2020 US Election (Part Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know if declining to execute the idea is a very good indicator of whether or not an idea is good. There are very good reasons someone would have for declining to execute their own idea even if the idea is awesome. One very good reason is preservation of reputation. What do I mean by that? Even if an idea is a really good one, it is not guaranteed to be successful. So by having someone else execute your idea, it gives you a convenient scapegoat to blame if your idea fails horribly upon execution. It also preserves not only your reputation, but the legitimacy of the idea in the minds of others because you can just say that the idea is still good, it was just executed by someone who was a flipping moron.
This is actually a perfect example of why generally, I equate "idea person" with "FOS person"... if you're too chicken-horsehocky to implement your own dogsqueeze idea because you're worried it will fail and make you look bad... and/or you're trying to sandbag someone else to be the scapegoat when your BS gets exposed as the BS that it is... yep, that's exactly the kind of person whose ideas shouldn't be implemented.
 
This is actually a perfect example of why generally, I equate "idea person" with "FOS person"... if you're too chicken-**** to implement your own dogsqueeze idea because you're worried it will fail and make you look bad... and/or you're trying to sandbag someone else to be the scapegoat when your BS gets exposed as the BS that it is... yep, that's exactly the kind of person whose ideas shouldn't be implemented.

Well I would also say that no idea should be dismissed out of hand. While an idea as a whole may turn out to be garbage, there might be pieces of that idea that are still useful. An example of this would be the Land Warrior program the Army tried to implement in the late 90s and early 2000s. The program as a whole was an absolute failure and just an all-around bad idea, but there were some useful technologies that came out of it that the Army still uses.
 
Well I would also say that no idea should be dismissed out of hand. While an idea as a whole may turn out to be garbage, there might be pieces of that idea that are still useful. An example of this would be the Land Warrior program the Army tried to implement in the late 90s and early 2000s. The program as a whole was an absolute failure and just an all-around bad idea, but there were some useful technologies that came out of it that the Army still uses.
Ideas shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but talk is cheap and if a person has an idea, they should be encouraged to figure out how to make it work. The hard part is usually getting the the results you envision. Failure to get the results one wants usually comes from faulty thinking at the start. Even the strong "doers" often fail in the planning process.
 
Well I would also say that no idea should be dismissed out of hand. While an idea as a whole may turn out to be garbage, there might be pieces of that idea that are still useful. An example of this would be the Land Warrior program the Army tried to implement in the late 90s and early 2000s. The program as a whole was an absolute failure and just an all-around bad idea, but there were some useful technologies that came out of it that the Army still uses.
Well...some ideas should certainly be dismissed out of hand but of course all ideas shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. My point stands that challenging folks to implement their own ideas is a simple and easy way to expose garbage ideas that are coming from people who are just full of hot air.

Frankly if an idea is so good that before we even get to the "who will implement it?" question, you have folks applauding the idea and falling all over themselves to volunteer to implement it, then you don't even need to reach the point of challenging the person who came up with the idea to implement it themselves.

But in my experience, with ideas which are that good, the person who came up with the idea is already planning to implement it themselves... preceicsely because its a good idea, they know it, they've already thought about how to make it succeed, and thus they are fully prepared to put their own reputation on the line to support their idea. Or the person advancing the idea is so credible, such a proven winner, that people are quick to rally behind their ideas.

Its the windbags who are unsure of their idea, who are looking to scapegoat others and potentially ruin other people's reputations and waste other peoples time rather than their own.
 
My point stands that challenging folks to implement their own ideas is a simple and easy way to expose garbage ideas that are coming from people who are just full of hot air

What about someone who comes up with a good idea but doesn't have the authority to implement it? Or someone who just simply doesn't like being the one in charge? Are they supposed to stay silent or have their ideas dismissed simply because they don't want to implement it themselves?

If so, there's a lot of good movies and video games we'd never have. A lot of screenplays and game concepts are written by very behind the scenes people who take that idea to a big studio and sell it to them. The studio then takes responsibility for the implementation of the idea.

The point being that there really are "idea people" out there and their ideas aren't inherently bad or inferior compared to those of "action people". In fact, most of the bad ideas I've personally seen implemented have come from so-called "action people". So I guess you and I have opposite perspectives on this.
 
Ideas shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but talk is cheap and if a person has an idea, they should be encouraged to figure out how to make it work. The hard part is usually getting the the results you envision. Failure to get the results one wants usually comes from faulty thinking at the start. Even the strong "doers" often fail in the planning process.

