Si vous n'êtes pas à l'aise avec l'anglais, utilisez ceci :
Cet outil vous fournit une traduction automatisée en français.
Being First Being Original Being Innovative
Being First, Being Original, Being Innovative
Word Count:
924
Summary:
There is an often missed distinction between Being the First, Being Original, and Being Innovative.
Keywords:
Article Body:
There is an often missed distinction between Being the First, Being Original, and Being Innovative.
To determine that someone (or something) has been the first, we need to apply a temporal test. It should answer at least three questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.
To determine whether someone (or something) is original - a test of substance has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.
To determine if someone (or something) is innovative - a practical test has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, in which way was it done and was exactly this ever done before in exactly the same way.
Reviewing the tests above leads us to two conclusions:
1.. Being first and being original are more closely linked than being first and being innovative or than being original and being innovative. The tests applied to determine "firstness" and originality are the same.
2.. Though the tests are the same, the emphasis is not. To determine whether someone or something is a first, we primarily ask "when" - while to determine originality we primarily ask "what".
Innovation helps in the conservation of resources and, therefore, in the delicate act of human survival. Being first demonstrates feasibility ("it is possible"). By being original, what is needed or can be done is expounded upon. And by being innovative, the practical aspect is revealed: how should it be done.
Society rewards these pathfinders with status and lavishes other tangible and intangible benefits upon them - mainly upon the Originators and the Innovators. The Firsts are often ignored because they do not directly open a new path - they merely demonstrate that such a path is there. The Originators and the Innovators are the ones who discover, expose, invent, put together, or verbalize something in a way which enables others to repeat the feat (really to reconstruct the process) with a lesser investment of effort and resources.
It is possible to be First and not be Original. This is because Being First is context dependent. For instance: had I traveled to a tribe in the Amazon forests and quoted a speech of Kennedy to them - I would hardly have been original but I would definitely have been the first to have done so in that context (of that particular tribe at that particular time). Popularizers of modern science and religious missionaries are all first at doing their thing - but they are not original. It is their audience which determines their First-ness - and history which proves their (lack of) originality.
Many of us reinvent the wheel. It is humanly impossible to be aware of all that was written and done by others before us. Unaware of the fact that we are not the first, neither original or innovative - we file patent applications, make "discoveries" in science, exploit (not so) "new" themes in the arts.
Society may judge us differently than we perceive ourselves to be - less original and innovative. Hence, perhaps, is the syndrome of the "misunderstood genius". Admittedly, things are easier for those of us who use words as their raw material: there are so many permutations, that the likelihood of not being first or innovative with words is minuscule. Hence the copyright laws.
Yet, since originality is measured by the substance of the created (idea) content, the chances of being original as well as first are slim. At most, we end up restating or re-phrasing old ideas. The situation is worse (and the tests more rigorous) when it comes to non-verbal fields of human endeavor, as any applicant for a patent can attest.
But then surely this is too severe! Don't we all stand on the shoulders of giants? Can one be original, first, even innovative without assimilating the experience of past generations? Can innovation occur in vacuum, discontinuously and disruptively? Isn't intellectual continuity a prerequisite?
True, a scientist innovates, explores, and discovers on the basis of (a limited and somewhat random) selection of previous explorations and research. He even uses equipment - to measure and perform other functions - that was invented by his predecessors. But progress and advance are conceivable without access to the treasure troves of the past. True again, the very concept of progress entails comparison with the past. But language, in this case, defies reality. Some innovation comes "out of the blue" with no "predecessors".
Scientific revolutions are not smooth evolutionary processes (even biological evolution is no longer considered a smooth affair). They are phase transitions, paradigmatic changes, jumps, fits and starts rather than orderly unfolding syllogisms (Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").
There is very little continuity in quantum mechanics (or even in the Relativity Theories). There is even less in modern genetics and immunology. The notion of laboriously using building blocks to construct an ebony tower of science is not supported by the history of human knowledge. And what about the first human being who had a thought or invented a device - on what did he base himself and whose work did he continue?
Innovation is the father of new context. Original thoughts shape the human community and the firsts among us dictate the rules of the game. There is very little continuity in the discontinuous processes called invention and revolution. But our reactions to new things and adaptation to the new world in their wake essentially remain the same. It is there that continuity is to be found.
BONUS : Title:
Being Selfish With Your Goals
Word Count:
790
Summary:
All too often good-intentioned people set forth goals designed to satiate others rather than themselves. While the intent is honorable, the results will likely lead to failure. Why? As the somewhat provocative title of this article indicates, you need to be selfish with your goals and select ones that mean something to you.
Keywords:
goal setting
Article Body:
All too often good-intentioned people set forth goals designed to satiate others rather than themselves. While the intent is honorable, the results will likely lead to failure. Why? As the somewhat provocative title of this article indicates, you need to be selfish with your goals and select ones that mean something to you.
Through segments on the evening news, magazines, talk shows, radio programming and even the advice of family and friends, we are consistently subjected to a whole litany of goals that anyone with half a brain should strive for. If we were to listen to all the experts, we would all need to be perfectly fit and rich individuals with at least two college majors under our belt.
Baloney.
Now I won't deny that there are tremendous benefits to being physically fit, financially well off or highly educated, but let's be honest here, one doesn't require all of the above to live a successful and happy life. There are many somewhat overweight individuals that are quite happy to escape the annoyances of careful food selection and exercise and instead focus on earning money or spending time with family. By the same token, there are many physically fit individuals that see no need to bring in extraordinary levels of income to be happy; they would just as well get by with what they need to live.
I firmly believe all of us should constantly strive to improve ourselves, but there is no single blueprint that we should all follow. What might be important to me (business and management) might not be important to you, and vice versa. For this reason, when you are determining which goals you would like to pursue you should always block out the wishes of others and select goals that are dear to your heart.
