Can you spot innovative talent in advance?

2018-01-06

• Can we connoisseur in advance innovative talent? The question is
• Opinion that “you can’t do it.”
• The opinion that “some identification can be made from [Weird people like weird people.
• Opinion that “there are good eccentric persons and there are bad ones.” These were considered together.

Suppose there are six people in the observation range and one is a bit “weird” (= the outlier).

There are four ways a person can behave in that situation.

Type A: average-orientation.

• Ignore outliers and try to behave closer to the average of others
• 
• Depending on the competitive conditions, this was the most rational choice.
  • But the worst choice in a situation where you’re being asked to create something new.
  • see Average orientation is the worst environment

Type B: copy orientation.

• Ignore the average person and imitate the outlier

• 

• An act of imitation is caused by longing for an “outlier” or the like.

• This is mere imitation and therefore not beneficial in a situation where one is expected to create something new

Type C: Uniqueness-oriented.

• Oriented to be unlike anyone else in the observation range
• 
• If “the world in general does X,” then we should dare to do the opposite of X, which is an antagonistic demon in Japanese folklore.
• There is a longing for a “non-average self” and a “one-of-a-kind self.”
• Active in “creating something new.”
• I just want to be “the one who makes new things.”

Type D: self-centeredness.

• All of the types A, B, and C mentioned so far were functions that took “Behavior of people around you” as input.
• Let f(x) be a function whose input is “the behavior x of the people around me,” and g(y) be a function that is independent of x.
  • g(y) is, for example, “My Preferences” or “My Sense of Justice” or “Logical Consistency”. In a word, My Values.
• There are types that have a large difference in the range of values of this f(x) and g(y), such that they are exclusively $||f(x)||<<||g(y)||$.
  • There are many possible causes for why there are large differences in the range of values.
    • Poor cognitive ability for other people’s behavior due to organic disorders
    • Strong confidence in their own values.
      • Strong confidence in their own reasoning and feel that others around them who make decisions different from their own are idiots
      • He has strong confidence in his own sensibilities and thinks that anyone who doesn’t think a picture he thinks is good is not in good taste.
      • He has a strong confidence in his own sense of justice and considers anyone who disagrees with what he thinks is just to be his enemy.
    • I’ve been exposed to an education and culture that tells me to value my own values without being misled by others.
    • There is a success experience from ignoring f(x), which reinforces the behavior of ignoring f(x)

In terms of “behavior deviating from the average,” Types B, C, and D are all “weird.” From the point of view of Type A, if there were three people in front of you: Yoichi Ochiai sucking curry through a straw, a fan imitating Yoichi Ochiai and sucking curry, and a person who grinds frisks with a mortar and sucks them through his nose, all are equally “strange” and cannot be distinguished from each other.

How can we distinguish between these B, C, and D? If the question is, “Why do you do the non-average act?” If the answer to the question, “Because ________ does it,” then it is confirmed as Type B. If the answer is “Because ________ does it,” then it is confirmed as Type D. Type D answers based on one’s own values, so there is no mention of others.

However, if Type D has already published its “own value-based answer,” Type B may mimic that answer itself.

Type Cs, on the other hand, are usually ashamed of their thinking and try to hide it, and they often say things that make sense from the outside. They are usually embarrassed by this way of thinking and try to hide it, but they are reasonable in the open.

One way to identify these is to ask, for example, “If I want to get nutrition in liquid form, can’t I just take a Widder-in-a-Jelly or something?” or “If I want the stimulation of menthol in my nose, why not just spray my nose with liquid huckleberry oil without going through the trouble of crushing frisks?” If they are rooted in their own values, they can have an in-depth discussion, but imitators and imposters who are not rooted in their own values may not be able to rebut or may have an emotional backlash. - Understanding” in the Department of Mathematics and likely related. You need to show it yourself, not what others are not.

Literary summing up in one word, “An oddball to the core. is good.

PS - I’m starting to think it might be related to Differences in axiomatic systems.

• Disagree with the conclusions drawn by the other party.
  • Example: it is not reasonable to invest time in the subject
• But when you dig deeper with logic, you can’t find any holes and it comes down to axiomatic differences such as personal values.
  • Otherwise, they are simply considered “beings with inferior logical thinking skills”
• It comes down to differences in axiomatic systems, so neither can deny the other’s system with their own system.
• So we both appreciate each other’s ability to think logically, even though we have different conclusions (we describe each other as smart people, etc., even though we have different arguments).

2023/7/21

• A and B people do not contribute to innovation.
• People C and D contribute to broaden the scope of the search.
• C is a fashion freak after all, so the bottom line is.

2024-01-15

• C can also be [being on the wrong side of (e.g. an attack)
  • The reverse is not even increasing the number of axes.
    • Exposition betting on the minority side of the already apparent conflict.
    • If you win the bet, you get the “not mediocre” title.
  • So there’s no benefit as an exploration.
  • But maybe society as a whole could benefit from having a few people who spend their lives doing that? - Social Barbell Strategy

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/イノベーティブな人材を事前に目利きできるか？ using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.