? (Updated 12/24)

 

The best idea machine that you have is you.  Once you know how to look at a particular situation and yield benefit from your observation, you will be able to look at other situations with a similar mindset and produce similar results.  As Steven Johnson says, "if you want more inspiration, get more parts on the table"

As "the father of systematic economics, David Ricardo, is believed to have said once, 'profits are not made by differential cleverness, but by differential stupidity.'"

Simply put, "most suppliers...Do not think." 

This is because businesses are stuck in the flow created by predecessors who had some good ideas of their own, but whose efficacy was limited by the variability of that time period.   So don't be surprised when your ideas are not welcomed.  When presenting your refinements, it's important to show tact, especially when you're a subordinate.  And don't take it personally, and remember that a good idea is only off on timing--and often timing is further impeded by powers who can profit from its delay (c.f. Machiavelli  Livy, 158).  Paraphrasing Machiavelli, a true friend will demand an open declaration while an enemy will encourage neutrality.  Thus, it's important to get to the decision maker and not rely upon the auspices of a go-between.  Because now more than ever good ideas will be taken seriously by higher-ups--if only for fear of someone else taking them seriously (competitive advantage).

If you fall into the fraud trap--the feeling that you are putting on a front--remember what CS Lewis said:  "there is a pretense that leads to the real thing." He was not saying be pretentious;  he was saying be a believer.  The kinder you are, the kinder you will become--as with every other practice.  The key is self-belief.

Further, if you want to be smarter--read smarter people.  Don't let the homies or the haters hinder your progress.  And do not let your past iterations limit future creations--and yesterday's creation is old news.  After all, no one calls a toddler a fraud because he no longer sucks his thumb--so it should be with every other past iteration.  And we must also not let our predecessors, of whom we owe a great deal of thanks to, limit idea expansion. 

I would now like to quote Peter Drucker before making my last point: "we now know that 'revolution' is not achievement in the new dawn. It results from senile decay, from the bankruptcy of ideas and institutions, from failure of self-renewal. [& - >] The only way in which an institution—whether a government, a university, a business, a labor union, an army—can maintain continuity is by building systematic, organized innovation into its very structure. Institutions, systems, policies, eventually outlive themselves, as do products, processes, and services. They do it when they accomplish their objectives, and they do it when they fail to accomplish their objectives. Innovation and entrepreneurship are thus needed in society as much as in the economy, in public service institutions as much as in business. The modern organization must be a destabilizer; it must be organized for innovation."  

And now I would like to seamfully [get it: not seamlessly, but seamfully] transition to China's egregious one-child policy as evidence of a well-meaning revolutionary initiative gone wrong (as any effective Googler could verify).  This is a perfect illustration of where immoral actions can never produce moral results (Although Star Wars fans might disagree, since only Siths believe in absolutes--and who wouldn't want to punch the next baby Hitler in the womb?  Perhaps we'll see that in a sequel to Minority Report).  From my understanding, it is that not only did needless baby genocide occur, but the purpose of the policy has seemingly backfired--as China is now in need of more babies (in fact, from what I have read, they are encouraging party members to have two or three)....?

*$* - Paraphrasing Steven Johnson, whenever a disaster seems to do us in, we always come up with technology to solve our current problem.  So, for me, it would be both utilitarian and deontologically compatible to save as many people as possible--inside or outside the womb (assuming their not haters).  Now, what China could have done, would have been to temporarily (?) sterilize everyone--except the really really smart people--and issue rations to sustain the population; or implement other imaginative solutions.  But I know that heavy is the head the wears the crown, so I'm not judging (#NotAHater).  Besides, all this thinking makes my head hurt--I'm still trying to figure out how Noah got all those animals on the ark (#@).  I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying that there are some things outside of my pay grade--and apparently China's!  But yeah, given China's current kerfluffle, perhaps they should just do what's righteous for now on #TeamGod

& - Addendum

^ - 

#@ - Though, I read that 99 percent of all species that ever existed are now extinct, and new species are being discovered regularly.  So, maybe our understanding of what had to be stored on the arc are incomprehensible.  Was there a T-Rex, probably not, but I will defer to science for any further extrapolation.   (Plus, there have been seashells found on mountainous places).  

#Sterilize
#AbortLess