, as far as personality disorders are concerned, it is easy to discern common
Category:
There are many kinds of narratives and organizing principles. Science is driven by evidence gathered in experiments, and by the falsification of extant theories and their replacement with newer, asymptotically truer, ones. Other systems - religion,
Category:
11. The Roman Family
The father in the Roman family (paterfamilias) exercised absolute and lifelong power over all other family members (patria potestas): his wife, children, and slaves. If the father's father was alive - then he was the supreme authority in the household.
Category:
Incrementally, but noticeably, the United States is shedding its democracy. Hard-won civil liberties are willingly sacrificed for the sake of illusory added security. Institutions are stacked with political, partisan appointees who do their
Category:
13. Fact and Truth
Thought experiments (Gedankenexperimenten) are "facts" in the sense that they have a "real life" correlate in the form of electrochemical activity in the brain. But it is quite obvious that they do not relate to facts "out there". They are not true
Category:
Personality disorders are like tips of icebergs. They rest on a foundation of causes and effects, interactions and events, emotions and cognitions, functions and dysfunctions that together form the patient and make him or her what s/he is. The DSM
Category:
The DSM-IV-TR (2000) defines a personality disorder as: "An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations the individuals culture (and is manifested in two or more of his or her areas of mental
Category:
16. Slush Funds
According to David McClintick ("Swordfish: A True Story of Ambition, Savagery, and Betrayal"), in the late 1980's, the FBI and DEA set up dummy corporations to deal in drugs. They funneled into these corporate fronts money from drug-related asset
Category:
With the exception of Nietzsche, no other madman has contributed so much to human sanity as has Louis Althusser. He is mentioned twice in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as someone's teacher. There could be no greater lapse: for two important decades (the
Category:
18. On Being Human
Are we human because of unique traits and attributes not shared with either animal or machine? The n of "human" is circular: we are human by virtue of the properties that make us human (i.e., distinct from animal and machine). It is a
Category:
(The author was among the first contributors to Nupedia, the Wikipedia's peer-reviewed predecessor, and spent six years, on and off, studying the Wikipedia) It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and
Category:
The preservation of human life is the ultimate vue, a pillar of ethics and the foundation of l mority. This held true in most cultures and societies throughout history. On first impression, the last sentence sounds patently wrong. We
Category:
Other links at Self Improvement > Creativity
For each of us, the universe is different. A homeless man may view the universe as unfair, hard and tough. A rich man may view the universe as a lovely place full of luxury and pleasure. Both of them are viewing the same universe, it is just different
Category:
Before thinking about how to be more creative, let me begin point out some real barriers that some people seem to have when wanting to enhance creativity, have a think if any of these things are applicable to you and your life; 1. Lack of
Category:
A recent survey tells us that 24% of Americans between the ages of 18-50 are tattooed. This is almost 1 in 4. The most popular reason people get tattooed is ?To broadcast what they are all about.? Keeping this in mind, many people end up
Category:
Here are 7 ways you can instantly access your natural creativity and create anything you like. 1. Think Like A Child. As adults we tend to think in a conditioned way aimed at showing how clever we are. Yet, as children, we were simply
Category:
Want a fun way to tune up your brain? Why not use some classic mind games to help you increase your brainpower and get you out of your inking "ruts." Good mind games habituate you to using creative problem solving as a normal part of inking about
Category:
Site Sponsor
Directory Statistics
Articles: 68228
Categories: 501
Yahoo Entertainment
