14:30 - Edison himself never denied this. It's from him we get the quite "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration." Hard tasks take hard work. I don't disagree with you *at all* about the importance cooperation, collaboration, and cultural accumulation have had to us getting where we are. It's completely obvious, and is really a point that doesn't even need to be made. But you're underselling creativity - there's been a lot of it. And there's been a lot of hard work, and a fair amount of luck. Floating Ivory Soap was a "bad batch" - someone just had a clever inspiration from it. But creativity is real, and gets applied many, many times every day. Don't sell us that short.
24:00 - I'm going to answer before you give the answer; I think it's obvious that you need a much smaller number of innovators than copiers. To some extent it would depend on the breadth complexity of the environment - you may need a few innovators in each of several different areas. But once you have an "adequate" number of innovators, you can sustain a very large population of copiers. In fact, you'll rapidly need some sort of legal mechanism (patents) to ensure the innovators are able to get enough reward from their work to survive.
6:35 - Whoa; I beg to differ. In a *good* product development team you have people that understand the entire product. Someone designed it. And in *many* cases (the good ones, especially) those people *could* do any part of the work. They generally *don't*, but when I was an engineering vice president for a small company I knew *exactly* how every shred of our products worked. And that included knowing what was going on inside all of the integrated circuits. Now, it's fair to say that I couldn't have just gone out and constructed a semiconductor assembly line for literally *making* those chips. So your point isn't entirely invalid - we do "combine our skills" to accomplish amazing things, in economical ways, in our culture. But the way you just glibly tossed that out there was just a bit too heavy for me - it's not as bad as you made it sound.
His point is that if you are isolated in nature you can not make any of the products you used and know of by yourself. You can know everything about the products you use but if are put alone in nature you can not manufacture any of them by yourself
Most of Australia is dark? Does he not know that only a thin sliver of Australia is populated? And he is a professor? The truly surprising thing of the Facebook map is the lack of connectivity for Japan.
Why is there so little innovation and so much copying? Because innovation in and of itself isn't the goal defined by our culture. The goal defined by our culture is *making money*, and copying is a perfectly workable way to do that. In that pursuit you can get into trouble if you copy too brazenly, but you can get away with it up to a point. People are rewarded in our culture for producing something people want. It doesn't matter how they produce it, where the idea came from, or anything else of that sort - if you make it in a way that doesn't get you in trouble, and you were right about people wanting it, then you win the game. It's as simple as that. Honestly, everything so far in your talk here has seemed patently obvious to me and to be things that require no argument or defense at all. You could have just slapped them down as givens at the start.
Very interesting lecture but you missed the biggest quote of them all! From Brian Epstein's biography ... Mr. Rowe said to me: “Not to mince words, Mr. Epstein, we don’t like your boys’ sound. Groups of four guitarists are on the way out.”
The innovator vs. copier debate is a false dichotomy, as the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the most successful individuals often excel at copying and less in innovating as the latter enhances the former.
Do social skills contribute to reproductive fitness (Biological evolution)? The answer is no, as Africans currently have the highest reproductive fitness, with their population growth evident worldwide. Cultural progress, however, is a different matter altogether.
Human ignorance is only matched by human arrogance. We're all going to die ignorant, but some are going to die desperately ignorant. If you are not working towards eradicating ignorance, you are doing yourself and society a disservice. Ignorance is not bliss, it's a choice. Choose well 😌 ✌️ n out.
Interesting stuff but there's a problem. The machinery for language has to be there such as brain changes , larynx, extra cable in spine for breath control and it's all there working in harmony. There's no way that got there by chance or some Darwinian mechanism. Of course he avoids this obvious issue in his lecture !
@@Rob02138 easy to dismantle you say, ok dismantle it then. It's like walking upright, you just can't decide or learn to walk upright. The hip has to be redesigned and the knee, including the spine and entering the skull from underneath, and you need the balance control of the inner ear designed for upright walking not arboreal movement. There is no way these things can just mindlessly evolve and language is probably the most complex of the lot. Tongue, larynx position in the throat, brain development specifically for language control....ok as I said, dismantle it, come on !
@@robertnicholson1409 Over hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, the repertoire of possible sounds (vowels and consonant types) expanded. The process never “comes into being at once” and thus those born with ever slightly increasing mechanical systems for expanding that range (slightly altered anatomy...think why you can’t sing like Pavarotti did?) were more successful at forming warning calls of varying degrees, mating rituals, and organizing food resources. As the mechanical range possibilities expanded so did the brain’s ability to control those systems through repetition and learning from those more accomplished. The ability to generate more nuanced calls and language conferred an ever increasing survival advantage. Each generation you only need a slight advantage in the fitness landscape to see large changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Your exact argument has been made ad nauseum regarding the seeming impossibility of the human eye evolving. Richard Dawkins years ago did a simple demonstration to school children clearly demonstrating a very plausible process. It is here on RUclips and you should watch it. Just substitute your claim about it all needs to be in place simultaneously and you should see how foolish it is. However, I don’t hold out hope you will learn and see the folly of your position so I’ll just stop here. Dismantled.
@@Rob02138 all that you've said is speculation, ah but if we have hundreds of thousands of years, even millions we can learn this... nonsense it's complete nonsense....
This is a fantastic source of information. It is a great pity that less than 20 K people took the trouble to watch it. Thank you, Prof!
Dr. Pagel himself is an excellent example of how copying is the best strategy!
And repeating
This is straight forward and compelling. I find every moment fascinating
Brilliant. Every fact doesn't have to be perfect.
14:30 - Edison himself never denied this. It's from him we get the quite "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration." Hard tasks take hard work. I don't disagree with you *at all* about the importance cooperation, collaboration, and cultural accumulation have had to us getting where we are. It's completely obvious, and is really a point that doesn't even need to be made. But you're underselling creativity - there's been a lot of it. And there's been a lot of hard work, and a fair amount of luck. Floating Ivory Soap was a "bad batch" - someone just had a clever inspiration from it. But creativity is real, and gets applied many, many times every day. Don't sell us that short.
24:00 - I'm going to answer before you give the answer; I think it's obvious that you need a much smaller number of innovators than copiers. To some extent it would depend on the breadth complexity of the environment - you may need a few innovators in each of several different areas. But once you have an "adequate" number of innovators, you can sustain a very large population of copiers. In fact, you'll rapidly need some sort of legal mechanism (patents) to ensure the innovators are able to get enough reward from their work to survive.
6:35 - Whoa; I beg to differ. In a *good* product development team you have people that understand the entire product. Someone designed it. And in *many* cases (the good ones, especially) those people *could* do any part of the work. They generally *don't*, but when I was an engineering vice president for a small company I knew *exactly* how every shred of our products worked. And that included knowing what was going on inside all of the integrated circuits. Now, it's fair to say that I couldn't have just gone out and constructed a semiconductor assembly line for literally *making* those chips. So your point isn't entirely invalid - we do "combine our skills" to accomplish amazing things, in economical ways, in our culture. But the way you just glibly tossed that out there was just a bit too heavy for me - it's not as bad as you made it sound.
His point is that if you are isolated in nature you can not make any of the products you used and know of by yourself. You can know everything about the products you use but if are put alone in nature you can not manufacture any of them by yourself
46:00 kinds of intelligence. Go measure the social networks smarts of humans who score 50 to 72 on the IQ scale.
Most of Australia is dark? Does he not know that only a thin sliver of Australia is populated? And he is a professor? The truly surprising thing of the Facebook map is the lack of connectivity for Japan.
Why is there so little innovation and so much copying? Because innovation in and of itself isn't the goal defined by our culture. The goal defined by our culture is *making money*, and copying is a perfectly workable way to do that. In that pursuit you can get into trouble if you copy too brazenly, but you can get away with it up to a point. People are rewarded in our culture for producing something people want. It doesn't matter how they produce it, where the idea came from, or anything else of that sort - if you make it in a way that doesn't get you in trouble, and you were right about people wanting it, then you win the game. It's as simple as that.
Honestly, everything so far in your talk here has seemed patently obvious to me and to be things that require no argument or defense at all. You could have just slapped them down as givens at the start.
Very interesting lecture but you missed the biggest quote of them all! From Brian Epstein's biography ... Mr. Rowe said to me: “Not to mince words, Mr. Epstein, we don’t like your boys’ sound. Groups of four guitarists are on the way out.”
An informative talk for whole new generation
The innovator vs. copier debate is a false dichotomy, as the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the most successful individuals often excel at copying and less in innovating as the latter enhances the former.
sharp and insightful
I hate his cinical view of humans, but it's my same view and I don't hate it.
Thank you Mark and all of you, bringing us new questions.
I think it is clever and amusing not cynical. British sarcasm. Those Brits! A cultural thing.
Do social skills contribute to reproductive fitness (Biological evolution)? The answer is no, as Africans currently have the highest reproductive fitness, with their population growth evident worldwide. Cultural progress, however, is a different matter altogether.
Robinson Lisa Moore Deborah Young Larry
Human ignorance is only matched by human arrogance.
We're all going to die ignorant, but some are going to die desperately ignorant.
If you are not working towards eradicating ignorance, you are doing yourself and society a disservice.
Ignorance is not bliss, it's a choice. Choose well 😌
✌️ n out.
Interesting stuff but there's a problem. The machinery for language has to be there such as brain changes , larynx, extra cable in spine for breath control and it's all there working in harmony. There's no way that got there by chance or some Darwinian mechanism. Of course he avoids this obvious issue in his lecture !
Oh please. Are you re-invoking the old “the human is too complex to have evolved” question? That line of reasoning is very easy to dismantle.
@@Rob02138 easy to dismantle you say, ok dismantle it then. It's like walking upright, you just can't decide or learn to walk upright. The hip has to be redesigned and the knee, including the spine and entering the skull from underneath, and you need the balance control of the inner ear designed for upright walking not arboreal movement.
There is no way these things can just mindlessly evolve and language is probably the most complex of the lot. Tongue, larynx position in the throat, brain development specifically for language control....ok as I said, dismantle it, come on !
@@robertnicholson1409
Over hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, the repertoire of possible sounds (vowels and consonant types) expanded.
The process never “comes into being at once” and thus those born with ever slightly increasing mechanical systems for expanding that range (slightly altered anatomy...think why you can’t sing like Pavarotti did?) were more successful at forming warning calls of varying degrees, mating rituals, and organizing food resources. As the mechanical range possibilities expanded so did the brain’s ability to control those systems through repetition and learning from those more accomplished. The ability to generate more nuanced calls and language conferred an ever increasing survival advantage. Each generation you only need a slight advantage in the fitness landscape to see large changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Your exact argument has been made ad nauseum regarding the seeming impossibility of the human eye evolving. Richard Dawkins years ago did a simple demonstration to school children clearly demonstrating a very plausible process. It is here on RUclips and you should watch it. Just substitute your claim about it all needs to be in place simultaneously and you should see how foolish it is. However, I don’t hold out hope you will learn and see the folly of your position so I’ll just stop here.
Dismantled.
@@Rob02138 all that you've said is speculation, ah but if we have hundreds of thousands of years, even millions we can learn this... nonsense it's complete nonsense....
He does not know what he is talking about..., he speaks from his own view.
it is his view