In Part 1, I had looked at the prevailing perception that younger people (age less than 30 years) are more innovative than their older peers. In reality, scientists and business workers innovate far more effectively only after reaching an age of about 40 years. Fundamental research by Nobel Laureates and profit-directed innovations (patents) in the industries show a close similarity of innovation frequency and age. Given the very different motivations in the two groups, this is an interesting finding. The slide shows the age at the time of innovation.
Slide 1:
In the 20th century the age at the time of innovation has shifted to higher values by 6 to 8 years. The shift has happened for Nobel laureates and for innovators in business alike as shown in the next slide:
Slide 2:
I would like to understand - What are the factors that determine creativity/innovation dynamics and how one might be able to boost the innovation output?
AGE: Young children are more creative as they interpret the world around them with few preconceived notions. Child prodigies can manage astounding feats but most 'burn-out' rather quickly. 'The road from kid-genius to adult-dud is a well travelled one'. The available evidence does not support the notion that child-geniuses will mature into prolific innovators - in most cases their contribution has been minimal.
Even laureates, who make significant contributions in their twenties, do not always continue to make seminal contributions to fundamental research in later life. In physics Heisenberg, Dirac, Einstein, Lawrence Bragg and many others did their Nobel Prize winning research in their early to mid-twenties but did not publish much after the age of 40 years. One wonders if there is a limit to the total innovation that human mind can create.
As we have discussed above, age itself is not a barrier to great innovations. John Goodenough is still innovating at age 94.
Younger people might be better placed for creative activity as they are less encumbered by the many demands that adult life brings, but they lack experience and breadth of knowledge that focused innovation demands.
There are special situation, such as presented by technological revolutions, that might override the need for a wide knowledge base and allow younger innovators to come to the fore.
This has happened at the start of the first industrial revolution, at the beginning of the 20th century with the paradigm shift due to the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, introduction of the personal computers in the 1970s, the Internet in the 1990s etc.
IQ and Innovation:
The intellect and achievements are far from perfectly correlated
About a hundred years ago, IQ tests were designed (1) to 'measure' intelligence. 50% of the population has scores in the range from 90 to 109 (average IQ). Only 2.1% have an IQ greater than 130 and 0.1% have an IQ of 190+, these are highly gifted people or geniuses.
You might think that those with IQ of 130+ will be extremely innovative but studies have shown that they do no better than average population in life - 'children with high IQ turned out to be run-of-the-mill people'. It will be fair to say that IQ tests examine some areas of intelligence but neglect others such as creativity and social intelligence. An IQ of about 110 to 120 is all one needs to have a good chance of becoming a successful innovator.
The longest study, of how successful high-IQ people are in real life, was performed by Lewis Terman (1877-1956). In 1921, Terman selected and followed the progress of 1470 primary school children with IQ of 140 to 200 (top 0.1% in IQ intelligence) - they were called termites.
Termite progress reports were prepared and published as 'Genetic Studies of Genius'. By adulthood, of the 730 termites still reporting, Terman could classify them, according to their achievements, in three distinct categories - 20% As, 60% Bs, 20% Cs.
A - high achievers, professionals with high earnings, 98% with graduate degrees
B - average achievers
C - low achievers, blue collar workers, some with no jobs at all, only 5% had graduate degrees
Remembering that during early life, Cs were geniuses in the top 0.1% population - the results are deeply confusing. Terman had believed that termites were destined to be the future elites.
Most schools, universities and employers still perceive that those who score high in IQ tests have the greatest potential and formulate their selection policies accordingly. This is another example of perils of perception - we know that a high IQ score has limited relevance for success in later life but we still use it to determine our selection policies. By doing this we might be squandering talent and doing immense harm not only to the individuals but to the national prosperity.
Thankfully, such longitudinal studies provide much additional data that could be usefully analysed to help create a better picture of what contributes to success. I shall return to this topic later in this blog.
For a recent December 2019 article with examples click here.
