It is true that many explorations are nominated to a person than to a group of people. Although all members of a team might have had equal influential roles to launch a new idea, only one is considered as the prime winner. I think this is because of three reasons, having a higher degree of qualifications, better networking or being more affluent.
Obviously, the first reason behind it is that one individual, being accredited to innovation, usually have a higher level of certifications from a highly recognised institution. As a prime example, although Bill Gate’s team had a prominent role for his achievements in the computer software, he became more prosperous because his degree was from the Harvard College.
Another factor is that some individuals have better networking. Many of scientists or linguistics, selected for the noble prize, surpassed their coworkers working with the same project due to having better communications. Participating in more international meetings, these experts can find more opportunities to expose their talents to famous scientists, helping them to achieve their innovation, while this person had only been one member of a whole team.
Lastly, I think money talks. Clearly, wealth has an important role in overstating of the success of an individual. For instance, Anousheh Ansari, a female American-Iranian explorer, could become the first space tourist because she could afford twenty million dollars. Had not she been so rich, she would not have become so prosperous in this matter. She worked as a member of a team to prepare herself to fly by a spacecraft around the Earth, but she was the only one who was recognised by the press.
In conclusion, instead of appreciating the whole team of innovators, sometimes a specific individual is chosen by the judge. I personally believe that having a better communication, educational position and financial backup are the reasons why one human can become more successful than the other members of a group.
It is true that
many
explorations
are nominated
to a person than to a group of
people
. Although all
members
of a
team
might have had equal influential roles to launch a new
idea
,
only
one
is considered
as the prime winner. I
think
this is
because
of three reasons, having a higher degree of qualifications,
better
networking or being more affluent.
Obviously
, the
first
reason behind it is that one
individual
,
being accredited
to innovation,
usually
have a higher level of certifications from a
highly
recognised
institution. As a prime example, although Bill Gate’s
team
had a prominent role for his achievements in the computer software, he became more prosperous
because
his degree was from the Harvard College.
Another factor is that
some
individuals
have
better
networking.
Many
of scientists or linguistics, selected for the noble prize, surpassed their coworkers working with the same project due to having
better
communications. Participating in more international meetings, these experts can find more opportunities to expose their talents to
famous
scientists, helping them to achieve their innovation, while this person had
only
been one
member
of a whole team.
Lastly
, I
think
money talks.
Clearly
, wealth has an
important
role in overstating of the success of an
individual
.
For instance
,
Anousheh
Ansari
, a female American-Iranian explorer, could become the
first
space tourist
because
she could afford twenty million dollars. Had not she been
so
rich, she would not have become
so
prosperous in this matter. She worked as a
member
of a
team
to prepare herself to
fly
by a spacecraft around the Earth,
but
she was the
only
one who was
recognised
by the press.
In conclusion
,
instead
of appreciating the whole
team
of innovators,
sometimes
a specific
individual
is chosen
by the judge. I
personally
believe that having a
better
communication, educational position and financial backup are the reasons why one human can become more successful than the other
members
of a group.