] "Under Rutan's approach, space missions will
] become justifiable just for the fun of it," says
] Tolkowsky. "If the early history of atmospheric
] aviation is any indication, then the fun of flying is a
] much more effective accelerator of public interest than
] the prospect of scientific knowledge. Like the Wright
] brothers versus the Europeans, this is a very clear
] example of different belief systems that lead to
] different choices of technologies and missions."

This one comment reminded me that most of the things that have advanced quickly and with great efficiency over the last 200 hundred years have some component of fun associated with them, despite being highly dangerous. A few personal examples are skydiving, white water rafting, motorcycle racing, and model rocketry.

But the real reason why I blogged this is the overall discussion of the value of 'belief'. It ties into the article I posted earlier today that spoke to the rise of the Conceptual Age. I think these two things are highly intertwined.

Recently I gave a presentation urging decision makers on investing in Remote Patient Monitoring devices and services. My first slide was a quote from Alan Kay, who said "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." There's very little in the way of truly innovating ideas floating around these days. What counts is execution, but that springs forth from the belief that doing anything will result in success.

I think this philosophical difference is what separates the winners from the also-rans. As an organization, if it believes in what it's doing, it will systematically make the adaptations and choices necessary to survive. This will make a product that logically might not be a match for the current market needs ultimately successful.

You can take this one step further as the belief of the market can be altered too. In the example of whether a human looking robot will meet more resistance than a non-human looking robot, I think that the point is moot. If the developers of robots BELIEVE that their robots will be successful, then that same infectious vibe can spread to the marketplace and cause it to happen. Sure, there will be natural tension between what the market wants today, and what the market wants tomorrow over time, which will impact the product itself. But success is not that the designers chose whether to make the robot look human or not. Success is the designer's ability to adapt upon learning what the market understands, and tuning accordingly to that. That requires BELIEF that what you're doing is right, but is not above reproach.

Should Your Next CEO Be a Philosopher?