Burden of Knowledge:
'If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants' Isaac Newton
Successful innovators gain their insight from previous accumulated knowledge - one does not have to invent the wheel again. In the STEM context, the accumulated knowledge is increasing rather rapidly and an innovator has much more to learn before starting to innovate effectively. More than 85% of Nobel Laureates in the sciences had a PhD. The average age at the time of their PhD was 26.2 years. Interesting to note that most laureates, who did their award-winning work before the age of 30, did the research as part of their doctoral thesis (Einstein is an obvious exception here). In 2013, the median age of completion of PhD in USA was 29.9 years - a considerable increase over the age at which the laureates completed their PhD in the 20th Century. Most innovators in sciences and in business do their best work after receiving their highest degree and it seems reasonable to infer that the mean age of innovation is increasing partly because people are taking longer to acquire a solid knowledge base.
Let us look at the age at which Nobels were awarded in the 21st century. The second slide in this blog shows the data - some numbers will be useful: In chemistry, until the year 2000, 66% of the chemistry laureates were age 40 or less; however, in the 21st century no scientist under the age of 40 was awarded Nobel Prize in chemistry.
In the 20th century, 60% of the prize winning work in Physics was done by those under the age of 40 years - this has now fallen to less than 20% in the 21st century.
Opportunity Knocks! There are instances when innovation may happen at an earlier age. I shall illustrate this by describing two such situations:
Physics in the early 20th Century: The decades preceding the year 1900 were some of the most traumatic years for physicists. Classical physics (largely based on common sense) had been extremely successful except that work in the previous 50 years or so had revealed deep anomalies between empirical measurements and theoretical expectations. It was only the emergence of the quantum (with Max Planck but mainly from Einstein in 1905) and relativistic (single-handed by Einstein) theories that physics was put on a much firmer footing and by the year 1935, it was the beginning of the realisation that we have a good grasp of the laws of nature.
The genius of Einstein was to think laterally and bravely follow a completely new approach (Look at the link for my 8-hour outreach course on Einstein's work) .
For younger physicists from about 1900 to 1935, it was a god-sent opportunity when they could simply concentrate on the task at hand in their respective research groups and innovate without acquiring a complete knowledge base. Much of the seminal research was done by scientists at the graduate student and post doctoral level in European labs. This is evident in the statistics of Nobel Prize winners and is largely responsible in the observed drop in the mean age when award winning work was done and as the recognition was swift too, the age when the Nobel was awarded also came down.
Arrival of the Personal Computer in 1975: The main frame computers were bulky occupying a big room, power hungry and most required water cooling. First personal computer arrived in mid-seventies, they were small portable and inexpensive for an ordinary person to own and use - they totally transformed the way we now use computers. A large amount of innovation occurred - particularly in software development. Young innovators were extremely well placed to start businesses offering digital technology through the lap-top. People who were best placed to exploit this opportunity were those who were not too old to have settled in a family and work routine or too young to still be at college - the innovators who were born between 1950 and 1960 had the fortunate break and they grabbed the opportunity with enthusiasm. The next slide lists some of the entrepreneurs (Inspired by Outliers):
Most of these characters are multi-billionaires, are some of the richest people in the world. They run mega-sized technology companies with a combined worth of more than 5000 billion dollars.
It Matters Where You Come From: Innovation is having a good idea and then successfully implementing it. The first part (creativity) is an inspiration - one generally has a lot of interesting novel ideas every day. How we efficiently convert these abstract ideas into reality is something I do not have a recipe for. For sure, for success one needs discipline, persistence and encouragement - all require a supportive environment from early childhood. Habits, formed when you are young, will stay with you - you develop 'good' habits if you are fortunate to be born in a family that has role models (normally your parents) and reasonable financial resources.
The most important thing appears to be that many successful entrepreneurs start young - I suggest that you should read this link to learn first hand what the entrepreneurs say about how they achieved success.
