Sheesh, what a bunch of academic phraseology! - functional modularization - combinatorial evolution - both "top-down" as well as "bottom-up" initiative [...] indispensable
IM(Not So)HO, America at large has been sufficiently dumbed down by the brutal combination of a mediocre educational system, an academic peer review system that rigidly refuses to think outside the box, pay-for-play politics, fundamentalist christian & christian wannabe religions, McDonalds lardburgers, and short-sighted Wall Street quants that innovation is now solidly a thing of the past, and will probably remain so for a very long time. --Doug On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Tom Vest <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > > In a recent washingtonpost.com article named > > "Erasing our innovation deficit" ( http://bit.ly/cG6vGW ) > > Eric Schmidt said > > > > "We have been world leaders in [technological] innovation for > generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and our rising > prosperity. > > [..] We can no longer rely on the top-down approach of the 20th century, > when big investments in the military and NASA spun off to the wider > economy." > > > > Do you agree? What kind of approach does the > > USA need to return to old strength? > > > > -J. > > I'm surprised that none of the current/former SFIers on the list have > mentioned Brian Arthur's recent pitch for "combinatorial evolution" as the > engine of innovation. > As I read it, Brian's argument is that innovation is an epiphenomenon > arising from: > > -- the functional modularization of many different kinds of technologies*, > plus > -- the standardization of "open" interfaces enabling those functional > components or modules to be combined in different ways, plus > -- an environment that enables and incentivizes widespread experimental > combination of different technologies, e.g., by occasionally rewarding those > who come up with novel, useful combinations. > > *These could be of the "hard" or "soft" variety, e.g., chip design or > double-entry bookkeeping. > > So, on this account it would seem that both "top-down" as well as > "bottom-up" initiative is indispensable. > Bottom-up activities are the proximate cause and primary engine driving > innovation. > However, the size of that engine (e.g., the share of the total population > capable of participating constrictively in the combinatorial search) depends > substantially on the existence, scope, and openness/interoperability of > those modules and the standardized interfaces between them. Unfortunately, > by their very definition "standards" are a top-down phenomenon -- both > because they are never adopted with unanimous consent (but must be appx. > universally binding with a domain in order to work in that domain), and > because they must remain relatively stable over time, which means that for > everyone that comes along after the moment of standardization, they may feel > like an "unjust," arbitrary imposition. > > In 2002, a quartet of prominent Internet standards developers published a > paper called "Tussle in Cyberspace" (link below), which made a broadly > similar argument about how the Internet has evolved. However, while > mechanisms that the Tussle authors describe are broadly similar, the tone > seems quite different, to me at least. The earlier paper seemed to be > (obliquely) engaging a topical issues that was just emerging around that > time -- i.e., the aspirations of some dominant Internet service providers to > subtly alter and/or partially vacate some of the standards that make the > Internet "open" and thus had fostered the Internet's rapid growth up to that > time (note: today the issue is most commonly called "net neutrality"). In > that context, the Tussle paper seems to lean ever so slightly past the > domain of observation and Darwinian theory construction, in the general > direction of advocating the tussle process and the embrace of whatever > outcomes it yields, ala "social darwinism." > > In any case, I think that any present US deficit in innovation can probably > be chalked up, at least in part, to the ongoing progressive deviation from > our most recent moment of optimal balance between those "top down" and > "bottom up" forces. Some of the biggest recent winners in the innovation > game -- i.e., those who benefited most from the latest round of technical > standardization -- have started exert their own top-down authority in ways > that advance their own private interests, but which collaterally degrade the > environment for future/distributed innovation... > > (The question resonates for me because of the looming inflection point in > Internet protocol standards associated with the depletion of the IPv4 > address pool, which happens to be the stuff of my day job) > > My own 0.02, +/- > > Tom Vest > > "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet" > http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
