What is it and why?

“Science describes things as they are; art, how they feel, how they feel.” – Fernando Pessoa.

One of the features of the civilization crisis – and we are emerging from it – is the process of disintegration.

In the end moments of this civilization crisis, thoughts become a little chaotic, with no direction.

The current civilization crisis is due to the following common factors: more people on the planet and a long time without new media, which allows us to give an overall cooperative upgrade in our survival.

When we read many books, we realize that there are diamonds here and there, which help us to see the facts better, but there is a lack of integration.

Who helped me to better understand our species was our dear philosopher Ayn Rand (1905 – 82), who simply left us the following lessons:

Sabian, like all other species, has a great goal of surviving, better and better;

Sapiens, unlike other species, needs to think about survival;

Reality exists and is directly related to our ability to survive;

When we do something that goes against survival, we go against reality.

Ayn Rand, like other thinkers, though not called that, practiced zoology, which attempts to understand sapiens in comparison to other species.

Several misconceptions that we observe in the analysis of society are:

Not practicing positive zoology, which looks for commonalities between us and other species;

Not to practice passive zoology, which is to research what we have that is different from other species.

Rand guides us in the direction of understanding that every movement we make, at some point, has survival as a guide.

Integrating Rand with other authors, such as Marshall McLuhan (1911 – 80), Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834), we have the following:

We are a technological region that lives by its ability to think and rethink.

Because of this, we can gradually increase the population;

For this reason, we are required to innovate;

When we limit our ability to innovate, we enter a crisis.

In order to understand the current scenario, after years of working as an operational and conceptual entrepreneur, we felt the need to create an anthropology of survival.

Anthropology of Survival is a proposal to be the focus of Social Science 2.0, which has a new hypothesis about the drive of human history: more people, new media and new models of collaboration.

Survival anthropology, in our opinion, is the only conceptual narrative, which has the potential to make sense of current changes and allow more adequate projections of what is to come in the future.

Thus, survival anthropology has become the main tool, which allows us to practice futuristic structuring, which seeks to predict overall trends in the medium and long term.

It was my clients’ request for a better interpretation of the current scenario that led me to develop the futuristic struct, which should need a survival anthropology.

to sign up:

When we talk about futurism, we have two types of activities:

Futuristic conjunctiva (or Fadism) – which seeks short-term prediction, based more on research on facts than on the development of new patterns;

Structural futures (or big trends) – which seek to forecast the medium and long term, based more on new patterns than on facts.

One of the research findings showed that sane relies on progressive innovation.

Innovation is an integral part of Sabines activities.

And we can say that we have Micro, Mesos and Macro innovations, if we analyze the types as a whole:

Micro and Mesos innovations don’t change our overall collaboration model;

Macro innovations are changing our macro collaboration model.

If survival anthropology helps us understand the current macro scenario, then we have come to realize that, over time, another area of ​​study was missing, which will allow us to understand more and more of the process of progressive innovation.

Survival anthropology helps us understand what is happening, but a field of study is needed, which will help us act in the face of a diagnosis.

And we started looking for references.

There is not much.

One of them is here.

It’s Purdue University, Indiana in the United States, they say:

“The emerging field of innovation science covers a wide area.”

I could not find any references in Portuguese.

The important thing about having the science of innovation is the ability to integrate different ideas about how to approach and bring about changes.

There are many books that have been written that are part of the science of innovation, but they don’t realize it.

However, it is necessary, first of all, to specify that several branches of innovation science analysis will emerge.

In the case of Bimodais, the science of innovation was already born under the umbrella of Social Science 2.0, which includes the anthropology of survival as a guide.

We can say that we are developing the science of dual-mode innovation, which has well-defined philosophical and theoretical foundations.

We can divide our searches as follows:

Bimodal survival anthropology – studies the total changes of species and their consequences in various branches of the social sciences;

Bimodal innovation science – studies both adaptations to macro-species changes, as well as meso- and micro-changes with the following subdivision: personal, collective and organizational innovation.

What is the science of bimodal innovation?

This is what I found in Google Dictionary:

“Science: the vigilance and in-depth knowledge of something. The organized body of knowledge acquired through observation, recognition, research, and explanation of particular classes of phenomena and facts, formulating them in a systematic and rational manner.”

It is necessary to separate science from a particular science.

Science – the field of activity of sapiens to better think and act in the face of phenomena, which is primarily aimed at satisfying the objective requirements for the survival of the sane;

Science – the study of a particular phenomenon in which the factors causing, detonating, effecting, disposing and reviewing will be detailed.

The revision factor is the factor which, from the results of the representation factors, will make the adjustments in the other factors.

What is innovation?

Let’s go to Google:

“Create – make new; renew and restore. Introduce modernity into; do something that has not been done before.”

But will innovation be synonymous with change?

“Change, according to Google, is to make or submit to a modification; to modify (himself), change (oneself).”

Innovation Science is a field of study that aims to assist Sapiens with mandatory (yet yet to be tried) innovative change processes.

Innovation science studies the phenomenon of innovative change in order to:

Understand how certain ways of thinking and behaving become standardized and, after a period of time, become obsolete;

when changes are needed in the way of thinking and acting in order to better deal with facts;

And finally, how do you overcome difficulties to change thinking and behavior?

There are three main areas of study for innovation science:

Personal innovation – changes that a person himself promotes in the way he thinks and behaves;

group innovation – changes in more formal groups;

Organizational innovation – changes that are made to change more formal organizations.

There are two types of innovation from the point of view of the detonating agent:

External innovations – where facts force a person or organization to innovate – such as the dismissal or emergence of a competitor;

Internal innovations – in which a person or organization decides to innovate without external factors requiring change – such as resigning or starting a project for a new product.

There are two types of innovation from the point of view of the proxy worker:

Operational innovation is, essentially, the changes we encourage, while maintaining the same philosophical paradigms;

Philosophical innovation is, essentially, the changes we encourage, for which we need to create new philosophical paradigms, and only then, to move to operational innovation.

Philosophical models are sane intellectual structures, which involve a high degree of abstraction and are deeply rooted in people’s minds.

Philosophical innovation (which we might also call disruptive) requires more abstract revisions and generates much more difficulty in understanding and acting.

The Center for Innovation Science is the study of the mind, the main tool of the species.

This is the topic of another article.

Is that what you’re saying?