I would be interested in a more detailed analysis of the value produced by innovative thinking in such historical contexts. At the same time, it seems the case to me that if there is a choice between something socially valuable and something that's not, then ceteris paribus, the more socially valuable thing is preferable.

A good general book on the topic would innovation would be Jane Jacobs "The Economy of Cities".

When doing something very innovative it's often very hard to predict social impact. That's partly because it's innovative. You don't know what you are going to get. You don't really know how things are going to be useful.

Two years ago I would have predict that the knowledge gained through QS by this day would be higher. That it's easier to get more people to gather meaningful data. I still learned a bunch of things that I wouldn't have predict I would learn.

Do you have the impression that people who design marketing materials for nonprofits are in general more likely to think out of the box than people who can learn a complicated subject such as Japanese calligraphy?

I don't think calligraphy is complicated. It fairly straightforward. It's hard and you have to practice but I don't see where it's complicated. It's always clear what the next step happens to be to get better at it.

Sending resumees to a bunch of non-profits till one accepts you isn't something that most people do.

He not only created marketing materials but attended various UN summits and interacted face-to-face in that enviroment with a lot of high status politicians.

I think it's teaches a more broad perspetive to discuss political issues if you actually talked with the people who are responsible at high stakes political summits.

There could certainly be a disconnect between their academic understanding and their ability to deal with real-world phenomena that apply that academic understanding. My comment was more about their level of understanding with the specific academic realm.

You don't go to school to be good at school. You go to school to learn skills to do something outside of school. The grades you get at school don't measure your real world skills directly. They are a proxy.

The people I know anecdotally who did more of the Steve sort of stuff in high school don't seem to have accomplished notably more in adult life than the people who did more of the Dave sort of stuff. This could be due to small sample size or selection bias in my sample.

I have to admit that I don't have enough have a sample to make definite conclusions.