CDZ Building a better moustrap is not "disruptive innovation", it is simply innovation.

[RandomPoster]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".

It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

 

[Toronado3800]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".

It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

Larry's supporters no doubt think he's the best. Who is to say they're wrong? Bob's supporters?

That said, I agree Larry is a blowhard and I don't want to live in a world run by the Klingon who can shout or kill the best.

 

[oldsoul]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".

It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

I can't help but wonder... Are you talking about innovation, or politics? They do merge and become intertwined from time to time, however, it would seem as though you are attempting to apply economic/business concepts to the political process. This, to me, is confusing at best, down right dangerous at worst.

 

[RandomPoster]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".

It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

I can't help but wonder... Are you talking about innovation, or politics? They do merge and become intertwined from time to time, however, it would seem as though you are attempting to apply economic/business concepts to the political process. This, to me, is confusing at best, down right dangerous at worst.

I believe the analogy holds here because the better inventor will always win in the absence of sleazy, underhanded "disruption" tactics. The situation is similar in the case of an election. Bob, being the better candidate, will win without Larry's disruption tactics and society will benefit. If Larry was the better candidate, he wouldn't have to cheat. He would simply make better speeches than Bob. Society is served by fair competition, which adheres to strict rules.

 

[Darkwind]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".
is
It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

I can't help but wonder... Are you talking about innovation, or politics? They do merge and become intertwined from time to time, however, it would seem as though you are attempting to apply economic/business concepts to the political process. This, to me, is confusing at best, down right dangerous at worst.

I believe the analogy holds here because the better inventor will always win in the absence of sleazy, underhanded "disruption" tactics. The situation is similar in the case of an election. Bob, being the better candidate, will win without Larry's disruption tactics and society will benefit. If Larry was the better candidate, he wouldn't have to cheat. He would simply make better speeches than Bob. Society is served by fair competition, which adheres to strict rules.

I don't think your analogy holds up. Lets take an example of a candidate making better speeches but having a horrible product.

Barak Obama. No one can deny that his oration isn't first class. He makes a great case for his cause yet his philosophy is truly horrible. He hasn't innovated, but simply out spoke his opponent. The case can be made that neither opponent is truly innovative because they are just repackaging the same tired talking points.

I get what you are saying and agree, I just think that the analogy fails.

 

[RandomPoster]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".
is
It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

I can't help but wonder... Are you talking about innovation, or politics? They do merge and become intertwined from time to time, however, it would seem as though you are attempting to apply economic/business concepts to the political process. This, to me, is confusing at best, down right dangerous at worst.

I believe the analogy holds here because the better inventor will always win in the absence of sleazy, underhanded "disruption" tactics. The situation is similar in the case of an election. Bob, being the better candidate, will win without Larry's disruption tactics and society will benefit. If Larry was the better candidate, he wouldn't have to cheat. He would simply make better speeches than Bob. Society is served by fair competition, which adheres to strict rules.

I don't think your analogy holds up. Lets take an example of a candidate making better speeches but having a horrible product.

Barak Obama. No one can deny that his oration isn't first class. He makes a great case for his cause yet his philosophy is truly horrible. He hasn't innovated, but simply out spoke his opponent. The case can be made that neither opponent is truly innovative because they are just repackaging the same tired talking points.

I get what you are saying and agree, I just think that the analogy fails.

This brings up the point of debates. In the case of a speech, you can outright deliver a speech written by someone else. In the debates it becomes, ideally, a pure debate. The most pure form of debate is an impromptu speech writing and elocution contest. Didn't you ever wonder as a kid when it was mentioned that someone was a speech writer for the president or a presidential candidate and say to yourself, "Wait a minute. If he's writing the speeches, why is HE running for president? Shouldn't his speech writer be running for president?"

In the debates, the candidates will ideally be forced to write impromptu speeches in their head and deliver them as persuasively as possible. Obama actually struggled with that somewhat against Romney at times. Obama did better with pre-configured speeches that were probably written by others than with impromptu public speaking to a certain extent.

