TED Conversations

Henrik Martenzon

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Universities worldwide should be pressured into universal collaboration with regards to admission, areas of research and information given

The private sector agrees that competition is vital for innovation. That is probably true. Innovation is the process of creating revenue from a new idea (product/revenue according to Economic History.
Innovation is what you do after a discovery is made. Scientists discover and entrepreneurs innovate. Sometimes they are the same people.
Discovery needs collaborative exploration. Sure its great when two universities compete to the next discovery, but I state that its even better if they work together to share ideas, try out simultaneously two or more different methods for the same thing (multithreading) to achieve results. I have heard most arguments regarding the greatness of competition, but I say that I compete in discussion room as well. Mentally Im trying to come up with better ideas than anyone else. Its a prestige and its not going away anytime soon.

Problem is that when we are competing for the same thing, in the same world, where the market is mankind's knowledge it seems wasteful to do double work for the same result.

What use would we have if three people came up with the wheel approx at the same time? Congrats Mates, now the innovation begins, which one of you three has the will and intelligence to innovate this product? Let the competition begin!
What if the three persons sat together and shared ideas, methods and tried it all, openly? Same results, probably faster and everyone had access to same tools.

If I have missed something please debate me on this. I draw inspiration from the modern CPU multicore techniques and common sense!

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Oct 27 2011: I agree. Thats why I consider todays procedures too sloooow. Lots of interesting people are pursuing regular careers instead of science because of the magnitude of slow time spend learning/dissertation etc. I am one of those who really believe that it is a waste of time NOT HAVING me work on my theories because of the outcome I may produce. If I would compare myself to regular joe, I probably spend more time thinking about every conceivable angle of a theory, I keep developing in my "spare time".
    I have met very few people like myself, which I recog, and we all have the same thing in common; endless curiosity. This should not be wasted on beaucray like today. About innovation and science, I just wanted to point out that the answer to my posed question is not simply to create better environment for innovation.
  • thumb
    Oct 27 2011: There's a quote i once heard, "Success loves speed." It's not about what you know or how much you know. It's all about how fast can you transform into data/knowledge into something useful. That is innovation in reality. Everyone is doing some kind of research but at the end of the day the winner is the one who is the first recognize the core issue and then solves it.

    As for universal collaboration, i would highly support. Different experiences, exposures coming together to find a better answer. Students need these. Exposure adds to better experience.
  • thumb
    Oct 23 2011: Im not sure I understand your first point Mr Schulte? You are suggesting that new systems that would handle these communications would be too much of a unreliable project in the current climate?
    I agree with your WITHOUT argument, but thats what wikipedia are for. The information there is more valid than ever before, thanks to strong writers engagement.

    My main concern is the amount of time wasted by youth to find the relevant information needed to unlock answer, when the answers could easily be presented much more centrally organized through the collaboration of universities.

    Ideal would be to go onto a website and find out that particle physics has now X publications and one can pay a reasonable amount to get fulltext. Then the same person could get an overlook and see what the next step in science is, what is unexplored and what problem is posted to date. This way its easier to get a grip one whats to be done and we could have many, many scientist out there who suddenly feel the urge to help out with their ideas.
  • Oct 23 2011: I agree with much of what you say.
    some counterarguments:
    -it is important to preserve diversity. Diversity helps us see the problem in various ways.
    -complete collaboration sometimes means that certain ideas are censored, or lost. Have you ever been in a group where your voice isn't heard? If the group is too big, this would most likely happen

    I think the key is a balance of collaboration and competition.