The Milo Criterion

I was rather let down by this.<p>The author does a fantastic job of establishing that, through metaphorical thinking, he has hit upon some good wisdom for marketing and development of new products. Good, good. That this wisdom invalidates Lean Startup theory, MVP, etcetera. Ok, controversial, but I can dig it. He alludes to the process he went through to nurture this wisdom, and how it has been subconsciously applied by many, to great success. Getting inspirational, I love it. Then he says that he won't be sharing what he's come up with. The end. Excuse me?<p>Sure, given the premise, I can do my own musing on the subject and come to my own conclusions. But I don't have the same degree of experience as this author. I don't blog about "refactored perception", I don't think about these sorts of things very often (I work in a <i>very</i> different industry), so I would love the insight of someone who does.<p>I'm interested in seeing the arc of his thinking, going from the initial abstract musing with calves and cows, to a fascinating new approach to practical process. That sounds like a great arc to see, even if I won't be following it myself.<p>In hindsight, this just feels a bit like Article Bait or Concept Bait (as opposed to link bait). It promises a "refactored perception", and delivers a "redacted prescription".<p>ADDENDUM: Yes, it's a great read. I really enjoyed reading it. It'll give me some good things to think about. But the ending is a complete cop-out, only conceding the tiniest hint that he might follow up on this in the future. I agree, better to not have the last section at all. Better still, to say that he will indeed write more if people show interest. I would love to read more about this.

Is it just me, or was the point of this meandering ditty that "You should introduce adaptations at the same rate that people want to adapt"?<p>I mean, that's not very helpful. I can figure that out myself.<p>Even the analogy of Milo is broken, given what we know about strength gains (Olympic weightlifting is my hobby). In particular, strength gains are non-linear. Any developmental curve is the consequence not of some given simple multiplicative factor but of a complex set of feedback loops that govern adaptation.<p>And so it is with technological advancement. I'd be amazed to see a single number governing adaptation to novelty (which is what we're discussing here).<p>If anything it's going to depend on who is adapting, what they've seen in the past, what they're adapting to and so on. If it seems like a smooth, linear process, that's because we're looking at it from an overly compressed time frame. Lots of phenomena look smooth if you squish them up.

<p><pre><code> The calf grew into a cow at about the rate that Milo grew into a man. </code></pre> Calves grow for a year or so.<p><pre><code> A rather freakish man apparently, since grown cows can weigh over 1000 lb. </code></pre> Also freakish since he had the maturation rate of a cow, or had a knack for breeding cows with the maturation rate of a man.<p><pre><code> The point is, the calf grew old along with the boy. </code></pre> No, it didn't.<p><pre><code> I have been pondering this story for a couple of years... </code></pre> Have you really been pondering this story for a couple years? Maybe not that closely.<p>Your metaphor is broken. Milo lifted lots of different calves.