

Ideas Having Sex - numeromancer
http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/14/ideas-having-sex

======
asmosoinio
Single page link: [http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/14/ideas-having-
sex/singl...](http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/14/ideas-having-
sex/singlepage)

------
thiele
"Technologies emerge from the coming together of existing technologies into
wholes that are greater than the sum of their parts."

------
bdr
If you want something along these lines, but better thought out, read Nonzero
<http://www.nonzero.org/>

------
rortian
Some interesting stuff in there but it's a bit scatterbrained and too obsessed
with coming back to libertarian dogma.

There is a line of argument that says that most growth comes from innovation.
While some of it surely does, I think interconnectedness is much more
important. It's sad this just turns into ideas having sex in the article. But
then again lots of stuff is important in how inter-human relations develop
over time. It's foolish to obsessively attribute much of the growth of the
economy to one thing.

For a scatterbrained, but much more interesting and less dogmatic, rethinking
of economics theory I recommend Origin of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker.

~~~
fgf
Changes in institutions/networks/interconnectedness etc. as described in the
Beinhocker book is innovation according to the economic textbook definition. I
have read the summary of his books and he does not seem to contradict the
essay. I'd be interested to see an explanation of how you think he does
(assuming you do).

~~~
rortian
>Changes in institutions/networks/interconnectedness etc. as described in the
Beinhocker book is innovation according to the economic textbook definition.

Innovation is hardly considered in economics at all. As is alluded to in the
essay, it is considered an external variable. This is a huge point of
Beinhocker's that economic theory is based on a physics of equilibrium. Bad
idea.

Networks and interconnectedness are not considered at all in 'textbook'
economic definitions. When agents already have perfect information, why do you
need to meet others?

I'd love to see a textbook definition of innovation that comes close to what
you have asserted here.

~~~
fgf
"Innovation is hardly considered in economics at all."

Well, you're wrong.* It should, however, be noted that the dominance of this
kind of economics may be new to the mainstream. I have only been reading
economics textbooks for the last three years.

"Networks and interconnectedness are not considered at all in 'textbook'
economic definitions."

Of course they are, for example in every study ever written on globalization,
the structure of corporations, corporate governance or insider trading. Or is
there some special definition of the terms you're using?

"When agents already have perfect information, why do you need to meet
others?"

None of the textbooks in economics (HS and undergraduate courses) or
economists I have read assume this to be true, or even a useful approximation
for most markets.

"I'd love to see a textbook definition of innovation that comes close to what
you have asserted here."

Innovation is used in my textbook as it is in the description of the
innovation economics theory. (I don't have it with me now.)

*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_economics>

~~~
rortian
That there is a field called Innovation Economics basically proves my point.
As it states in the linked it is fact quite different from standard economic
theory.

You state in another post that English is your second language. When you say
'textbook definition' you are implying canonical usage, not there exists a
textbook that I use that defines this.

>None of the textbooks in economics (HS and undergraduate courses) or
economists I have read assume this to be true, or even a useful approximation
for most markets.

That is really striking. You have never taken microeconomics? Never dealt with
the efficient market hypothesis? Ever taken a economic theory class? This is
possible since European approaches to economic education differ quite a bit
from American ones. But it is extraordinarily difficult to have mathematical
models of markets where participants have informational asymmetries.

>Of course they are, for example in every study ever written on globalization,
the structure of corporations, corporate governance or insider trading. Or is
there some special definition of the terms you're using?

These things are not economics per se. They are interesting things to study,
and yes they involve networks. But just because they exist does not mean they
are subjects in standard economic textbooks.

~~~
fgf
>When you say 'textbook definition' you are implying canonical usage, not
there exists a textbook that I use that defines this.

I know. It seemed like the textbook definition because all the textbooks (and
the economics related writing) I had read, as far as I could recollect, used
it that way.

>European approaches to economic education differ quite a bit from American
ones.

I don't doubt it. In Norway the education/social science establishment (who
are pretty socialist) make sure you notice everything that may discredit
arguments for laissez faire. Allegedly unrealistic assumptions about
rationality and information are gleefully (and sometimes unfairly) ridiculed.

As for your other points it now seems like there is little factual
disagreement. Discussing different definitions and interpretations of earlier
comments further is probably a waste of our time.

~~~
rortian
I don't know if it is. It's pretty shocking to me how different these subjects
can be. And the grass is always green on the other side.

>Allegedly unrealistic assumptions about rationality and information are
gleefully (and sometimes unfairly) ridiculed.

These are more than allegedly ridiculous, they are ridiculous. But, I'm sure
constant harping on this point would be very annoying.

Beinhocker's book is interesting because it lays out several different types
of evolution that a taking place that contribute to economic growth. He also
lays out some interesting mathematical models that people are using.

I'm am genuinely curious as to how much math you've been exposed to in your
econ courses.

