| Question | Answer | Evolution of Understanding | |----------|---------|--------------------------| | Q1. Why is co-option observing multiple things? | Co-option requires "multiple bodies" (attention/resources) distributed across different contexts to discover unexpected utilities, unlike functional shift which tests multiple uses within one context. | Evolved from abstract evolutionary biology concept to concrete organizational capability perspective | | Q2. Is functional shift more customer pull and co-option more technology push? | Yes: <br>- Functional shift: Market need drives repurposing (customer pull)<br>- Co-option: Technology capability creates unexpected value (technology push)<br>- Supported by software development empirical evidence showing broad search (BFS) better for interdependent systems | Connected evolutionary theory with empirical software development research and market dynamics | | Q3. Medicine examples for functional shift and co-option | Functional shift: Aspirin (pain → heart disease)<br>Co-option: Ozempic/GLP agonists (diabetes → weight loss market) | Moved from theoretical framework to concrete pharmaceutical examples that clarify the distinctions | | Q4. Is Viagra functional shift or co-option? | Co-option because:<br>- Originally for hypertension/angina<br>- ED effect was unexpected discovery<br>- Led to entirely new market<br>- Required presence in multiple medical domains | Helped clarify distinction between planned repurposing vs unexpected discovery | | Q5. How to explain testing and implementing better? | - Replace pen (♟️) with pointing finger (👉) for implementation<br>- Show testing as parallel experiments (👓+👓) for functional shift<br>- Show testing as distributed attention (👀) for co-option | Evolved from mathematical notation (arg max) to more intuitive visual representation | | Q6. How to explain parallel processing and parallel discovery better? | - Parallel processing: Multiple tests within one context (e.g., aspirin cardiovascular tests)<br>- Parallel discovery: Presence in different contexts leading to unexpected connections (e.g., Ozempic diabetes → weight loss) | Shifted from abstract theoretical distinction to concrete examples that demonstrate the difference | [[🪵log(jb_charlie, abE)]] ## yichen🌱🦅🐠 Q1. why is it co-option observing multiple thing? Angie's answer: Q2. is 🦅functional shift more customer pull and 🐠co-option more technology push? Angie's answer: two reasons - reason1: example of tesla's house storage VS BYD's high battery quality (angularity ) natural selection software's interdependence is measured modularity and enterprise e.g. healthcare is interdependent whereas e-commerce is modular. empirical result shows that for interdependent, testing broadly and trying different things (breath first search BFS) is better than depth first search (DFS). BFS is high risk high return. - reason2: to endure the pressure of maintaining multiple bodies require high quality (best in class) like BYD, angularity, bgi, micrometal (from [[🗄️ 🧩correlation examples]]). ## Frank Ringle Q3. medicine examples for 🦅functional shift and 🐠co-option Angie's answer: 🦅functional shift: aspirin (pain kill, heart disease) and viagra (Q4. is viagra 🦅functional shift or 🐠co-option?) 🐠co-option: Ozempic, Wegovy, Semaglutide - GLP agonists [[yichen_🌱🦅🐠.txt]], [[frank_🌱🦅🐠.txt]]