Of course, all the many, many factors, difficulties, resistances, oppositions, and misunderstanding, staunch opposition to, and ridicule of those ideas that all come along the way only result in the failure of a minority of ideas - they usually fail because - "failure to get the results one wants usually comes from faulty thinking at the start," eh, @Birdjaguar? That seems like a very miscalculated statement there - but one whose burden on the self and idea over the whole environment and world it's to be enacted, and people it's to be enacted with, could almost lead to warped solipsist thinking, if one weren't careful. ;)
 
Of course, all the many, many factors, difficulties, resistances, oppositions, and misunderstanding, staunch opposition to, and ridicule of those ideas that all come along the way only result in the failure of a minority of ideas - they usually fail because - "failure to get the results one wants usually comes from faulty thinking at the start," eh, @Birdjaguar? That seems like a very miscalculated statement there - but one whose burden on the self and idea over the whole environment and world it's to be enacted, and people it's to be enacted with, could almost lead to warped solipsist thinking, if one weren't careful. ;)
Just to be clear, the "faulty thinking at the start" statement I made refers to the process one goes through when implementation is on the table. It is not connected to the original idea itself. There are good and bad ways to work out how to implement change. Most people skip the important ones that need to happen early in the process. I stand by my statement.
 
Fresh off the press.

Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate Plan

Joe Biden’s plan links tackling climate change with economic recovery from the coronavirus and addressing racism, drawing praise from onetime critics.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced on Tuesday a new plan to spend $2 trillion over four years to significantly escalate the use of clean energy in the transportation, electricity and building sectors, part of a suite of sweeping proposals designed to create economic opportunities and build infrastructure while also tackling climate change.

In a speech in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden built on his plans, released last week, for reviving the economy in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, with a new focus on enhancing the nation’s infrastructure and emphasizing the importance of putting the United States on a path to significantly cut fossil fuel emissions.

“These are the most critical investments we can make for the long-term health and vitality of both the American economy and the physical health and safety of the American people,” he said, repeatedly criticizing President Trump’s leadership on issues including climate and the pandemic. “When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is ‘hoax.’ When I think about climate change, the word I think of is ‘jobs.’”

The proposal is the second plank in Mr. Biden’s economic recovery plan. His team sees an opportunity to take direct aim at Mr. Trump, who has struggled to deliver on his pledges to pay for major improvements to American infrastructure. Even before Mr. Biden spoke, Mr. Trump’s allies denounced the plan as a costly threat to jobs in the energy sector, and his campaign sought to link the proposal to the Green New Deal, the far-reaching climate plan that Mr. Biden has not fully endorsed.

Nevertheless, the new plan does appear to have made some inroads with a different key constituency: the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which had long been skeptical about the scope of Mr. Biden’s ambitions on climate.

“This is not a status quo plan,” said Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, a prominent environmentalist who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination on a platform of combating climate change and later endorsed Mr. Biden.​
 
What about someone who comes up with a good idea but doesn't have the authority to implement it?

Implementing bright ideas from scientists are mostly authority related. Sometimes you need first to make a "boring"career, before you can finally start with your ideas.

When young Gauss had some brilliant ideas about mathematics, he did need no nothing except pen and paper to write down some great "ideas":

"He completed his magnum opus, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, in 1798, at the age of 21—though it was not published until 1801.[13] This work was fundamental in consolidating number theory as a discipline and has shaped the field to the present day".
=> mathematicians can be of really young age to show how great their ideas are. Gauss was already recognised at much younger age than 21 to be a deliverer.

In some cases Physicists also need only pen and paper but more often they do need access to a laboratory or a telescope etc. You need some experiments to deliver evidence as well yourself. And the more costly those experiments the longer you waste time to get to the position in a university to finally be no longer dependent on professors above you to authorise cost, but to decide yourself.
=> Physicists typical older than mathematicians but still mostly relatively young. Einstein, frustrated in not getting a job at a university because he was an obstinate non-conformist... needing a job... worked at low level at a patent office in boredom, but challenged his mind with thinking on how Newton was wrong.
"Near the beginning of his career, Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. This led him to develop his special theory of relativity during his time at the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905, called his annus mirabilis (miracle year), he published four groundbreaking papers, which attracted the attention of the academic world; the first outlined the theory of the photoelectric effect, the second paper explained Brownian motion, the third paper introduced special relativity, and the fourth mass-energy equivalence. That year, at the age of 26, he was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich "

