I fear somebody is going to complain that disruptive behavior is what we need to teach children so they can innovate and question authority. Open to discussion, but if it worked that way, we’d be overwhelmed with innovators and independent thinkers today.
Uh… We are overwhelmed with innovators and thinkers. This is the most innovative age in technology, science and the arts in history!
I don’t know if childhood “disruptive behavior” is correlated or anti-correlated or independent of innovation in adulthood. But your argument doesn’t seem to work.
Email me and I can send you a draft of a rather long manuscript I’m writing, showing from many sources of data that this is the least-innovative age in technology, science, and the arts in at least the past hundred years (and IMHO probably back to at least 1600). 1970 to 2013 was 43 years. Then compare 1970 to 1927, or 1927 to 1884, or 1884 to 1841, or 1841 to 1798. If you think the difference from 1970 to 2013 was even half that of any of those time periods, you’re ignorant of history. The stagnation is bad in technology; worse in basic research; almost a total standstill in the arts; and negative in median income.
Hmm, “innovation” is a sufficiently vague term that I’m wondering how one can support judgements like “If you think the difference [in innovation] from 1970 to 2013 was even half that of any of those time periods, you’re ignorant of history.” It’s hard for me to think of a way to sensibly quantify innovation in STEM*, let alone the arts.
* For example, which was the bigger innovation, Ure’s 1830 thermostat or Bardeen, Shockley & Brattain’s 1947 transistor? And how ought I interpret multiple discoveries/inventions like the transistor (which was independently patented at least twice before Bardeen, Shockley & Brattain, but never put into production)?
Uh… We are overwhelmed with innovators and thinkers. This is the most innovative age in technology, science and the arts in history!
I don’t know if childhood “disruptive behavior” is correlated or anti-correlated or independent of innovation in adulthood. But your argument doesn’t seem to work.
Email me and I can send you a draft of a rather long manuscript I’m writing, showing from many sources of data that this is the least-innovative age in technology, science, and the arts in at least the past hundred years (and IMHO probably back to at least 1600). 1970 to 2013 was 43 years. Then compare 1970 to 1927, or 1927 to 1884, or 1884 to 1841, or 1841 to 1798. If you think the difference from 1970 to 2013 was even half that of any of those time periods, you’re ignorant of history. The stagnation is bad in technology; worse in basic research; almost a total standstill in the arts; and negative in median income.
I take it that you are looking at it from a per capita perspective? If so, I’d be interested to read it; my email’s
gwern@gwern.net.Hmm, “innovation” is a sufficiently vague term that I’m wondering how one can support judgements like “If you think the difference [in innovation] from 1970 to 2013 was even half that of any of those time periods, you’re ignorant of history.” It’s hard for me to think of a way to sensibly quantify innovation in STEM*, let alone the arts.
* For example, which was the bigger innovation, Ure’s 1830 thermostat or Bardeen, Shockley & Brattain’s 1947 transistor? And how ought I interpret multiple discoveries/inventions like the transistor (which was independently patented at least twice before Bardeen, Shockley & Brattain, but never put into production)?