This sounds incredibly selfish, but obviously I'm not advocating adopting a goal that would hurt others, and ideally in a committed relationship you and your significant other would share common goals. But when push comes to shove, if you choose a goal for someone else rather than yourself you will do yourself a huge disservice.
Take, for example, weight loss. Many overweight people lead happy and successful lives despite their weight; you don't have to be as fit as a fiddle to be happy. Let's say one of these somewhat overweight individuals decided one day to finally buckle under the constant societal harping about the benefits of weight loss and begin a diet program. What would happen?
Chances are very high the individual would adjust his diet and get off to a good start. Almost all of us are capable of losing a few pounds during the first couple weeks, particularly since much of the initial weight loss is water. But during this time chances are good the dieter will be fairly unhappy, and this unhappiness will fester over time. Eventually when the body stops losing water weight and shifts into fat loss, the weight loss will slow down to about a pound or two a week.
Throughout the diet the dieter's morale and optimistic outlook on life will suffer, and this might even affect other areas he was already successful with, such as his relationship with his family or his business. Eventually he will quit his diet in disgust, and immediately upon reverting to his old eating habits he will not only gain what he lost he'll also gain even more! Diets play havoc with the body's metabolism, so more often than not a person that quits a diet will end up weighing far more than had they never dieted to begin with.
Clearly weight loss is a fantastic goal that can provide a lifetime of benefits, but it isn't for everyone! If you are not passionate about such a goal, you could actually harm other areas of your life when stress is added and morale and motivation drops due to your lifestyle change, and then to add insult to injury you just might end up being heavier than you were had you not even tried to adopt to society's standards.
The above example holds true for every single goal under the sun. Many people love the business world and all its risks and challenges, but others would rather avoid the stressful situations and problems that all businessmen face. Perhaps they would rather live a middle-class lifestyle, stay physically fit and enjoy hiking or camping trips with a partner over the weekends during the time the business-oriented are probably working overtime.
Choose only the goals that are compatible with your desires and needs, because selecting an incompatible goal that society or family advocates is a virtually guaranteed formula for failure, and can very easily do more harm than good.
Being Selfish With Your Goals
Word Count:
790
Summary:
All too often good-intentioned people set forth goals designed to satiate others rather than themselves. While the intent is honorable, the results will likely lead to failure. Why? As the somewhat provocative title of this article indicates, you need to be selfish with your goals and select ones that mean something to you.
Keywords:
goal setting
Article Body:
All too often good-intentioned people set forth goals designed to satiate others rather than themselves. While the intent is honorable, the results will likely lead to failure. Why? As the somewhat provocative title of this article indicates, you need to be selfish with your goals and select ones that mean something to you.
Through segments on the evening news, magazines, talk shows, radio programming and even the advice of family and friends, we are consistently subjected to a whole litany of goals that anyone with half a brain should strive for. If we were to listen to all the experts, we would all need to be perfectly fit and rich individuals with at least two college majors under our belt.
Baloney.
Now I won't deny that there are tremendous benefits to being physically fit, financially well off or highly educated, but let's be honest here, one doesn't require all of the above to live a successful and happy life. There are many somewhat overweight individuals that are quite happy to escape the annoyances of careful food selection and exercise and instead focus on earning money or spending time with family. By the same token, there are many physically fit individuals that see no need to bring in extraordinary levels of income to be happy; they would just as well get by with what they need to live.
I firmly believe all of us should constantly strive to improve ourselves, but there is no single blueprint that we should all follow. What might be important to me (business and management) might not be important to you, and vice versa. For this reason, when you are determining which goals you would like to pursue you should always block out the wishes of others and select goals that are dear to your heart.
This sounds incredibly selfish, but obviously I'm not advocating adopting a goal that would hurt others, and ideally in a committed relationship you and your significant other would share common goals. But when push comes to shove, if you choose a goal for someone else rather than yourself you will do yourself a huge disservice.
Take, for example, weight loss. Many overweight people lead happy and successful lives despite their weight; you don't have to be as fit as a fiddle to be happy. Let's say one of these somewhat overweight individuals decided one day to finally buckle under the constant societal harping about the benefits of weight loss and begin a diet program. What would happen?
Chances are very high the individual would adjust his diet and get off to a good start. Almost all of us are capable of losing a few pounds during the first couple weeks, particularly since much of the initial weight loss is water. But during this time chances are good the dieter will be fairly unhappy, and this unhappiness will fester over time. Eventually when the body stops losing water weight and shifts into fat loss, the weight loss will slow down to about a pound or two a week.
Throughout the diet the dieter's morale and optimistic outlook on life will suffer, and this might even affect other areas he was already successful with, such as his relationship with his family or his business. Eventually he will quit his diet in disgust, and immediately upon reverting to his old eating habits he will not only gain what he lost he'll also gain even more! Diets play havoc with the body's metabolism, so more often than not a person that quits a diet will end up weighing far more than had they never dieted to begin with.
Clearly weight loss is a fantastic goal that can provide a lifetime of benefits, but it isn't for everyone! If you are not passionate about such a goal, you could actually harm other areas of your life when stress is added and morale and motivation drops due to your lifestyle change, and then to add insult to injury you just might end up being heavier than you were had you not even tried to adopt to society's standards.
The above example holds true for every single goal under the sun. Many people love the business world and all its risks and challenges, but others would rather avoid the stressful situations and problems that all businessmen face. Perhaps they would rather live a middle-class lifestyle, stay physically fit and enjoy hiking or camping trips with a partner over the weekends during the time the business-oriented are probably working overtime.
Choose only the goals that are compatible with your desires and needs, because selecting an incompatible goal that society or family advocates is a virtually guaranteed formula for failure, and can very easily do more harm than good.
