However, generation is often risky, and not everyone has the capacity to absorb that risk. For example, one might not have the exploratory space needed to pursue spontaneous 5-hour reading sprints while working full-time.
I think we some very important projects never happen because the people who have taken all the inferential steps necessary to understand them are not the same as those evaluating them, and so there’s an information-asymmetry.
That’s one of California’s hidden advantages: the mild climate means there’s lots of marginal space. In cold places that margin gets trimmed off. There’s a sharper line between outside and inside, and only projects that are officially sanctioned — by organizations, or parents, or wives, or at least by oneself — get proper indoor space. That raises the activation energy for new ideas. You can’t just tinker. You have to justify.
(This is one of the problems I model impact certificates as trying to solve.)
Somewhat tangential, but...
You point to the following process:
Generation --> Evaluation --> Acceptance/rejection.
However, generation is often risky, and not everyone has the capacity to absorb that risk. For example, one might not have the exploratory space needed to pursue spontaneous 5-hour reading sprints while working full-time.
Hence, I think much of society looks like this:
Justification --> Evaluation --> Generation --> Evaluation --> Acceptance/rejection.
I think we some very important projects never happen because the people who have taken all the inferential steps necessary to understand them are not the same as those evaluating them, and so there’s an information-asymmetry.
Here’s PG:
(This is one of the problems I model impact certificates as trying to solve.)