I was waiting for the inevitable
Connections reference. It took longer than I expected.
I like the idea and I like the article describing the background and rationale. I look forward to poking around in it. However I have a little bit of a hang-up with calling it a “tree”. Namely, a tree conjures the image of it being a 1-to-N graph, i.e. a single idea leads to several new ones, and so on, when it is very much not.
Ironically Connections was really what rammed this point home for me. It really is more like a social media graph, where ideas from all over, old and new, coalesce into a new epiphany that leads to a new invention. Burke constantly demonstrated this in his examples, and explicitly rejected the linearity of inventions.
But then again, the concept of a ‘tree of tech’ is rather poetic :)
I like the idea and I like the article describing the background and rationale. I look forward to poking around in it. However I have a little bit of a hang-up with calling it a “tree”. Namely, a tree conjures the image of it being a 1-to-N graph, i.e. a single idea leads to several new ones, and so on, when it is very much not.
Ironically Connections was really what rammed this point home for me. It really is more like a social media graph, where ideas from all over, old and new, coalesce into a new epiphany that leads to a new invention. Burke constantly demonstrated this in his examples, and explicitly rejected the linearity of inventions.
But then again, the concept of a ‘tree of tech’ is rather poetic :)