8,347
edits
Appeal to Novelty: Difference between revisions
→Real Life
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (trope->useful notes) |
|||
Line 27:
* The dot-com bubble was caused by many investors believing this fallacy; the new technology often blinded them to the unfeasability of many dotcom startups' business plans. Similar market bubbles have been associated with other new technology industries, including railroads, automobiles, radios and transistors.
** And [[wikipedia:Tulip mania|tulips,]] yes, ''tulips.'' When tulips were first imported to the Dutch during the Dutch Golden Age, there was a massive craze for the new flowers. Prices for rare bulbs rose to (relative) heights that would make any dot.com millionaire seem like a pauper. The ensuing financial havoc after the bubble popped was devastating.
* Robert Lewis Dabney's observation<sup>essay ''Women’s Rights Women'' in The Southern Magazine, 1871</sup>, on which he based prediction that the suddenly-fashionable suffragettes will win in United States: the main reason is simply that anything goes, as long as it's "new".
{{quote|This is foreshadowed by the frantic lust for innovation which has seized the body of the people like an epidemic. It is enough with them to condemn any institution, that it was bequeathed us by our forefathers; because it is not the invention of this age, it is wrong, of course. In their eyes no experience proves anything, save the experience which they have had themselves. They do not suppose that our fathers were wise enough to interpret and record the lessons of former experiences. That certain things did not succeed in our forefathers hands is no proof that they will not succeed in our hands; for we are “cute,” we live in an enlightened age, and understand how to manage things successfully. The philosophy of the Yankee mind is precisely that of the Yankee girl who, when she asked for leave to marry at seventeen, was dissuaded by her mother that she “had married very early and had seen the folly of it.” “Yes; but, Mamma,” replied the daughter, “I want to see the folly of it for myself.” Your Yankee philosopher is too self-sufficient to be cautioned from the past. He does not know history, he would not believe its conclusions if he did; he has no use for its lights, having enough “subjective” light of his own. To such a people the fact that a given experiment is too absurd to have been ever tried before, is an irresistible fascination: it is a chance not to be neglected. }}
{{reflist}}
| |||