It can and can not be how skeptical stifles innovation

Today it has become fashionable to write articles, comments and tweets about how wrong the young company. People love to read and write about what someone's company is stupid, someone's ideas stupid, skeptical prim lips and laugh at the failures. And it kills great ideas and worthwhile project, and, above all, is working against themselves cynics.

Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world, foolish attempt to adjust the world for themselves. Therefore, progress depends on unreasonable people. Bernard Show

Why does it matter? Why it is worth considering that the attitude to new ideas is leaning in the wrong direction? Why is it important to find a correct, interesting, necessary in some companies than what it wrong and ridiculous?

The concept of "technology" can be seen as the best way to do something. The best way to store information, best currency, the best way to make friends - to find something out of it, means to improve the millennial experience of mankind, and it is not so simple.

On some level, it seems that it is simply impossible to do something better. There are such thoughts: really from ancient times up until 2014, no one thought about it? Am I the only one smart?

From a psychological point of view it is very important, and to create something, people should avoid such thoughts indefinitely.

The launch of new technologies - this is the moment when the talented people can imagine the impossible.

Culture "can" and "can not"

People often wonder why big companies problems with innovation, while small companies to easily conduct various innovations. The fact that large companies have more ideas, but they can not put them into practice because too many people have to approve the idea before it can be implemented.

If some wise guy will find in the idea of ​​negative qualities, as is often done just to show his power, it would kill her and put an end to the project. And that brings up the "culture can not be."

The big problem of innovation consists in the fact that great ideas often look like the bad. That's because they are so new that it is difficult to imagine how they will earn.

Large companies focused on creative, like Amazon or the Google, take care of their innovators. Larry Page definitely finance a good idea, which looks as bad, and removes the reason for which it is impossible to implement.

This attitude can be called "culture can be."

Some people would like to turn the world of technology development in one large company with degenerative "Culture can not", and of neglecting the brilliant ideas and technologies there is nothing new.

New ideas may not be entirely successful, but it does not mean that one can not learn anything. Obviously, this will have to change their attitude to innovation and to lose a fair amount of skepticism. Here are some examples of stories that demonstrate this.

A computer

In 1837, Charles Babbage wanted to build something that he called "The Analytical Engine" - the world's first general-purpose computer. If the machine Babbage give enough resources, it would be able to calculate all that can modern computer.

The calculations would take place more slowly, and so the computer would simply huge (and very slowly really huge), but he would still have made all the calculations that are available modern computers.

Babbage did not manage to realize his project in life, because in 1837 to build a machine of wood and run it through a couple was too ambitious idea.

Ultimately, mathematician and astronomer George Airy beidelite said the British Ministry of Finance, that the Analytical Engine "useless" and Babbage project should be stopped. Shortly thereafter, the government froze the project. The world has forgotten about the idea until 1941, she was killed by skepticism and completely forgotten.

After 177 years it is easy to see that his vision was correct, and the computers are not useless. As for Babbage, the most important thing in his life that he proposed the idea earlier 100 years than the world was ready to accept it, but the fact that it was a great idea and the determination to promote it.

An example of this scientist is still inspiring many inventors, while George Airy remembered as a type of short-sighted, unable to see beyond their noses.

Phone

Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, offered to sell his invention and patents for his company Western Union, a leading manufacturer of the telegraph, for $ 100,000. Western Union declined because of the report of its internal committee. Here are some excerpts from that report:

The purpose of the phone is voice over telegraph wires. We found that the voice is quite weak and vague, and becomes weaker with increasing length of the wires between transmitter and receiver. we do not expect In technical terms, this device will ever be able to send a clear and recognizable speech at a distance of several miles.

Sir Hubbard and Bell want to install one of their "telephone device" in each city. The idea is idiotic. Why is everyone suddenly wants to use impractical devices, instead of sending a clear message by telegraph and get legible and clear words in any city in the US?

Electricians of our company have developed significant improvements in telegraph technology, and we see no reason why a group of renegades to their extravagant and impractical ideas is to have fun at our expense, while they do not have a clue about the real problems of our area.

Bizarre predictions of Mr. Hubbard's sound attractive, but they are based on pure imagination, and the complete absence of understanding of the technical and economic factors. He simply ignores the obvious limitations of your device, which is not much different from the toys.

For this reason, we consider the proposal of the Hubbard device selling for $ 100,000 unfounded, as the phone is absolutely useless for us. We do not recommend buying it.

the Internet

To date, almost all recognize that the Internet is important, but such beliefs are more recent. In 1995, astronomer Clifford Stoll wrote an article for Newsweek entitled "Why the Internet will not be Nirvana."

This article provides this analysis:

It kiberbiznes. We promise to online directories store - Select and press to get the best deals. We will book tickets through the network, book tables in the restaurant, even enter into contracts of sale. Shops obsolete.

So why did my small shopping center brings more revenue in the second half of the day than the entire turnover of e-commerce in the past month? Even if there were reliable ways to send money over the Internet (which does not exist), the network is not a very important component of capitalism - sellers.

It sounds ridiculous, but at that time was quite serious and credible.

So what mistake was made by all of these, without doubt, the smart people? They focused on what you can do new technology, rather than what it can do and what to do in the future.

According to someone in the first place beats "Culture can not"? Just for the haters and skeptics. People who focus on the negative side of the ideas themselves would never dare to change, because they are too afraid to appear stupid.

They will be too jealous to learn from the great innovators. They are too stubborn to notice the brilliant young engineer, who can change the world. They will be too cynical, to inspire someone to create something great. And they will be those who are making fun of the story.

Do not hate, create