People like @claychristensen (RIP) and @ericries are careful thinkers who are making technical distinctions in an area before most people have even noticed the world of phenomena they're observing.
-
Show this thread
-
If you haven't looked deeply at innovation and competition, or wondered why incumbents navigate some technology transitions easily and other times get overthrown by upstart new entrants, you won't have the background to even understand “sustaining” vs. “disruptive” innovation.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
If you haven't struggled through the early, pre–product/market fit phase of a startup, or stumbled through transitions after your initial concept fails, you can't understand the difference between a “pivot” and a “jump”.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Sometimes there isn't even a word for the wider category. “Pivot” and “jump” are two types of … what? What's the genus? “Change”? Same with “refactor”.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
So in people's minds the concept snaps to a higher level of generality, which is the only place it can fit. “Pivot” and “refactor” both just come to mean “change”.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Sometimes the concept wasn't very clearly defined in the first place. I blame “agile” and “product-market fit” for this. Then they quickly come to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean (i.e., they mean almost nothing).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Sadly, I don't know what to do about this. Concepts run away from their inventors and take on a life of their own. It's natural and organic, determined by some laws of memetic evolution no one can directly control.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Is there any way to protect our technical concepts? Or at least to guide their evolution? What should pioneering thinkers do to communicate their ideas intact to a broad audience? What are successful examples?
7 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Turned this thread into a blog post:https://jasoncrawford.org/the-dilution-of-precise-concepts …
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
Many cynical replies to this, saying people pick up buzzwords to deceive others / sound smart. I'm more charitable / naive—I think many people simply lack cognitive precision in general and dilute concepts without any ill motives. Not sure if that's optimistic or pessimistic…
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread
I don’t think there are ill motives either! I think a big motive is the desire to join conversations, which isn’t really malice. But it means that you might stretch the definition of a narrow term so that you can apply it to your own case.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @jasoncrawford
Once people have stretched the term so it’s no longer precise, new entrants may be honestly/innocently mistaken. (I’d heard “disruption” used to mean “change” for years before I read The Innovator’s Dilemma; initially I had no way of knowing it was originally a precise term.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @jasoncrawford
I think the process of broadening definitions is not just misunderstanding because it happens to words whose meaning *isn’t* intrinsically difficult or specialized: “very”, “really”, “literally”, “unique.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.