First Follower Effect
An idea’s success depends partly on who adopts, supports, and develops it. Early followers can help an invention spread, while later popularizers may receive more credit than earlier contributors. Adoption and recognition do not by themselves establish originality.
THE IDEA
The First Follower
In 1936, Alan Turing proposed a mathematical model of computation, the ‘Turing machine’. It describes a device manipulating symbols on a tape according to rules. That abstract model is distinct from a particular mechanical computer or wartime code-breaking machine. Charles Babbage had proposed his ‘analytical engine’, a design for a general-purpose computer, in 1837. Technical and funding difficulties prevented him from completing it.
Banasiewicz uses the contrast to ask why some ideas attract support while others remain unrealized. One possibility is that Babbage’s design was too far ahead of the available technology and demand. Wartime code-breaking, by contrast, created an urgent need for computational work and resources to pursue it. These conditions help explain support for different projects. They do not make Turing’s model simply a reinvention of Babbage’s engine, or establish that either contribution depended on a single identifiable first follower.
The broader point is that an idea needs more than an inventor. People must fund it, develop it, find uses for it, or adopt it. Those people may also change the idea substantially. Timing and circumstances can affect which contribution becomes familiar, but popularity is not a reliable guide to who did what first.
Consider the incandescent light bulb. Banasiewicz cites Friedel, Israel, and Finn’s Edison’s Electric Light: Biography of an Invention for a count of at least 23 inventors before Edison. That challenges the simple lone-inventor story without establishing that none of those predecessors had supporters. The Xerox and Apple example raises a related distinction between developing graphical interface ideas and bringing them to a wider market.
This discussion also separates validity from reliability. A historical attribution can be factually wrong even when the resulting technology works dependably. Conversely, knowing who first proposed a device does not tell us how reliably it performs.
In measurement, reliability concerns consistency; validity concerns whether a measure supports the interpretation or use claimed for it. A test can produce consistent results while measuring something other than its intended target. Consistency is therefore useful evidence, but it is not enough to establish validity. The same caution applies to a predictive model: stable output does not show that its predictions are accurate or relevant to the decision. The aphorism ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’ asks us to assess what a model is useful for, rather than treating consistency as proof of truth.
When to use it
Assessing why certain startups or products succeed while others with similar ideas fail—often due to timing and network effects from early adopters.
Evaluating historical accounts: distinguishing between original inventors and those who popularized an invention, to avoid attribution bias.
In product development, assess whether potential users have a pressing need and whether the resources to serve it are available.
When evaluating an innovation story, check historical attribution separately from whether the resulting technology performs reliably.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Babbage vs. Turing
Babbage proposed the analytical engine in 1837 but did not complete it. Turing’s mathematical model emerged about 100 years later and made a different contribution. The comparison invites questions about the technical conditions, needs, and support that allow ideas to develop; it does not reduce the history to a later inventor copying an earlier one.
Edison and the Light Bulb
Banasiewicz cites a history of electric lighting that identifies at least 23 inventors before Edison. Edison’s success involved developing the lamp and a system for using it. The example distinguishes earlier invention from later development and adoption, without showing that every predecessor lacked followers.
Xerox vs. Apple
Xerox developed graphical interface ideas that Apple later helped bring to a wider audience. The example distinguishes early development from commercial popularization, which can receive more public recognition.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of an innovation you use daily. Who is credited with inventing it? Could there have been an earlier, forgotten pioneer? What circumstances might have deprived that pioneer of a 'first follower'?
In your own work or projects, have you ever had an idea that failed to gain traction? What could you have done to attract a first follower?
Consider a contemporary technology or movement. What conditions (timing, need, location) could help it gain a first follower and become widely adopted?
Often confused with
References
- Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an Invention — Friedel, Robert; Israel, Paul; Finn, Bernard (1986)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Evidence-Based Decision-Making How to Leverage Available Data and Avoid Cognitive Biases (Andrew D. Banasiewicz)