I was 5 years old and it was 1980 when the world was about to take a leap into the future of new ideas with the introduction of the personal computer. My father didn't know it yet, but in a few months he would have planned and then concluded the purchase of one of the first personal computers to arrive in Italy. It was an Apple II europlus, and under the "hood" it had a nice label: "Cupertino, California". Not everyone was a pioneer like him, who in post-earthquake Naples started a pioneering computerized calculation activity for the metric calculations necessary for reconstruction.
Some, in Italy and abroad, developed a real "computerphobia". a mix of anxiety, fear and rejection towards these mysterious machines. No wonder: this attitude of resistance to new ideas is not an isolated case in the history of innovations. But what is behind this phenomenon?
New ideas and fear: a historical link
In the context of discoveries and new ideas, it is more common to encounter resistance and skepticism than the opposite: a dynamic that manifests itself in various ways, from apathy to open rejection. At the time of the advent of the personal computer, for example, people feared being replaced or dominated by the machine, perceived as a threat to health and society.
This phenomenon, which we could combine today with the reaction (sometimes hysterical) to artificial intelligence, is documented in psychology studies, articles and manuals, and represents a classic example of technological resistance. Do we want to talk about it?
The role of perception in the evaluation of innovations
How we perceive and evaluate new ideas is crucial. The studies of Wayne Johnson from the University of Utah and Devon Proudfoot from Cornell University examined this aspect. They discovered that the more innovative an idea, the more divided the opinions on its usefulness. Disagreement, in turn, generates resistance as it is interpreted as a signal of risk.
The experts conducted experiments writing about business, films, abstract art and intentions to invest in innovative ideas. All the categories observed confirmed this theory.
A concrete risk: remaining anchored to the past
To summarize and contemplate the results of the observation made, it is sufficient to mention one key concept in resistance to new ideas. Is called “cognitive entrenchment”: literally “cognitive anchoring”, although I much prefer the term “fossilization”.
What is it about
“Cognitive entrenchment” is a person's tendency to stay anchored to a particular cognitive pattern or way of thinking, often as a result of in-depth experience or expertise in a particular field. This phenomenon can arise from continuous practice, sustained training, extensive reading, rote learning, personal discovery, etc.
The concept of “cognitive entrenchment” suggests that experience and knowledge in a field can make it difficult to accept new ideas. Over time, our cognitive structures become less receptive to alternative sources of information, making it difficult to evaluate and accommodate new things. This phenomenon can lead "state" experts to make errors in the evaluation of innovations, as novelty implies the absence of a point of reference really expert in that field.
Resistance to new ideas: a question of experience and comparison
Clearly, cognitive entrenchment can have negative consequences. It can limit problem solving, making a person “stuck” or “fixed” in their thinking. This can lead to a resistance to new ideas and alternative points of view, thus hindering personal and professional growth.
To avoid cognitive entrenchment, it is important to continually challenge our beliefs and remain open to new ideas and perspectives. This may include being open to change, questioning your own views and approaches, and updating your beliefs based on new evidence. Other strategies may include surrounding ourselves with friends who challenge us and always being curious, humble, and growth-oriented in our thinking.
The phenomenon of “sleeping beauties”
The biologist Andres Wagner explored how some innovations in biology and other disciplines need to be introduced multiple times before they are accepted. And she elaborated a theory, which he called “Sleeping Beauties.” What are the “Sleeping Beauties” that Wagner refers to? Precisely the new ideas that are so difficult to accept.
Wagner argues that establishing a positive baseline for new ideas requires multiple exposures. Each new presentation is an opportunity to build a favorable baseline. Metaphorically speaking, if Sleeping Beauty from the famous fairy tale had not been lying in a forest but in a crowded street, “give and take” she would have had a better chance of receiving the kiss of love that would have awakened her.
This is to say that new ideas are not necessarily just born. And when they become mass, there is no need to say "but they were already there years ago". Because, to quote Wagner, an idea's ability to innovate depends on its robustness. Take the case of the electric car: its invention dates back to 1832, yet it is still making its way (and struggling) to establish itself.
“Are you saying that new ideas are right regardless, and it's not right to doubt them?”
I'm saying the exact opposite. Conversation and open-mindedness are the only way, and at the same time the best, to face changes. It is not supine acceptance that allows innovations to assert themselves, but the right "gym" made up of criticism, constructive criticism, reasoning and experimentation. Only a gym like this can strengthen new ideas, and therefore increase their "innovability". Certainly not the ideological rejection, or the barricades from above (I would say more from below) of experiences and expertise that one does not really possess.
What is the point of reacting with stock phrases like "Skynet is coming" or "Terminator" to all the innovations in robotics or artificial intelligence? What is the point of reporting a "mass control" every time there is an advance in the field of sensors or medical implants?
Overcoming resistance: Strategies for innovation
To overcome resistance to new ideas, it is essential not to give up in the face of disagreement. Designers should create positive reference points, using familiar metaphors and analogies to facilitate acceptance.
An effective approach is to present the idea as a variation of something already known and successful, as in the case of Uber, which has set a new standard for evaluating similar ideas.
The history of innovations is dotted with initial resistance. Understanding the psychological and social dynamics that drive this phenomenon is essential to overcoming obstacles and embracing new ideas that can shape our future.
Always hold experts in high regard, in every sector. But be able to also embrace the will of the "gold diggers", of the naysayers. One needs the other: a world led by fossilized experts would go nowhere.
For everything else, when everything is missing, there is still the scientific method. And if you please.
