To innovate, you need desire, not education.
Of course, talent plays a critical part in innovation. Talent stems from natural gifts, creativity, desire and persistence.
In the late 15th century, Luca Paccioli approached Leonardo da Vinci. Paccioli was an educated, thought-leader with a deep understanding of mathematics. Paccioli is often indicated as the founder of the balance sheet within accounting. In today’s age, he would be a Ph.D. Harvard Emeritus, blah, blah, blah.
When Paccioli approached Leonardo, he was stunned. How could a man with such profound knowledge, insightful writing, legendary artistic skill and advanced of geometric insight have such little knowledge of basic mathematics?
Unlike Paccioli, Leonardo didn’t spend his time figuring out multiplication tables, mind-games and algebraic equations. Leonardo simply used what was necessary to innovate. He discovered as he created, not from what he read about. Upon analyzing Leonardo’s notebooks, it becomes clear that he wouldn’t pass a third grade arithmetic class.
It’s interesting that Leonardo’s achievements tower over Paccioli’s. However, the point of this recollection isn’t, “who’s right, who’s wrong.” The purpose does not center on bashing Paccioli, who was talented in mathematics. Rather, it’s an example that innovation in one area does not require a formal education in an area of menial importance. The only thing critical to innovation is mastering what you propose to do, not understanding what you don’t need.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I would say that there are two types of innovators: On one hand we have the “thinkers”, or idea-men, who tend to think in big pictures and large steps. Sometimes they turn their ideas into prototypes, but it still takes a long time to make those ideas usable on a daily level; most of Leonardo’s innovations were all but impossible to create at the time, and it took centuries for other technologies to make them possible.
On the other hand there are “implementors”, i.e. those who focus on minutiae and improve everyday things. Pacioli’s innovations, like the balance sheet, hasn’t opened any new fields in science or technology, but has nevertheless revolutionized business.
Progress needs both of these types, and neither is inherently “better” or more important than the other. Also, it’s important to note that each requires different prerequisites: while the latter type needs detailed form of education of the kind we currently have at our schools, the former type also needs education, but of a more wide nature, combining technical and social sciences for a typical “general knowledge” we often see at the so-called “renaissance men”.
Nicely put together, Berislav. Thanks for the insight.
I definitely agree, in that, the implementors don’t necessarily open new fields; however, their innovations help advance not only their generation but future generations.
you should staft a book, it’s wonder!
Gracie!