Scan barcode
mahir007's review
4.0
أعظم القتلة في العالم الحديث لم تعد الجراثيم ، بل إنها العادات : التدخين على سبيل المثال. إنه يقتل مباشرة أكثر من ستة ملايين شخص كل عام قبل الأوان ، وربما يساهم بشكل غير مباشر في مليون حالة وفاة أخرى. إن ابتكار التدخين ، الذي تم جلبه من الأمريكتين إلى العالم القديم في القرن السادس عشر ، هو أحد أكبر أخطاء البشرية. بالنظر إلى أن هذه عادة طوعية ، وأن البشر عقلانيون على الأقل لبعض الوقت ، كان من المفروض أن يكون من السهل نسبيًا إبادة هذا القاتل. فقط أخبر الناس أن ذلك سيء لهم وسيتوقفون. لكن الإدمان بقي على حاله ، وقد ثبت أن التعامل معه أصعب من ذلك. التدخين هو مصدر الوفيات المبكرة أكثر من أي سبب آخر. مع العلم أنه يسبب السرطان وأمراض القلب ، فإن أثر النيكوتين المدهش ساهم في شعبيتها العالمية.
حظر الإعلانات ، والتغليف البسيط ، وحظر التدخين في الأماكن العامة ، والرسائل الرادعة على علب السجائر ، والاستشارات الطبية ، والتعليم - كلها كان لها بعض التأثير ، خاصة في الدول الغربية. ولكن لا يزال أكثر من مليار شخص في العالم مدمنين على إشعال نار صغيرة من المواد النباتية بين شفاههم.
Matt Ridley
How Innovation Works
Translated By:#Maher_Razouk
حظر الإعلانات ، والتغليف البسيط ، وحظر التدخين في الأماكن العامة ، والرسائل الرادعة على علب السجائر ، والاستشارات الطبية ، والتعليم - كلها كان لها بعض التأثير ، خاصة في الدول الغربية. ولكن لا يزال أكثر من مليار شخص في العالم مدمنين على إشعال نار صغيرة من المواد النباتية بين شفاههم.
Matt Ridley
How Innovation Works
Translated By:#Maher_Razouk
amberraetoro's review
4.0
Great collection of innovation case studies. Lots of great examples with the underlying theme that innovation is iterative and collaborative.
bechols's review
3.0
Some interesting stories I wasn't familiar with, but mostly preaching to the choir. Read The Red Queen instead.
meekumoh's review
funny
informative
lighthearted
medium-paced
4.5
The thing about Ridley's writing is that I kind of don't care what his stance is, I just enjoy his writing. He considers aspects of innovation that I've never even cared to stop and think about, and for that I think this is a worthwhile read. (He starts off a chapter saying that he makes a challenge of walking through the streets trying to smell sewerage, then starts on a waste-management innovation tangent. It's great. )
It does (as every non-fiction book does) have chunks of dense information, but I've learnt to better absorb it. There's only so much non-fiction writers can cut down on technical terms before their writing is infantalised anyway.
I will say, be a cautious reader. He makes the bold (but substantiated!) point that patents slow innovation, among others. Like some other reviews mention, that may be biased. Still, Ridley's great at narration and historical exposition.
It does (as every non-fiction book does) have chunks of dense information, but I've learnt to better absorb it. There's only so much non-fiction writers can cut down on technical terms before their writing is infantalised anyway.
I will say, be a cautious reader. He makes the bold (but substantiated!) point that patents slow innovation, among others. Like some other reviews mention, that may be biased. Still, Ridley's great at narration and historical exposition.
tylercritchfield's review against another edition
4.0
A solid overview of innovation. Mostly filled with examples and then patterns common to them. I enjoyed learning more about each story and then how they applied to innovation in general. I appreciated the author didn't just stick to the typical instances many of us are familiar with. He explores medicine, biogenetics, communication, transportation, etc.
Main takeaways:
- Innovation always takes time. There are no eureka moments.
- Serendipity is key, which means we need environments that give luck a chance.
- We tend to over-hype new innovations in the short run and under-hype them in the long run.
- We expect innovation to mean new or better things when more often than not it means the same things/processes in less time or with fewer resources.
- Ridley argues that patents and IP disputes actually limit innovation and should be done away with. I'm not sure he explored this enough, but it is an interesting idea.
A couple of thought-provoking passages related to modern science and innovation:
In 1969 the physicist Robert Wilson, testifying to the US Senate about funding for a particle accelerator, was asked if it would contribute to national defense. He replied, "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to help make it worth defending."
There is no doubt that in recent years there has been a growing tendency among politicians to adopt the notion that science is the mother of invention and that this is the main justification for funding science. This seems to me a pity. Not just because it misreads history, but because it devalues science. To reject the linear model is definitely not an attack on the funding of science, let alone on science itself. Science is the greatest fruit of human achievement, bar none, and deserves rich and enthusiastic support in any civilized society, but as a worthwhile goal in its own right, not just as a way to encourage innovation. Science should be seen as the fruit rather than the seed.
Main takeaways:
- Innovation always takes time. There are no eureka moments.
- Serendipity is key, which means we need environments that give luck a chance.
- We tend to over-hype new innovations in the short run and under-hype them in the long run.
- We expect innovation to mean new or better things when more often than not it means the same things/processes in less time or with fewer resources.
- Ridley argues that patents and IP disputes actually limit innovation and should be done away with. I'm not sure he explored this enough, but it is an interesting idea.
A couple of thought-provoking passages related to modern science and innovation:
In 1969 the physicist Robert Wilson, testifying to the US Senate about funding for a particle accelerator, was asked if it would contribute to national defense. He replied, "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to help make it worth defending."
There is no doubt that in recent years there has been a growing tendency among politicians to adopt the notion that science is the mother of invention and that this is the main justification for funding science. This seems to me a pity. Not just because it misreads history, but because it devalues science. To reject the linear model is definitely not an attack on the funding of science, let alone on science itself. Science is the greatest fruit of human achievement, bar none, and deserves rich and enthusiastic support in any civilized society, but as a worthwhile goal in its own right, not just as a way to encourage innovation. Science should be seen as the fruit rather than the seed.
alyssatuininga's review
3.0
Interesting book, I really enjoyed the history parts of this book. Many of his astute observations are pretty obvious imo but he also seems to bend the data to fit his agenda.