GRE! GRE! BLOGS HELP ME PRACTICE FOR THE GRE!

Issue Prompt- "It is always an individual who is the impetus for innovation; the details may be worked out by a team, but true innovation results from the enterprise and unique perception of an individual."

The argument that individuals are always the impetus for innovation is a controversial one. While history attributes popular events to the thoughts of one person, it also provides the details to prove that one person could never produce change on his own. In the final analysis, I believe that the people in an innovator’s environment are too influential to deny credit.

It is often said, “no man is an island.” Perhaps this means that every man (or woman) has some form of community. One of the greatest arguments of all time (nature vs. nurture) is unsolvable because both are established as determining factors. People are a product of their environment and their genetics. It must be accepted that a community, or team, produces intra-communal influence. The innovations that are often ascribed to one person are a result of the cumulative ideas of one team, community, school, or family.

It is argued that the teams may work the fine points of change, but the force that drives them to work most likely comes from one person. One person in history to consider could be Alexander The Great. His title undisputedly implies singularity. He had armies to help him conquer, theoretically, the world, but it is only his name that will have a grandiose adjective attached to it forever.

Alexander the Great was the impetus of expanding borders and lasting tales of his cunning. However, Alexander the Great had an impetus of his own. History lessons may not teach the inner workings of Alexander the Great’s journal, but it does tell us who taught Alexander the Great. Exceptional teachers change the perceptions of the pupils. Plato may have introduced the very perceptions that became Alexander the Great’s inner propulsion. Plato the teacher was once Plato the pupil. It is a facile presumption that Aristotle had as much to do with Alexander the Great’s innovations as did Plato or Alexander the Great himself. This demonstrates that teamwork can span time. Another historic correlation of individuals insinuates that joint effort can span space as well. In the time of both slavery abolition in Great Britain and the rising American Revolution two innovators sought each other’s inspiration, advice, and support. William Willberforce, proponent of dissolving the slave trade, and Thomas Jefferson, a distinguished writer of the Declaration of Independence wrote letters beyond their own borders in search of comfort. Beyond such a bond, both men had a local camaraderie with men and women seeking after goals that coincided with their own. Without considering the longitudinal influences both may have had from mentors, parents, etc. both had a lateral network of support and even leadership.

In conclusion, the idea that individuals are always the action that causes reaction is as debatable as the idea that either nature or nurture is dominant. In the final analysis it is my belief that groups of individuals who act together are the real force of innovation. The equivocal definition of teamwork lumps influences throughout space and time into the makeup of one individual. The world view that a specific innovator experiences could be inspired by any of the generations past or the community that surrounds him.