We often have a misconception about Being the First, Being Original, and Being Innovative.
A temporal test needs to be carried out to ascertain if someone or something has been the first. Three questions need to be answered: what specifically was done, at what time was it done and has this ever been done before?
To determine the originality of someone or something means there is an application of a substance test. Three questions need to be answered: what specifically was done, at what time was it done and has this ever been done before?
To ascertain the innovative strength of a person or thing, a practical test must be carried out. Three questions need to be answered: what specifically was done, what manner was it done and has this ever been done in the same fashion?
After reexamination, we can arrive at two conclusions:
- There is a closer relationship between Being First and Being Original as compared to Being First and Being Innovative. Tests carried out to ascertain the first and originality are the same.
- Emphasis differs even though the tests are the same. We ask “when” to ascertain if someone or something is a first and “what” to determine originality.
The importance of innovation can be seen in the preservation of resources, thereby making it a vital act in the race for human survival. Being First is a sign of “possibility.” Being Original requires a detailed illustration. Lastly, Being Innovative reveals the practical phase: how it should be done.
These pathfinders (Originators and Innovators) are often rewarded with luxury and ranks, among other material and non-material gifts. Often ignored are the Firsts because being the first does not necessarily mean opening a path but merely revealing a new path for others to find.
Both the Originators and Innovators are responsible for the discovery, revelation, invention, the setup, or verbal communication, which creates an enabling environment for a re-occurrence of this feat, usually with less budget and efforts.
Being a First does not equate Originality — the context for which Being First is used matters. A good example would be; I was the first man to travel around the Bermuda Triangle five times a day. This doesn’t mean I was the first man to travel around the Bermuda Triangle, and I was only the first to do this multiple times in one day.
Tech and modern science trendsetters often claim to be the first to invent a device but not the original. The users often decide who takes the first position and history, which keeps a tab on the originality of all major and minor feats.
As humans, it is impossible to know all that was done and written by others before we came about. This unawareness of the fact we are not the first, original, or innovative – we file for copyrights, make “new” findings in science and exploit “new” art collections.
We may see ourselves as being less original and innovative, but society may draw a different conclusion.
Presumably, this could be the “misunderstood genius syndrome.” Things are undoubtedly less difficult for those of us who use the right terms, and it makes it almost impossible not to be the first or innovative one. Consequently, this is why there are copyright laws.
Despite this, since the measurement of originality is solely based on the idea developed, the probability of it being first and original are minimal. Often, we reword or rephrase dated ideas.
Patent applicants can affirm that the situation is more intense in cases of non-verbal fields of human effort.
Although this does not imply the impossible.
Are we all not standing on giants’ shoulders?
Is it possible for one to be original, first, even innovative without integrating the expertise of the older generation?
Can innovation occur in vacuum and maintain eternal occurrence?
Is cognitive continuity not a necessity?
It is a known fact that scientists are innovators, explorers, and make important discoveries based on either limited or random selection of previous examinations and findings. They also utilize equipment invented by past scientists in measuring and performing other purposes.
There can be no progress and advancement without accessing past treasures of a particular field. Comparisons with past discoveries are what creates giant strides in different fields. This cannot be said about all innovations as some ideas have never been discovered in the past, thereby having to traces to follow.
There are no straightforward evolutionary processes in scientific revolutions.
Innovation can be considered as the father of a new context.
Original thoughts form the human community, and those with the rare opportunity of being the first set the rules for others to follow.
There is little or no continuity in the discontinuous processes referred to as invention and revolution.
Though, our responsiveness to innovations and conformation to the new world in their wake stays the same.
This is where continuity can be discovered.