How does socialization hinder innovation ? (A) It facilitates independent thinking. (B)It leads us not to challenge established practices. (C)Creates a strong belief in family values. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. How does socialization hinder innovation ? (A) It facilitates independent thinking. (B)It leads us not to challenge established practices. (C)Creates a strong belief in family values.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->For the purpose of family pension, family does not include:....

QA->Whichcountry has topped Asia in innovation and has emerged as the third biggestcountry worldwide in terms of new innovation centres?....

QA->Antonyms of Hinder ?....

QA->The part of a torque converter that facilitates change of torque between input and output shaft is the:....

QA->Which part of the brain facilitates muscular coordination?....

MCQ->How does socialization hinder innovation ? (A) It facilitates independent thinking. (B)It leads us not to challenge established practices. (C)Creates a strong belief in family values.....

MCQ-> Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: Passage II Humans are pretty inventive creatures. That might be cause for optimism about the future of global change. We've found solutions to lots of problems in the past. And with a much larger and better-educated population than the world has ever seen — the supply of good ideas can only increase. So innovation will figure out a way to sustainable futures. But what is innovation? The media and companies routinely equate innovation with shiny new gadgets. In the same spirit, politicians charged with managing economies frequently talk as if all innovation is good. The history of almost any technology, however — from farming to applied nuclear physics — reveals a mixture of good and bad. The study of the concept of innovation, and of whether it can be steered, is a relatively recent academic effort. There are three ways that scholars have thought about innovation. The first was basically linear: science begets invention that begets innovation. Physics, for instance, gives us lasers, which give us —eventually — compact discs. Result: Growth! Prosperity! Rising living standards for all! From this perspective, it's assumed that science is the basis for long-term growth, and that innovation largely involves commercialisation of scientific discoveries. There is a role for the state, but only in funding the research. The rest can be left to the private sector. By the 1970s, economists interested in technology and some policy-makers were talking about something more complicated: national systems of innovation competing with each other. Such "systems" included measures to promote transfer of technology out of the lab, especially by building links between centres of discovery and technologists and entrepreneurs. The key failing of these two approaches is that they treat less desirable outcomes of innovation as externalities and are blind to the possibility that they may call for radically different technological priorities. The environmental effects of energy and materials-intensive industries may turn, out to be more destructive than we can handle. Radical system change is a third way to think about innovation. Technological trajectories aren't pre-ordained: Some paths arc chosen at the expense of others. And that's harder because it needs more than incremental change. The near future is about transformation. The more complex historical and social understanding of innovation now emerging leads to a richer concept of infrastructure, as part of a system with social and technical elements interwoven.An emphasis on the new, the experimental, the innovative - and on promoting social and technical solutions to global problems must overcome the sheer inertia of the systems we have already built - and are often still extending. Aiming for transformation leads to another take on creative destruction. It isn't enough to promote innovation as creation, the existing system has to be destabilized as well. System shifts of the radical kind envisaged will call for creation of a new infrastructure. But that won't do the job unless the old systems are deliberately removed on roughly the same time-scale. Achieving that will call for a lot more thought about how to if not destroy the old systems, at least set about dismantling them. From the passage we can conclude that the author believes
....

MCQ-> Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the follow. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.According to Popper, the statement "Scientific beliefs are universal in character" implies that....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words in the passage have been printed in bold to help you locate them when answering some of the questions.Can the last fifteen years be called the most successful decade and a half in Indian history and will the next fifteen be equally successful ? Consider a culture where independent thinking is not encouraged. Or take the example of traditional family run business with vast resistance to change or a whole nation who believes that breakthrough ideas can be generated abroad but never at home. Partly responsible is socialization from early years we are taught not to question our elders but at workplaces this creates a hurdle for new thinking. Being unable to change radically gives rise to a culture where even the smallest change is heralded as a breakthrough. Indian corporate leaders have done well standing up to global giants as their companies have grown in size and market share. To be successful in international markets they need to be distinct-distinct products, processes, technologies, business models and organizations.The bottom line will be Innovation. Creativity workshops are organized to channel people to think differently. There are fantastic ideas being generated all the time but no industry breakthrough. Simply because of gravity-a regressive force exerted by a mindset. Thinking has therefore to happen at three levels: idea, frame and paradigm. From a narrow focus on either product or process innovation organizations need to look at innovating the whole ecosystem of the organization. Many a time waiting for a hundred percent solution before going to the market the organization forgets that it could end up waiting forever. Moreover sometimes organizations are too focused on today to see tomorrow. Since management mandates are short-term, sowing the seed for a revenue stream today and leaving its been ts to be reaped by a successor doesn't appeal to today's business leader. This is a serious hurdle to innovation. Establishing a function called innovation management or training employees through creativity workshops will have few benefits unless each frontline employee is empowered to share his innovative ideas with the management. What happens to this system when the person driving the change leaves the organization ? The approach to innovation hence needs to be system driven rather than people driven. In thirty years India can be the largest world economy save China and the US. However as companies grow there exists a resemblance in their products, services, promotions, processes and pricing and so on. There remains only one escape from this trap. The main idea of the passage is :
....