With determination and hard work, some became successful in life even though they had an unfavourable start in life - what they had in common was a will to succeed. They had grit - rock-solid resilience and extra drive that keeps them focused on the end result. A gritty individual approaches achievement as a marathon; his or her advantage is stamina.
Serendipity: The faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident …The OED
Many chance observations have led to Nobel Prize winning work and successful inventions. Some everyday items like teflon, velcro, nylon, penicillin, safety glass, sugar substitutes, plastics, post-it notes, viagra, microwave oven and many more were accidental discoveries. In sciences - pulsars (neutron stars), cosmic microwave radiation, neutrino oscillations, X-rays are just a few of the many examples of serendipitous discoveries. See also for role of serendipity in drug discovery.
In the context of innovation, serendipity does not mean pure luck. Many discoveries appear to be lucky accidents when the discoverer happened to stumble on the idea - but, it is not so simple. On the basis of her previous knowledge and experience, the discoverer must be prepared to recognise the significance and potential of the observation. As Pascal had said: Chance favours the prepared mind.
An analysis of 117 Nobel Laureates, in Physiology or Medicine and Chemistry in the past 25 years, came up with 14 discoveries as totally serendipitous, 72 problem driven and 31 hybrid in which serendipity contributed substantially.
It helps if you are in the top universities: While Nobel Prizes have been awarded to scientists who have graduated or worked in lesser known universities, the bulk of awards go to those who are affiliated in one of the top universities. Wiki lists - Nobel laureate number in brackets - Harvard (158); Cambridge, UK (118); Columbia, NY (96); Chicago (98); U of California, Berkeley (107) among the top five. (There might be some double-counting in these numbers due to the problem of defining affiliation)
Interestingly, out of 915 awards, USA and UK scientists have won 368 and 132 awards respectively but have only 5% and 0.9% of the world population.
Even within the country, not all regions do as well. In the USA, most Nobel Laureates come from New England and California while in the UK, University of Cambridge dominates.
The people around you, the academic culture means a lot in motivating a young graduate. The reputation of the university draws talent and all-important research funding. The concentration of highly talented and motivated people who can exchange and discuss ideas (brainstorming) creates a synergy to move innovative enterprise forward. This is not only true of scientists but equally so in the industrial context - although, in businesses the need of confidentiality is greater.
Barriers to Innovation: There are many. Our discussion already points to potential damage done by selection processes based on IQ and by supporting research that is mainly problem solving. Such policies disadvantage innovative activity.
The way things are organised just now, highly innovative people are promoted to administrative work that pays better but hinders them from effective innovation. This might be particularly true in Japan where innovation drops sharply at age 40 years (slide in Part 1).
When a scientist reaches a preeminent position in his/her discipline, it is zealously guarded. New ideas may not be supported, or are actively discouraged. In this context, the actions of ageing Lord Kelvin make interesting reading (see 3rd slide from the end in the link). There are many such examples.
In industries, the pole position is defended with all might - start-ups are bought and dismantled, competition is suppressed etc. - the energy/oil industry is a good example here.
Gender bias: Females have formed a tiny percentage of innovators in the past and the situation continues to be unsatisfactory. We are essentially losing about half of the innovation potential of the human race. I shall refer you to many studies on this topic. Thankfully, deeply held prejudicial beliefs in our society about women are gradually being dismantled and one hopes that in the coming decades they will be able to play a more prominent part in the advancement of knowledge and wealth creation.
Final Word: To write this blog has been a pleasurable task - it has helped to organise my thoughts about creativity and innovation. The way human mind operates is rather mysterious (or I should say - not well understood). We have been able to identify some situations that help innovation and changing the way we select and promote innovative activity could help.
Technology - in the form of artificial intelligence - will be able to identify potentially fruitful lines of research and development - we are not there yet. Interesting times ahead.
Love to hear your comments. Please pass on the link to this blog to friends and family.
No comments:
Post a Comment