I believe obtaining and acting upon feedback from others is a crucial part of growth. Startups obtain feedback from their market, academics obtain feedback from conferences and journeals they publish their work in, restaurants get feedback in the form of restaurant critics and just plain foot traffic, and so on. However, in the world of ideas, there are a few places where feedback is prevented, because of a closed system. By ‘closed systems’ I mean collections of individuals in which the flow of information is deliberately restricted. Some examples are:

  • Conservative and traditional families: often do not like to put up their ideas and rituals up for open demcratic debate. As a result, its possible to continue practices that are actually completely anachronistic, or even down right harmful.

  • Religious cults: by definition require adherance form their members, without questioning.

  • Military research: too sensitive to publish or discuss with researchers in adacemia or industry. Military research can easily be very backward, simply because it does not get the scrutiny that academic researchers get from their peers or industry practitioners get from the market.

  • Autocratic Governments: In countries with autocratic regimes, the flow of information is often tightly controlled by the state. Media censorship and suppression of dissent limit public discourse and prevent the government from receiving feedback from its citizens.

  • Corporate Monopolies: In industries where one or very few companies dominate, there is often little incentive for innovation or improvement because there is limited competition. This lack of external feedback from competitors can lead to stagnation, poor customer service, and a lack of responsiveness to consumer needs.

  • Closed Academic Fields: Certain academic disciplines can become insular if they are dominated by a small group of influential scholars who set rigid paradigms that discourage alternative theories and methodologies. Young academics in these fields may find it difficult to challenge established norms.

  • Proprietary Software Development: Unlike open-source software, which benefits from the feedback and contributions of a community, proprietary systems are developed in a closed environment. The lack of external input and peer review can result in software that is less innovative and has more bugs that go unnoticed until after release.

  • Isolated Communities: Geographic or social isolation can lead to communities that rarely interact with differing cultures or ideas. This isolation can result in the perpetuation of outdated or harmful practices and beliefs, as there is little external challenge or dialogue to prompt reconsideration or reform.

In each of these systems, the flow of information is deliberately restricted. I’d think spending too much time in any such closed system can be dangerous to one’s growth.