Important point. I should watch the rest of Andy’s stream. I liked what I saw.
I don’t really differ on that point but my argument is still a basically “You didn’t build that” variant.
The most conceptually adept of innovators may get away with understanding without deep knowledge but many components of the possibility of innovation are still dependent, in some form or another, on the symbolic inheritance system (section 3.3.4 for details)—the historical (hysteresis), cultural and ecological conditions which create the social context for individual innovation.
It’s not just that these singular individuals say, “Oh, the world/X-industry is doing this all wrong. I’m not just making this better. I can make this problem go away”, they’re still differentiating their breakthroughs on the basis of what came—or didn’t come— before, on solving the personal/societal need; part of the solution is embedded in the problem if you will. In many cases (I’m not claiming this theory is exhaustive yet), the tools/methods of the past serve directly as a catalyst for new solutions.
It’s often how multiple independent discoveries are decentralized (though not equally distributed, like look at Terrance Tao on that list…) and emerge through a kind of self-organization on the basis of technologies (and social technologies) that are ready for the ratchet effect or what Matt Ridley calls the leap:
Matt : This is a phenomenon known as simultaneous invention. And it’s very true of almost any technology you want to look at, whether it’s the telegraph, or the telephone, or the airplane, there are several different people who could have got there about the same time, and sometimes who did get there independently at the same time. This isn’t something sort of weird and supernatural that’s happening. The reason for it is because the contributing technologies to making that technological leap had reached the point where the leap was ripe. It was ready to go. And you can see this very clearly in the case of, for example, the search engine, probably the most useful invention of my lifetime and the one that I use pretty well every day and invented in the early 1990s.
And in relation to Google:
Matt : But if Google has never been founded, we’d still have search engines. There were lots of other companies coming up with it around the same time. It’s not in that sense unique to one individual. It’s a case of simultaneous invention. And you can abolish from history half the people who invented search engines and we’d still have search engines. So it’s a very odd phenomenon. And one of the things I find most puzzling about it, is that looking back it’s obvious that the light bulb would be invented in the 1870s, the search engine will be invented in the 1990s.
Steve Jobs and Elon Musk were no doubt singular, largely self-taught, and instrumental (I can’t speak directly to Ford), but they also still work/ed and collaborate/d heavily with teams. Simultaneous innovation likely could not have occurred for the totality of their contributions in all their dimensions. They are indeed unique. But how they interface with teams is baked into the archetype of their brand of leadership. And that, I think, is indicative of many, though not all, major innovations in our world today.
The synergy of subject-matter expertise and design knowledge for individual agents of innovation is central. But I don’t think a monocausal, Great-Men theory can be plausibly applied to the kind of innovation required for the most pressing problems of the 21st century. Even as a very strong proponent of hybridity and generalism, I still do not think most solutions to today’s truly wicked problems can be solved by a single polymathic engineer or scientist. They will likely also require a community of practice or inquiry. I guess those are the innovations I’m most interested in. Given my broadly decentralized stance, I don’t think purely intellectual, artistic, or academic innovation is any less important or valuable.
But history tends to surprise.
And finally:
Yes! And to a lesser extent, I’d add cave painting to that technology for distributed cognition as well. And one of the brain’s core objectives is control of the social and physical environment. That also has to be a principal cybernetic function in the embryogenesis of man-machine interplay, right? (I know our ability to control machines much better than other living complex adaptive systems probably provided a lot of evolutionary novelty, dopamine hits, etc., but my comp sci knowledge base is too poor to reconstruct the other relevant layers (largely from the systems textbook I recommended to you a while ago)).