In my mind, if you think something is a legitimately good idea, then you're almost obligated to try to influence others to take it on.
In other words, you think that just your opinion that it's a good idea is sufficient to justify influencing others, even if you haven't actually tried it? You don't feel any obligation to test it yourself first, to see whether it's really a good idea or whether you were mistaken? How does that square with this:
I work really hard at evaluating ideas that are new to me based on their merits. But it's sometimes extremely difficult to do.
In other words, you admit it's very difficult to evaluate new ideas, but yet you think you're obligated to try to influence others to adopt them without having tried them yourself first? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to try the idea yourself first, since it's so difficult to evaluate it on its merits just by looking at it?
There's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box, they aren't automatically accepted by people just because they're good.
I do disagree with this as you state it, yes. I would say there is resistance to out of the box ideas that have not been demonstrated to work. And the way to overcome this resistance is to demonstrate that the idea works, instead of trumpeting how good it is before you've tested it yourself.
most people don't make the effort, even if they're otherwise intelligent.
Yes, that's true. And I would say it's because people's time and energy are limited, and they already have enough to do with it without adopting this new idea that you say is so great, but you have no evidence to back it up.
Edit: I should add that I put a key qualifier in my statement about good ideas spreading naturally: I said it happens that way in a sane society. I do not think we currently live in a sane society, and the reason why is that in our society, the second method of spreading ideas has crowded out the first one. People don't evaluate ideas based on whether they've been demonstrated to work; they evaluate them based on who is saying they're good ideas.
So there are actually two reasons why "there's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box"; in addition to the one I gave above (that there's a resistance to out of the box ideas that haven't been demonstrated to work), there is also a second reason: there's a resistance to ideas that are "out of the box" in the sense that they come from a source that isn't on the list of "approved" sources for ideas. The second reason could apply even to an idea that has been demonstrated to work. But even in that case, the reason for trying to get the idea adopted should still be "this idea has been demonstrated to work", not "I think this is a good idea, even though I'm not on your list of approved sources for ideas".
Not explicitly, no, but it certainly seemed to me to be strongly implied. You didn't say "If you have tried an idea and found it to work well, I think you have an obligation to get others to try it too." You just said "If you think something is a good idea". My point is that, to put it bluntly, just "thinking" it's a good idea is worth very little by itself; it certainly isn't enough to obligate you to try to get others to adopt it. You need a lot more than that.
In other words, you think that just your opinion that it's a good idea is sufficient to justify influencing others, even if you haven't actually tried it? You don't feel any obligation to test it yourself first, to see whether it's really a good idea or whether you were mistaken? How does that square with this:
I work really hard at evaluating ideas that are new to me based on their merits. But it's sometimes extremely difficult to do.
In other words, you admit it's very difficult to evaluate new ideas, but yet you think you're obligated to try to influence others to adopt them without having tried them yourself first? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to try the idea yourself first, since it's so difficult to evaluate it on its merits just by looking at it?
There's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box, they aren't automatically accepted by people just because they're good.
I do disagree with this as you state it, yes. I would say there is resistance to out of the box ideas that have not been demonstrated to work. And the way to overcome this resistance is to demonstrate that the idea works, instead of trumpeting how good it is before you've tested it yourself.
most people don't make the effort, even if they're otherwise intelligent.
Yes, that's true. And I would say it's because people's time and energy are limited, and they already have enough to do with it without adopting this new idea that you say is so great, but you have no evidence to back it up.
Edit: I should add that I put a key qualifier in my statement about good ideas spreading naturally: I said it happens that way in a sane society. I do not think we currently live in a sane society, and the reason why is that in our society, the second method of spreading ideas has crowded out the first one. People don't evaluate ideas based on whether they've been demonstrated to work; they evaluate them based on who is saying they're good ideas.
So there are actually two reasons why "there's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box"; in addition to the one I gave above (that there's a resistance to out of the box ideas that haven't been demonstrated to work), there is also a second reason: there's a resistance to ideas that are "out of the box" in the sense that they come from a source that isn't on the list of "approved" sources for ideas. The second reason could apply even to an idea that has been demonstrated to work. But even in that case, the reason for trying to get the idea adopted should still be "this idea has been demonstrated to work", not "I think this is a good idea, even though I'm not on your list of approved sources for ideas".