On Novelty - An Introduction
Preface
A dear friend posited a question a few months ago, and we had an excellent discussion about it. Her observation was simple: people tend to avoid new things, especially unproven ones. The implication was one of social considerations, and this conversation ended with me reading over eight books on the associated concepts and formulating a new essay. Before beginning my formal research on these topics, I started with the thoughts below. I want to share with my readers how I initially perceive these types of problems before seeking more understanding. Further, I am not always right and will only sometimes be so, but I do my best to be honest with myself and others so that we might learn from each other and be better for it.
Introduction
It appears to be the natural human condition to find everything wrong with something, especially a new idea. However, it is not without utility, and we should explore this question more thoroughly. While considering the depth of possibilities, several reasons came to mind: first, life is difficult, and it is riskier for the survival of the individual to trust everything as inherently good openly; second, we need to be able to reconcile the effectiveness of our actions in the world against some metric, which is typically our current state; third, it is doubtful that something novel will be better than what we currently possess, or, further, that even if it ends up being so, it will most certainly not proceed as we expect. Even further, change is doubtless exceedingly challenging to implement effectively and, when attempted at scale, requires the utmost precision, collective participation, and precise measurement.
Point One - Our Biology Plays a Role
Life is incredibly difficult; there are a plethora of decisions to be made all the time, and we are only a few away from complete catastrophe at any moment. Let us consider the general nature of anxiety, which derives itself biologically from environmental entropy; it is here where the difference between the rate of environmental change, or at the very least the perception of environmental change, deterministically produces a physically manifested state in the human body that attempts to turn us away from the novelty. In summary, it is biologically untenable much of the time, and the default outlook is, therefore, somewhat understandable. This does not mean one should not act; it means we should take great care in determining how and when to act.
Point Two - Our Psychology Plays a Role
The reconciliation of action happens, but it rarely occurs quickly and indeed not accurately, without first being removed from the situation as it operates at the subconscious level. The reality of most cases is that we act as if our current state of being is the best thing ever, and for a good reason: it got us this far. It is far more challenging to consider what might be a threat to our current way of thinking; the negative corollaries of this effect can be witnessed through cognitive dissonance: self-preservation rules over all when fear conquers curiosity. With this mindset, one must protect the worldview at all costs because if they are wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?
Point Three - Socially Acceptance is Critical
Novel ideas usually fail; it would be insane to place large bets on every new idea or adventure that comes our way. This is why there are plenty of starving artists; when someone is high in openness and low in conscientiousness, everything seems like a great idea. This is also seen in businesses; almost all new businesses fail, yet not all ideas are terrible. From a business perspective, the concepts are nearly opposites; such an ironic dilemma. This means at least two things: it is hard to have a good idea and even harder to make the idea work in the real world. To further understand this, we should consider what the patterns of behavior look like for success instead of for a specific novel idea. Integrating these novel ideas into the map becomes a cumbersome and laborious process, and altering the current state can lead us rapidly back to point one if we are not prudent.
In Summary
In my professional life, especially over the last decade, I have frequently asked people the following question: "Is it better to be curious or to be right?" We can come to understand a lot about ourselves by harnessing some introspection. Every significant gain in understanding or personal development has always come from my willingness to accept the need to transform into something new, someone new. Such an action is not easy; it is far from the case, actually. Our outlook is what we see, and our internal state is how we perceive it. The beauty here is that we each see it in a way, a unique way: there is meaning in this. When you approach what you see with curiosity, you open yourself up to a new understanding that was potentially beyond your grasp previously and made available because of the information and experiences you collected along the way. When we take the time to learn from what we are doing or have done, we are less prone to repeat our mistakes, and the frequency of occurrence is reduced.
There is a balance to be found here, an ever-elusive balance, and maintaining it is critical to finding our way from this generation into the next. So, I ask you: Is it better to be curious or right?