In biology it takes in general again much longer to get that authority. Francis Crick, co-inventor of DNA, a good example. In 1951 Crick is 35 years old.
Despite some opposition from the lab boss, Sir William Lawrence Bragg, who forbade them to work on the structure of DNA, they managed to unravel the structure of the molecule within two years. In 1953 this led to the famous publication in the scientific journal Nature.
From the Dutch Wiki on Crick. The English Wiki has lots of technical detrails but does not mention this typical hurdle of young bright ideas when you are in the right place (university R&D) but do not have the right boss or have authority yourself.

In Medicine, with its strong authority culture resulting from us commoners "wanting to look up to medical doctors" you need to be on average even more older or succesful in your career.

Archeology etc.
You either have authority and likely already grey hairs... or you are lucky with being rich yourself or have some rich sponsor.

Another aspect is reputation risk.

When Gauss came up on the idea that our world could be in a curved space... he did not publish that idea. It would be too controversial for the narrow minded petty bourgeois culture at that time in Germany.
But he did build the three Gauss Towers to make a triangle measuring experiment.
In a non-curved space the sum of the three angles must be exactly 180.0000000 degrees. In a curved space this can be lower or higher. (if you make a triangle from the North pole to two points on the equator at a quarter of the equator lenght apart, the sum would for example be 270 degrees.
The measurement was unfortunately not accurate enough, not enough digits behind the decimal point, to prove that our space was curved. Our space here is indeed not very much curved.
=> Gauss had that similar great idea as Einstein, a curved space, more than a century earlier, he had the authority to set up an experiment... but the techs were not yet there for the needed accuracy. And Gauss had to be low profile because of his reputation.

But Gauss did not give up.
At some moment, as professor, he got this very bright student Riemann, who had as third choice of graduation curved spaces and Gauss picked happily that one. How much he had influenced Riemann to propose it the story, as I know it, does not tell.
As authority picking the right ideas and minds together can work well.
 
Kanye West has dropped out of the presidential race.

Can Presidential campaigns be measured in Scaramuccis?
 
What about someone who comes up with a good idea but doesn't have the authority to implement it?
That's not really relevant to my example. I specifically said that I invite the person to implement their own idea. Inherrent in that is that is they have the power to implement it.
Or someone who just simply doesn't like being the one in charge?
Not wanting to be "in charge" is also irrelevant. You don't have to be in charge of the whole operation/organization to implement your one idea. If you're using "not wanting to be in charge" as a euphemism for "not wanting to be responsible" then we're back to the "FOS person trying to scapegoat others and/or burden others with their dogsqueeze ideas" position.
Are they supposed to stay silent or have their ideas dismissed simply because they don't want to implement it themselves?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Put up or shut up. Isn't that what you yourself just said about the police brutality protesters?
A lot of screenplays and game concepts are written by very behind the scenes people who take that idea to a big studio and sell it to them.
Sure but that's not an example that proves your point... it proves mine... because those people "behind the scenes" are actually doing the work. As you yourself said in the bolded... they actually wrote the screenplay. Taking your screenplay to a big studio and pitching it to them is also doing the work. So that's a good example of my point. The writer of the screenplay is an "action person."
 
This just means Kanye will be President in 2036.

Spoiler :
thedonald.jpg
 
Wow. His campaign slogan then was way more straightforward and accurate than the one he settled on for 2016.
 
Last edited:
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Put up or shut up. Isn't that what you yourself just said about the police brutality protesters?

No, that's not what I said. I admonish them for being too cowardly to fight, but I didn't say that they shouldn't be prevented from speaking up because of that cowardice.
 
No, that's not what I said. I admonish them for being too cowardly to fight, but I didn't say that they shouldn't be prevented from speaking up because of that cowardice.
And that's not what I said. I didn't say they should be forcibly prevented from speaking. I agreed with your premise that they if they aren't ready to back their ideas up with actions and take some personal responsibility for their own ideas, then they should either choose to keep their ideas to themselves, or face the reality that their ideas will be dismissed for lack of any will on their part to put forth the effort to back up their words with actions. They're perfectly free to voice their ideas. I'm just not giving much credence to them, based on their unwillingness to put some deeds behind their words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom