Posted by Andrew on 11 February 2020, 9:39 am

## Recent Comments

- Eric Vlach on Headline permutations
- Eric Vlach on Headline permutations
- Eric Vlach on Headline permutations
- Ken Schulz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- rm bloom on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- jim on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Adede on Tessa Hadley on John Updike
- Ken Schulz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Grayson Reim on David Brooks discovers Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State!
- Ken Schulz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Anoneuoid on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Anonymous on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Joshua on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- i e rabinovitz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Andrew on David Brooks discovers Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State!
- Anoneuoid on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Anoneuoid on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Grayson Reim on David Brooks discovers Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State!
- rm bloom on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Joshua on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?

## Categories

The article is kind of a reverse explosion.

A bunch of interesting ideas were imploded together and got squooshed into a single mass. Turn it this way and you see the notion that to keep ideas fresh, you need to constantly examine them. Turn it that way and there is a distinction between innovation and curiosity (when tilted one way, the distinction makes sense, but when tilted another way, the two look like the same thing). Look underneath and there is an organic/biological analogy that research, like a living organism, dies if it does not grow (mechanism unclear … needs an explicit model … preferably mathematical). Jutting out from the side is criticism of people who want to “know what we already know about a thing” (huh? … needs more context … criticizing someone eager to learn is odd). Buried deep inside and only partially peeking out is the value of “subversion” (a notion ripe for unethical exploitation by academic hate mongers).

The grow-or-die idea sounds the most interesting. Need to be more explicit though. Is it two independent trends: old ideas fade and we need to produce new ideas to keep the total heap of ideas growing?; or is there an important interaction between the two trends?

I’m going to take that as a compliment. If it is a critique, it amounts to accusing a blog post of failing to be a book. Thanks. (And, yes, I

shouldwrite that book.)To be clear: there is no implicit criticism of people who want to know what is already known. It is precisely that curiosity that the drive for “innovation” too often tramples.

Please do write that book! Or at least find for us something similar that has already been written.

It wasn’t meant as a critique. Nor as a compliment. It was just my reaction. Very much a FWIW comment.

I thought about writing something about the grow-or-die point, but I realized I didn’t really understand it. What I did understand was that there were a lot of ideas in the post, many interesting.

I dont think curiosity is viewed as subversive generally. Its actually viewed as just plain stupid. Why would you be curious about or interested in something when its easier to just make a pile of cash, watch football and drink beer?

Curiosity is creativity. They don’t seem to me to be two separate entities altogether. One helps the others.

Yes, this article was a great read