The main point is that society will benefit by being given a chance to more clearly discern the opposing messages. I prefer to hear someone out before I make a judgement regarding their message. The candidate with the inferior message should not be allowed to try and disrupt his opponent's message. If a person is so sure they're right, how about he present his arguments as persuasively as possible, allow the other person to hear him out and then respond, and so on. This allows society to make a more informed decision.

In my opinion, if we would like society to make a more informed decision following the debate, we should strive for a more informative style of debate.

 

[oldsoul]

Disruption is defined as "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process".
is
It is obstructive behavior. Pointing out how building better technology "disrupts" the sales of previous technology is double-speak in my opinion. The new technology replaces the previous technology. It is called progress. I personally believe the double-speak puts out the wrong message. Why not simply call it innovation or progress?

Designing and building a better mousetrap is innovation. It is fair, honest competition and benefits society as well as the innovator. Sending your employees to kidnap your competitor's design engineers is disruptive. It is based on not having to compete against your opponent's best work by sabotaging his efforts. It is not in the spirit of may the best man win and it is not beneficial to society. The only person who benefits is the bad guy.

Let's say two opposing political candidates, Mr. Bob and Mr. Larry, are out on the campaign trail. Bob is undeniably making better speeches than Larry. He is not disrupting Larry's speeches. He is competing through good, honest hard work. In other words, he is following the old-fashioned philosophy of may the best man win. Larry, since he can't compete via legitimate means, sends out hordes of his minions with loudspeakers to shut down every gathering Bob tries to speak at. If Bob can't talk, he can't get his points across. That is disruptive. It is cheap, childish, dishonest behavior of a less than honorable man.

Progress is based on constructive behavior, not disruption tactics.

I can't help but wonder... Are you talking about innovation, or politics? They do merge and become intertwined from time to time, however, it would seem as though you are attempting to apply economic/business concepts to the political process. This, to me, is confusing at best, down right dangerous at worst.

I believe the analogy holds here because the better inventor will always win in the absence of sleazy, underhanded "disruption" tactics. The situation is similar in the case of an election. Bob, being the better candidate, will win without Larry's disruption tactics and society will benefit. If Larry was the better candidate, he wouldn't have to cheat. He would simply make better speeches than Bob. Society is served by fair competition, which adheres to strict rules.

I don't think your analogy holds up. Lets take an example of a candidate making better speeches but having a horrible product.

Barak Obama. No one can deny that his oration isn't first class. He makes a great case for his cause yet his philosophy is truly horrible. He hasn't innovated, but simply out spoke his opponent. The case can be made that neither opponent is truly innovative because they are just repackaging the same tired talking points.

I get what you are saying and agree, I just think that the analogy fails.

This brings up the point of debates. In the case of a speech, you can outright deliver a speech written by someone else. In the debates it becomes, ideally, a pure debate. The most pure form of debate is an impromptu speech writing and elocution contest. Didn't you ever wonder as a kid when it was mentioned that someone was a speech writer for the president or a presidential candidate and say to yourself, "Wait a minute. If he's writing the speeches, why is HE running for president? Shouldn't his speech writer be running for president?"

In the debates, the candidates will ideally be forced to write impromptu speeches in their head and deliver them as persuasively as possible. Obama actually struggled with that somewhat against Romney at times. Obama did better with pre-configured speeches that were probably written by others than with impromptu public speaking to a certain extent.

The main point is that society will benefit by being given a chance to more clearly discern the opposing messages. I prefer to hear someone out before I make a judgement regarding their message. The candidate with the inferior message should not be allowed to try and disrupt his opponent's message. If a person is so sure they're right, how about he present his arguments as persuasively as possible, allow the other person to hear him out and then respond, and so on. This allows society to make a more informed decision.

In my opinion, if we would like society to make a more informed decision following the debate, we should strive for a more informative style of debate.

This far more clearly defines your point, IMHO.

I agree, we should strive for more...informative debates. It would be wonderful if those "hosting" and "moderating" said debates were interested in actually informing the public, unfortunately, it seems that most, if not all, are far more interested in pushing an agenda and/or TV/radio ratings. There are exceptions to this, of course, but one must really look to find them. Often they are debates between candidates other than those with an (R) or a (D) after their name.